Public Safety Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone. We welcome you. This is meeting number four of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on September 29, 2011.

Today we are commencing our study on drugs and alcohol in prisons. This is pursuant to our committee's adoption of the subcommittee report. Part of the motion was that we will study how drugs and alcohol enter the prisons and the impacts they have on the rehabilitation of offenders, the safety of correctional officials, and crime within institutions.

In our first hour we will hear from the Correctional Service of Canada. Returning again to provide testimony is Don Head, Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada.

First of all, on behalf of our committee members old and new, as chair I always thank you for being willing to appear before our committee and to sometimes appear with very little notice. That is indeed the case today, so we're very thankful for that.

Also, the commissioner is accompanied by Chris Price. He is the assistant commissioner of correctional operations and programs.

In our second hour we're going to hear from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers on the same topic that we're looking at in the first hour.

I do welcome you here this morning. We look forward to your comments. We appreciate you being here.

Mr. Head.

[Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for information, according to my atomic time-keeping watch, that clock is right.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss how the Correctional Service of Canada manages the issue of drugs and alcohol within our federal penitentiaries.

Let me start by saying that addiction is the most serious crime-related factor among the federal offender population. In the 2007 report A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, it was noted that about 80% of offenders arrive with a serious substance abuse problem, with fully half indicating that drugs or alcohol were a factor in the commission of their offence. This statistic has remained constant for many years.

The use of drugs and alcohol presents a serious security risk to our staff and to offenders themselves. It is a well-known fact that in Canada, as well as in other jurisdictions, much of the violence that occurs within institutional walls is directly related to drugs. Instances of violence destabilize our institutions and put my great staff at risk. This instability also limits our ability to manage a complex and diverse offender population, which in turn limits our ability to effectively prepare offenders to be released into society as productive, law-abiding citizens.

There are also serious public health implications related to offenders’ addiction to intravenous drugs. Our data shows that one in five male offenders has injected drugs in his lifetime. Of these, half report having injected in the year prior to incarceration. Intravenous drug users have a much higher incidence of blood-borne diseases, such as hepatitis C and HIV, than the general population. The reality is that we are dealing with one of the most seriously addicted segments of Canadian society, evidenced by the lengths they go to, and the crimes they commit, to obtain and use drugs.

This dependency does not magically disappear when they arrive at our gates. While inside, addicted offenders go to extremes to secure any illicit substance that will feed their addiction. These are the challenges that correctional staff face every day in institutions across the country, and indeed around the world, and these are the challenges I am concerned with, as the commissioner of our federal correctional agency.

In order to more effectively understand and develop strategies to address offender substance abuse, the Correctional Service of Canada has implemented a focused, evidence-based strategy around addictions. This includes engaging with other jurisdictions on this issue and sharing information and best practices on how countries around the world detect and deter drugs. Our staff are dedicated to helping CSC better understand the dynamics of offender substance abuse, which contributes to the development of effective programming and overall efforts to eliminate drugs from our federal penitentiaries.

Mr. Chair, I'm committed to continuous improvement and seeking the best public safety results for Canadians. This is why, starting back in 2007, the organization took the recommendations of the report I referenced earlier and set about to fundamentally transform our operations. This transformation agenda included a suite of initiatives designed to address the problem of drugs within our institutions. These efforts complemented and improved upon our existing drug strategy. This strategy focuses on detecting and deterring drugs from entering our institutions, as well as recognizing and treating substance abuse issues among federally sentenced offenders.

On August 29, 2008, the Minister of Public Safety announced that $122 million in funding would be provided over five years to help eliminate drugs in federal institutions. This funding supports a more rigorous approach to drug interdiction in order to create safe and secure environments where staff and offenders can focus on the business of rehabilitation.

The funding supports an increase in drug detector dog teams, and we will see over 100 teams across the country by the end of this fiscal year; an increase in the security intelligence capacity in both institutions and communities; enhanced perimeter security through better use of technology; and the reinforcement of search policies to better prevent drugs from entering our institutions.

Beyond these transformation measures, CSC has recently implemented a number of other initiatives in an effort to reduce both violence and illicit drugs in our institutions. These include more rigorous searches of cells, buildings, and grounds, and physical searches of offenders. We are also using innovative technologies such as thermal imaging and infrared equipment to detect intruders at our perimeter fences. We are also enhancing our dynamic security practices and our security intelligence capacity to better monitor and interpret offender activity.

Additionally, we have augmented the search of all visitors entering institutions, using technology such as metal detectors and ion scanners and, as I mentioned previously, with the increased use of drug detector dogs and teams.

