Public Safety Committee on March 23rd, 2010

[Christine Perreault]

We know about the efficacy, but I thought you were talking about provoking the counter-effect.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Yes, that was one thing. But in general, what is your experience with the treatment? Is it positive? Do you believe there are alternatives, or is it just part of the tools in your valise of treatment?

[Christine Perreault]

We don't have numbers about this now. It's a good question. We'll have to get back to you. We are using methadone as a treatment, and it's working, and it's helping a lot of people stay away from substance abuse.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I don't need the numbers. I just need your general--

[Johanne Vallée]

Okay. It's working. It's part of our tool kit, if I can say that, and it's working fine in our institution but also in the community when we have to supervise offenders. It's probably one of the best tools that we have to manage their drug addiction. Again, you need some support. You need to make sure they will be supported, they will be seen by nurses, and they will be monitored. Otherwise, it's a bit like the mental health--if they stop that's another game. But I have to say it's working quite well.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'll move on just briefly to isolation. I know the use of isolation is usually a last resort, but before we become so negative towards it, I can recall when we went to Dorchester Institution, we met with some inmates. One of the inmates said sometimes he would go to his doctor, practitioner, psychologist and ask if he could be alone for a while, and it was considered isolation. My feeling was that it was rather healthy that the person knew that he just needed it.

I also know, because I deal with people who work in an institution in my riding, and I speak to many of the men and women there and often the shop stewards of the union, and quite frankly, the people who work there feel there are times when a person needs to be in isolation for the safety of the people who actually work in the institution. There seems to be a difference--and I can appreciate that difference--because one of the witnesses who came here said they didn't have isolation any more, and it was very difficult for them to get the people who work in the institution to accept the abolition or the gradual abolition of isolation.

I wondered what your experiences have been surrounding that.

[Christine Perreault]

You're right. From a clinical point of view, sometimes we need to be left alone, because there is what we call therapeutic heat, there is too much intervention; it's well documented in the research, and sometimes they need to be left alone. But it needs to be part of a plan, meaning that this is what the inmate with mental health issues will try to do before he asks to be voluntarily placed in his own cell with his stuff. If he doesn't succeed in putting all those strategies in place, he will be able to go into his cell on a voluntary basis and they will close the door and he will be monitored for a certain period of time. After that, there will be a meeting with the mental health team to find out if this time away was beneficial, is part of the plan, and next time do we need to do that again.

But that's not what we call segregation in terms of the legal status of segregation. It's a clinical treatment when we do that, and it's voluntary. As long as it's voluntary and it's part of a plan and it's part of something we're going to try, and after that there is an assessment, we are in treatment here. So we need that. We need to have this period, this time out for many people with mental health issues. Yes, you're right. But it's not segregation. They're not losing all their personal belongings. They're not put in a range with other inmates who might be very disturbing, who are there because they did something against the internal rules. They're not very happy with the system, so they're not calm. So that might be very disturbing for someone with mental health issues.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Do you, Madame Vallée, have experience with your unionized staff who say that in some circumstances they believe segregation is necessary for their safety or the safety of other prisoners or even the safety of the inmate himself or herself?

[Johanne Vallée]

It's part of the tools we have when the staff and other offenders are being threatened. Sometimes we don't have any choice; we have to use segregation. But again, you need to monitor segregation. You need to make sure the person won't be left alone and you need to understand why exactly he behaved like that and to address that within the correctional plan. But segregation, unfortunately.... It's like the institution: we may say we don't like penitentiaries, but human nature is such that sometimes we need to put people aside. It's the same within an institution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You're over your time, Mr. Norlock.

That takes us through our lineup.

Does the Liberal Party have any more questions? No more questions.

Does the Bloc Québécois have any more questions?

Mr. Desnoyers, how long do you need? I'm just trying to indicate to Mr. Davies if he has any more....

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure of one thing. Following my last remarks, Ms. Vallée talked to us about analyses that had been conducted on various bills that might substantially increase the number of offenders. I would like to have copies of those analyses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. You heard that request. Thank you.

Mr. Davies, do you have any more questions, or are you ready to wrap up?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'll be quick, Mr. Chairman.

Just briefly, I've been interested in segregation, and I think it may not be helpful when you talk about solitary confinement generally, because I think the details are where it matters. Would you agree with me that long-term solitary confinement--it seems to me from what I've heard from witnesses--is not helpful as a carceral tool? Would you agree with that?

