Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2011

[Howard Sapers]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I think it's a bit of a false dichotomy. I think an institution.... One measure of institutional safety is also institutional health. If I'm at a high risk of contracting a blood-borne disease because of the extremely high rates of hepatitis C or HIV, then I'm at risk, and I may also be at risk of being stabbed with a needle or punctured.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. In fact, from a public health standpoint, I don't think there is any question about the benefit of needle exchange. Syringe exchange has been around since the 1980s, and in Canada I think since 1985 or 1988. I think there's a pretty good understanding that syringe exchange programs are good public health policy. The difficulty is translating that policy into an institution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Into an institution--exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Sorry, can I just--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're a little over. I'm sorry.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

ICPM: could you just remind me of what that stands for?

[Howard Sapers]

ICPM is an acronym for “integrated correctional program model”. It is an initiative of the Correctional Service of Canada that's being piloted in two regions of the country, but initially in the Pacific region, and it combines core correctional programs.

The way it works is that it takes the common elements of all correctional programs--some of the orientation parts of those programs--and combines them into a six-week course. Then you get more specialized programming, depending on whether your needs are to deal with violence or to deal with substance abuse, etc.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Where is the value added? Is it in fact that you get the specialized focus that didn't exist in core programs or...?

[Howard Sapers]

No. The value added.... If I may, I'll just back up for a second. One of the complaints that we've constantly brought to the Correctional Service's attention is that there is too long a delay to get offenders into programs, so in part to deal with that they have developed this new model, which actually works very well at getting offenders more quickly into programs. The challenge, though, is to try to get the same content delivered and to deliver it in a way that has just as much positive impact.

So the value added is to move more offenders more quickly into the program and then have more offenders successfully complete the program. If we were to end the discussion there, then the pilot project is demonstrating some positive results: more offenders completing, more offenders more quickly entering. What we don't know is anything about the outcomes.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Is that because there is a conscious decision not to measure the outcomes, or...?

[Howard Sapers]

No, there will be an evaluation.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

There will be an evaluation. Okay. I'm still not clear on how it works.

Maybe we should hear more about this from a witness, to be honest, Chair, because--

[Howard Sapers]

Dr. Zinger may be able to--

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Well, perhaps, because it's very technical, as I'm sure you can understand. What I'm hearing here is that we have great core programs and that there aren't enough resources to get inmates into these core programs, and then suddenly we create an integrated program, we can get the inmates in, and the results are good. I just don't see how we get from A to B.

I don't know if you understand my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Zinger.

[Dr. Ivan Zinger, Executive Director and General Counsel, Office of the Correctional Investigator]

It's clear to me that there's a bit of confusion. There is existing core programming being delivered across Canada, and the Correctional Service of Canada is attempting to make some changes. It has introduced a pilot project in two distinct regions of Canada. So I think this is where the confusion comes.

The existing core programming was developed over 20 years ago. It was based on some very good social science, and was reviewed and accredited by panels of international experts. It was evaluated, and the result of that programming was top-notch.

We fully agree with the existing core programming. There are four given areas where you can get programming: family violence, anger management, substance abuse, and sex offender treatment. The duration of each program is about six months. So if an offender in the system has more than one area, they have to complete several programs and it takes quite a while.

The service has looked at ways to try to make the delivery of programming more efficient, so substance abuse, family violence, and anger management are now collapsed together, and the duration of the program is now six months. So if you had a problem in all three areas, it would have normally taken you a year and a half to get your correctional plan done. Now it's six months.

As Mr. Sapers has indicated, it is certainly meeting its goal of being more efficient. That means there's more access, and people are going through those programs and completing their correctional plans more quickly. However, because those programs have yet to be evaluated we don't know if they will yield the same positive results as the other one in terms of reduction in recidivism and enhancing public safety.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's an excellent explanation.

Do I have time for one more question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, you have a minute and a half.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

There's been a suggestion that it's important to keep inmates in prison longer so they can finish their treatment. In other words, it could be seen as a way of justifying longer sentences. How do you respond to that?

[Howard Sapers]

We've seen the typical sentence length decease and the amount of time served shorten over the last decade or two. That's one of the reasons why the Correctional Service was motivated to develop this new program strategy. If sentence length is shorter and you want people to gain some benefit, you need to move them into programs more quickly.

It always troubles me when I hear that somebody is going to be given a federal penitentiary sentence for the sole purpose of receiving a program, treatment, or health care. It seems to be a very expensive way of providing that kind of treatment or intervention. It could even be very counterproductive, because so many things happen in the correctional environment that could get in the way of delivering the program.

I would not support the conclusion that lengthening a sentence automatically means better access and a better chance of completing a program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sapers.

We'll now move to five-minute rounds of questioning.

Mr. Garrison, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you for being here again.

I want to start with one very specific question that has been raised with me by representatives of first nations. They have said that the increased emphasis on interdiction has interfered with access to prison facilities by elders. We know the very positive contribution elders have made in rehabilitation.

Have you received complaints? Do you have some general comments on the increased difficulty of elders to access prisons because of the emphasis on interdiction of drugs?