I would also like to note that urinalysis testing of offenders is an important tool in detecting drug use and in deterring offenders from using illicit substances. Over the past decade, we have seen an encouraging decrease in the percentage of positive tests, and we've also seen a drop in the rate of refusals to provide a sample. The most dramatic decrease in positive testing and refusal rates has been observed in our maximum security institutions. Statistics also show a decrease in offender deaths by drug overdose and an increase in drug seizures.

Simply put, our results point to the effectiveness of our interdiction efforts and the tremendous work that my staff do every single day across this country. But again, I will always seek ways of improving our correctional results, to achieve safer communities for Canadians across the country.

Beyond addressing the supply of drugs, we must also address the demand for drugs. To this end, the Correctional Service of Canada provides a range of accredited substance abuse programs. The more significant the offender's problem, the higher the intensity of intervention provided. There are also substance abuse programs designed specifically for women and for aboriginal offenders.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that CSC is an international leader in the development and implementation of effective substance abuse programming. Indeed, numerous countries have added our programs to their efforts to help offenders get off drugs and stay off drugs. These include the United Kingdom, Norway, and Sweden, to name a few.

By participating in substance abuse programs and aftercare, offenders learn to manage their patterns of abusing drugs and alcohol. Our ultimate goal is to decrease recidivism and create safer communities for Canadians. We know that offenders who participate in substance abuse programs are 45% less likely to return with a new offence and 63% less likely to return with a new violent offence.

Mr. Chair, I know the committee is specifically interested in a number of related issues, which I'll briefly address here before welcoming any questions you may have.

I believe I've already indicated to you the link between substance abuse and institutional crime, as well as the impact on staff safety. Drugs and alcohol feed criminal behaviours that include muscling, threats, intimidation, and serious violence. Violence against staff and between offenders is not compatible with creating secure and safe environments, nor is it conducive to the safe reintegration of offenders into communities.

The continuation of these criminal behaviours inside our institutions is clearly counterproductive to offender rehabilitation. Institutional instability also affects our ability to consistently deliver programs. Furthermore, we will not see success in rehabilitative programming if we cannot keep drugs away from offenders whose substance abuse is key to their criminality.

Finally, with respect to how drugs get inside our institutions in the first place, we have uncovered a wide variety of methods over the years: everything from throwing drugs over the fence to hiding drugs in body cavities and even in babies' diapers. This is why it's so vitally important for the organization to maintain a robust security and intelligence capacity, coupled with rigorous search procedures and physical security.

CSC has also implemented a heightened public awareness campaign to communicate the hazards and repercussions of smuggling drugs into institutions. This includes a video entitled “Keeping Drugs Out” that clearly demonstrates the consequences of bringing drugs into our federal correctional facilities.

We've also established a toll-free national drug tip line to facilitate reporting of any suspected drug activity.

Safe, drug-free institutions are necessary to enhance public safety and help ensure the successful reintegration of inmates into the community. The presence of drugs creates violence within institutions and prevents offenders from coming out of their cells and participating in programming, as outlined in their correctional plans.

While we must all recognize that these efforts are a work in progress, I am proud of the measures that the Correctional Service of Canada and my staff have put in place to address these issues. It is our common goal to ensure safe communities for all Canadians, and this includes providing offenders with the skills necessary to live a life free of substance abuse, and to be productive and law-abiding citizens of society.

I welcome any questions you may have at this time. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

We will proceed to the first round of questioning.

Ms. Hoeppner, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Mr. Head and Mr. Price, for being here with us today.

I wonder if you could begin by walking us through the process of what happens when a prisoner arrives at a facility. You would know their history, as far as whether drugs or alcohol were part of the crime they committed. Is there any kind of process to determine if they still have an addiction, or do you just put them in the general population and then, as their behaviour shows itself, that's how you know? Walk me through the process when a new prisoner arrives.

[Don Head]

Thanks for that question.

When a new inmate arrives at our federal penitentiaries they go through what we call an intake assessment process. During the first 90 days we subject an inmate to a variety of different assessments, including looking at the court documents that indicate the crime for which they've been sentenced. We look at the reasons the judge has sentenced the individual and the factors that were taken into consideration at the time of sentencing. Then we subject the inmate to a series of assessments that look at their social history and the various risk factors that contribute to criminality. That includes applying several tools to assess an individual's drug and alcohol substance dependency.

That information gets rolled up over that period of time into what we call a correctional plan, which then becomes a road map for the inmate to follow during their period of incarceration. In a correctional plan, for example, if we've identified an individual as having a substance abuse problem or an alcohol problem, there would be an indication in the plan for them to be involved in one of our various substance abuse programs in the facility.

We offer a variety of intensities of substance abuse programs. We have a high-intensity substance abuse program and a moderate-intensity one. We have a program specifically tailored for women offenders. We have one tailored for aboriginal offenders. We have a substance abuse booster program before they transition out into the community under our supervision. We also have a community maintenance program while they're out in the community under our supervision.