[Johanne Vallée]

We need to monitor segregation to avoid long-term segregation, and that's why I was saying segregation is the last tool we have, but there shouldn't be long-term segregation. In our region we have a regional segregation committee that meets on a regular basis and analyzes each case. Sometimes we are faced with a situation when the offenders for all sorts of reasons don't want to leave segregation, whether they are afraid of others, whether they have some debt. We need to address that. We need to make sure the case management team will meet them on a regular basis, and we need to find alternatives to segregation.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

If that's the case, if someone doesn't want to use segregation, surely there is no need to keep someone in a cell that has nothing in it. I've seen segregation cells; they're cement walls with nothing in them. If a person is in there to avoid a debt, what is the purpose of keeping them in a room that has no stimulation whatsoever?

[Johanne Vallée]

What I mean is that sometimes the person doesn't want to leave segregation. That's what I meant.

We are facing different challenges with segregation. Sometimes it will be a mental health case. It won't be segregation; it will be clinical isolation, because the person needs to rest, in a way, and to be left alone and apart from the rest of the population. That's one thing.

Sometimes we use segregation to manage behavioural problems or disciplinary problems. That is something else and has other rules. We also need to make sure, even if it is because a person is aggressive, that we manage that. We cannot leave people in segregation for a long term without monitoring them. We need to address that. We need to look at alternatives. Should we transfer them? Should we ensure a smooth reintegration to a sector in the institution? Should we change the sector where a person is being held? We need to look at alternatives.

Then we have a small number of offenders who, for different reasons, don't want to be in contact with the rest of the population, and they will stay in isolation and segregation. We need to go to them and try to understand why they are so afraid of being with the rest of the population. What can we do? Sometimes what we do is find another inmate who will be able to act as a peer, and we'll try to convince the person that he can go live with the rest of the population. We'll monitor that person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll have Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd just like to go back, if I could, to the methadone issue, because I think it is a very important tool, obviously, as you said. One of the questions we have come up with is how we end up getting people off methadone. We've substituted methadone for the opiates. I was there when our witness the other day indicated that she was on methadone after childbirth. My understanding is that methadone may have come into play during the Second World War as a treatment for pain.

All we're doing is switching from an opiate to methadone. If we don't have any means to get them off it, are we not perpetrating long-term issues? Or is it something we shouldn't be concerned about?

[Christine Perreault]

Again, I am not a specialist on methadone.

Some people on methadone will phase it out and won't need methadone any more. I guess that is the purpose and the target. But there are people who will have to stay on methadone for a long period of time. It depends on the importance of their addiction and on the personal resources they have. It's a very complex question, and I don't have a satisfying answer for you. I'm very sorry about that. We know that we have people on methadone who are less violent. They are away from substance abuse, and it is having an effect on their behaviour. So for safety inside and outside, it's helping them.

I cannot go further. If you need more information on methadone, I will....

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think we may have some other witnesses coming on that issue, but I just wondered if you had any sense of it from your personal experience.

The other issue we heard about in one of the institutions was trafficking of methadone inside the facility. They now insist that people who receive the methadone stay in the.... Is it the same issue?

[Johanne Vallée]

It's the same issue.

What we do is try to make sure that they stay in the room under supervision for a while, and we try to make sure that they take their methadone. Unfortunately, again, it's human nature. If they have drug addiction problems or they want to make quick money, sometimes they will try to do that. I don't think it's something we see often. On the other hand, it is true that we have to supervise.

[Christine Perreault]

It's not only a matter of security; it is also a matter of health care. When you take methadone, you have to stay under supervision for a certain period of time just to make sure that you are okay. So we can meet both purposes. It's a matter of security and health.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Do you have a fairly constant number or percentage of people who come into the institution either on opiates, with addictions, or already on methadone?

[Christine Perreault]

We'll provide numbers for you.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

My other comment would be with respect to segregation.

I know there are lots of people out there who don't work in the institutions who have opinions about what we should do with isolation or segregation, or whatever it might be called. We certainly went to two other countries, Norway and Great Britain, and in both cases we heard that they are doing better than us. I rather doubt that's true. When we went there and started to dig below the surface, we found that they use similar facilities to what we use, and I believe for many of the same reasons.

Certainly I know that in institutions we saw in Canada we have some people who wish to remain segregated for their own safety. I think when we were in Kingston there were several. If some of those folks were out in the general population, I don't know how we would protect them, and they obviously feel the same way. I saw just recently where an inmate in an institution is now suing because of not being protected.

Do you have any sense of where we would go in terms of turning some people into the general population, who for their own safety don't want to be there?