Public Safety Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

[Pierre Mallette]

We try, but we need to be sure that those....

First of all, yes; to answer your question, yes. But I'm going to say something here. It's all really related to one thing. You give us resources. You give us money to do stuff. Well, let's do it. Don't not give us the opportunity to use those resources. I gave the example of the throw-over. In Dorchester, a place in the Atlantic, they decided to use that tool to do something else.

That's the job of UCCO-SACC-CSN, the union, to be sure that if they receive resources.... I want those resources to be applied to that.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Exactly. So I'm hearing you, Mr. Mallette, say that it is better. Of course it's not at 0% yet, not 100% better, but it is better.

[Pierre Mallette]

Those tools will help us.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

So the funding and the programs are making it better. Yes or no?

[Pierre Mallette]

Oh, yes. I'm not saying no.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

I also want to talk about the safety of the workers, because also embedded in his report was the notion that having drugs in the institutions compromises the safety of your workers.

Would you say that with the reduction of the drugs in the institutions, the safety of the workers has gone up? How does that play out for you?

[Pierre Mallette]

No, you have to be careful with that. You ask if we relate the using of drugs with staff assault....

I'm going to speak in French, if that's okay.

I want to make sure I say it right.

We are saying that drugs are linked to assaults on staff. But we are thinking that if the quantity of drugs decreases, the assaults will decrease. I would say to be careful. When we seize drugs, some inmates aren't happy about it. It isn't simply a matter of addiction; there's also the matter of trafficking. When they aren't happy, how do they react? They react by taking revenge on the staff.

The connection isn't as automatic as that. It isn't because there are fewer drugs that there will be fewer incidents. The stricter we are and the more we fight this problem, the more unhappy they'll be, the less they will like it and the more they will try to resort to intimidation. These are criminal organizations.

I can't make a correlation between seizing drugs with various tools and the decrease in violence. People aren't happy when there aren't any more drugs. They'll try something else and they'll put pressure on the staff. I'm not making that kind of link.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mallette.

I will now go back to Mr. Chicoine for five minutes.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming, despite the short notice. Thank you as well for telling us about the staff security problems. I hope that we will be able to look at that in the near future.

You touched on some problems with different penitentiaries, such as the fact that inmates who are transferred can no longer continue with their programs. Do you think that a standard program would make things easier, given the reality of your institutions?

[Pierre Mallette]

I think that it is an idea that must be looked at. For example, if you are in La Macaza Institution in Quebec, and you are transferred to another institution, the programs offered there may not necessarily be the same. There are a number of reason why people may be transferred at times. Maybe they are going to get out soon, or maybe they are allowed to move closer to their families and acquaintances. Programs are not necessarily the same everywhere.

I think the programs should be much the same everywhere. At least, the substance abuse program should be set up everywhere. A basic minimum number of programs needs to be in place in every institution so that people can take them. My answer is yes.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

What stops them from being the same?

[Pierre Mallette]

We are handling so many different populations. Sometimes, institutions change their approach because of the type of population.

In Quebec in the 1990s, we had a major danger to face. Institutions were becoming compartmentalized. There was a Rock Machine prison and a Hells Angels prison. Rock Machine members were transferred to Cowansville and Hells Angels members went to Leclerc. In Donnacona, sector 119 was Rock Machine and sector 240 was Hells Angels.

An inmate who belonged to neither group did not know where to go when he arrived. He was said to be part of whichever group he was put in. We went through that, and it is still going on.

Crime is not easy to manage. When police arrest people on the outside, the people do not disappear. For us, that's not when the movie ends; it's when it starts.

If drugs are decreasing, does it mean violence is decreasing? Everyone is put in the same place. Some criminals make their living from organized crime and they do so in prison too.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

So, from the standpoint of staff safety, eliminating drugs completely could become dangerous. As you said, people who miss them…

[Pierre Mallette]

Right; that is where our job is not easy.

Take all those names, go and fight those privileged positions. Ask the real questions. Give me the name of the president of the inmate committee—let's say at Leclerc, let's say at Cowansville, let's say another place—and ask if he's related to a gang. Maybe you will be surprised. Maybe you are going to say “Oh, my God.”

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Mallette.

I have a couple of quick questions. I know Mr. Norlock is in a hurry, probably to get to another committee, knowing how hard a worker and member of Parliament he is.

By way of your experience, I have seen some of these brews, or hooch, that they make in prison. I'm telling you, it is bizarre. I've seen them made in big pieces of poly-plastic up above the rafters, and literally the ketchup, as Mr. Head said, and it was bad. There's always a way to make this stuff. They're always looking for hunks of fruit to throw into this and let it ferment. I wonder about the size. I can understand how you can smuggle in a little pill, a joint, coke, or something that might be in a body cavity. Is there much alcohol coming in? I've never walked down the halls of any prison and seen a guy drinking a beer. The bottle would be recognized right away. Is there alcohol coming into prisons, or is it mainly the hooch they make?

You also talked about smuggling in tobacco, where mom, the wife, the kid, or the grandma is involved. It may not just be smuggling in drugs; it might be smuggling in tobacco. So here she is smuggling in tobacco because she's being pressed on it. You aren't the lawyer, so you may not know, but is there a charge for smuggling in some legal substance? It has to be confiscated. So there is no charge against her for anything down the road, is there? You can't charge them for handing someone tobacco.

[Pierre Mallette]

Mr. Sorenson, that's a very good question.

First, maybe real alcohol coming inside will be found more in minimum security. For medium and maximum security, normally they're going to create their own alcohol. I was on a committee in 1999 regarding alcohol—how they do it and why they do it. Research was done in Donnacona, and I'm from there. We were asking in that report why on the outside drinking alcohol at home is not a criminal charge but on the inside it's a discipline report. At that time, a warden in Donnacona would say, “Mallette, Jesus Christ, stop.” I'd say we should try something else. We went to the RCMP in Quebec, and we asked them the question. My warden was a good warden and he said to me, “Do you want to try it? We're going to.” But guess what? We win. We win in court. The guy received eight more months to serve. For us, alcohol on the inside is creating a lot of problems. Four or five guys are drunk in the common room together. Normally, they're going to fight. That's the thing. Yes, we would have to do the same thing if we were outside. There would be criminal charges. For the visitors carrying drugs it would be a criminal charge as well. We have to do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you. Our time is up.

We appreciate hearing from the union side. You're a good communicator. Thank you for being here.

Thank you to our committee.

We are adjourned.