We go through this intensive process of assessing them, developing the correctional plan, and setting out the expectations for them in terms of the kinds of programs or interventions they need to be involved in while they're under our care.

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

What about assessing the risk of them trafficking drugs or having drugs smuggled in, maybe because of their addiction, or maybe because it's going to be their business plan? Then how would you treat someone? Would you wait until they offended, or do something preventive before they actually smuggled drugs in or had drugs smuggled in?

[Don Head]

That's a good question.

As part of our assessment, if we've identified that they've had a substance abuse problem during their life, we'll identify that up front and they'll be put on a waiting list to participate in the programs.

We're in the process right now of changing how we deliver our programs across the country. We're doing a pilot project out in the Pacific region in British Columbia and one in the Atlantic region covering the Atlantic provinces where we're actually getting individuals, within the first 45 days they come through the gate, involved in program primers to start to get them engaged in programming. That will set the stage for the more intensive programs, such as the high-intensity substance abuse program.

If somebody has been identified as an individual who was involved, for example, in trafficking in the community or on the street, these individuals would be flagged through our security intelligence section and we would be watching their activities very closely. If there is indication that they might be trying to carry on that enterprise while they're under our care, we would be putting in place various methods for observing them, monitoring phone calls, additional approaches to dealing with searching, and those kinds of things.

So we'll take that into account. We'll know, for example, if somebody has come in after sentencing--and it doesn't matter what they've been sentenced for--and we'll have the history as to whether they might have been involved in trafficking out on the street, so we'll take that into account.

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

Do you think you have the necessary tools in terms of legislation in order to carry out those investigations and monitor effectively when inmates are in prison? Do you have any suggestions as to what we could provide to give you and your staff more freedom to be able to protect themselves, protect other inmates, and obviously protect the inmate in question?

[Don Head]

That's a very good question.

The approaches that are outlined right now under the current legislation, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, prescribe when and how, for example, we can use the monitoring equipment to intercept communications. For the most part, it serves our needs. There are times when it's a little more challenging. One could argue that if there were more flexibility we could do more, but at the same time I recognize why it's framed the way it is currently under the legislation.

I have to say that one of the elements in the current BillC-10 I'm glad to see there is a penalty under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which will have a penalty for individuals who are trafficking in the prison. We believe that is something we've needed for quite a while.

One of the problems we've had under the current legislation is that quantities of drugs that come into the institutions are not the same as our cousins seize at the border, as you can imagine. Sometimes local police forces or prosecutors understand the seriousness of small quantities coming in, but they also realize the tremendous workload they have and are not necessarily as keen to pursue it. But having this kind of provision there heightens the focus on the serious problem of trafficking in prisons, not only federal penitentiaries but provincial and territorial prisons as well. So I'm glad to see that in Bill C-10.

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

Good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Head.

We'll now move to the opposition, and to Mr. Sandhu.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

And I thank the commissioner and assistant commissioner for coming here today.

I think that any strategy to prevent drugs in our prison system needs to include both deterrence and also rehabilitation programs, so I'm glad we're taking a balanced approach.

I see we've allocated $122 million funding over five years. Is that $122 million dedicated solely to the detection and deterrence part of it?

Secondly, what results have we seen from 2008 until now? Did you have some stats before 2008, and what were the results after 2008?

[Don Head]

Yes, thank you. That's a very good question.

We have seen a couple of indicators that we consider to be positive.

As I mentioned early on in my speech, we have seen some decreases in the number of positive urinalysis tests. When we did the random testing of inmates in the penitentiaries, we saw a decrease in the percentage of individuals who were showing a positive urinalysis test. That indicates to us that there are still drugs getting into our institutions, which is a problem for us, but it indicates that, overall, the percentage is coming down.

We also have seen that the number of seizures of drugs at the front entrance and in the institutions has gone up. Now, you can argue that more seizures means one thing or more seizures means another. From my perspective, every seizure is a good seizure, because it means those drugs are not getting into the hands of inmates who can harm my staff, harm themselves, or, ultimately, harm another inmate. Last year we had just over 1,700 drug seizures in the institutions, and that's a significant find for us.

There is another indicator, though it's not necessarily as scientific as some of the other data. We do know that at times, when the supply of drugs coming into the institutions has been cut off, inmates will look to other means for some kind of intoxicant. Usually they'll start to try to make brews, homemade alcohol, in the institution. You can make homemade alcohol from a lot of different commonly available substances. Some of the worst ones I've seen were made out of those little ketchup things that you get from McDonald's. It's not very good tasting and it smells terrible, but you can get a brew out of that.

When we see the number of drug seizures going down and the number of brews that the staff are seizing going up, we see those as partial indicators that our efforts around seizing drugs are working and moving in the right direction. It's an indication that we're cutting off the drug supply coming in. But we still have a lot of challenges.

As we put our time and energy in to choke off the drug supply at one spot, people become quite innovative in looking at how to get drugs in. As I briefly mentioned in my comments, there have been people from the outside who have approached our perimeter and launched drugs over the fence using bows and arrows. They are 150 metres outside the perimeter, and they shoot arrows into the exercise yard, with the drugs either in the shaft of the arrow or taped around it. Then my staff have to go out and search the yard and they find those.

We've seen individuals become quite innovative at taking tennis balls, hollowing out the tennis balls, and filling them with drugs. If you get a good—and I'm dating myself—Bjorn Borg swing on the tennis ball with a racket, you can launch it quite a distance, and they sometimes make it inside the fence.

We've even seen cases where individuals have taken dead birds, removed the innards, stuffed the drugs inside, and then, we believe, launched them with some kind of slingshot device into the yard.

Again, my staff are very diligent. They do a great job in terms of searching and finding these things, but the odd time something gets in. We have cases of individuals being found using drugs, or my staff end up interrupting a drug overdose and saving the lives of an inmate who is stupid enough to use the drugs.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I totally agree with you that prisoners will find interesting ways to get the drugs into the prison system. What I'd like to know is do you have any facts or figures you can point us to here that would indicate that the amount of drugs available inside the prison systems is less now with these deterrent programs in place?

[Don Head]

It's a good question.

The indicators we have now are, as I mentioned, the decrease in the number of positive urinalysis tests, which we see as an indicator, and the increased number of seizures at the front entrance. Because we don't have a base or a norm to say this is how many drugs were inside, we can't say whether it's going down. What we can point to is the work the staff do in terms of the interception. But we do interpret the urinalysis findings as an indication that there are fewer drugs inside or making their way inside that inmates can access.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

You would agree that the prisoners are finding innovative ways to get their drugs in, even with all these deterrent programs in place?

[Don Head]

They find ways and we find new ways to combat those approaches and we'll continue to pursue that.

For example, where individuals are finding ways to sneak up on our perimeter, we've been experimenting at a couple of institutions with thermal imaging, infrared radar imaging technology, to detect them when they're on our perimeter. We're finding that it's a good tool, and it's working—it's allowing us to detect people before they get close enough to launch the drugs in.

We continue to work with our partners in other countries to find new approaches and new techniques.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Head.

Mr. Norlock.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for coming and being here once again. What would a session of Parliament in the public safety committee be without a visit from our friends at Corrections?

Mr. Head, you know where I come from. I live in the village of Warkworth, which is basically home to Canada's largest federal penitentiary. At least it's the largest currently. It's a medium-security prison, and the situation there has changed from what it was 15 or 20 years ago. It's a much more dangerous place in which to work for our men and women who are there to protect our society, our inmates, and themselves.

I appreciate that in your evidence you mentioned that we look to other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Sweden. This committee not too long ago visited the United Kingdom, Norway, and many prisons across this country with a view to looking at mental illness and addiction in our prisons. We in this country think Norway is a very advanced society. Still, it's a different society. You can do some comparisons, but it is different. I was surprised and proud to learn that about 60% of their programs come from this country.

So while we always need to look for better ways, the rest of the world looks at our correctional system as one of the best on the planet. So I want to thank you and the men and women who work with you to make that happen.

One of the things we seem to leave out when we talk about addictions is the addiction to tobacco. Am I correct in the assumption that cigarettes are still the currency of choice within our correctional system?

[Don Head]

Yes, that's a good question. Thank you for the comments about the work that my great staff do. I'm truly proud of them.

Just a quick aside: we just finished meeting with a parliamentary committee from Norway the other day and they've come to us to learn about the work we're doing, so we feel good about that.

Regarding tobacco, as a result of our implementing a tobacco ban within our federal penitentiaries, tobacco has taken on a much higher value within our penitentiaries. Tobacco is a significant currency among the inmate population. We now have a few staff who are being enticed by offers of money to bring tobacco into our institutions. For us, this is a slippery slope to bringing other things in that we don't want them bringing in.

We're finding that individuals are being offered--not just staff, but family members, other people in the community--anywhere from $200 to $2,000 to bring in a pouch of tobacco. Tobacco is not an illegal substance—it's just unauthorized. So people are being enticed. They think the worst they're going to get is a slap on the hand. It's just a little bit of money. Who's going to know the difference?

Unfortunately, for us it's a slippery slope—people get hooked by bringing tobacco into the institutions. The next thing is that within the package there are a couple of pills, a few containers of hash oil. But don't worry: it's just one package of tobacco and one package of drugs. But the next thing you know, we have violent incidents.

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

Yes, and that would include, as you mentioned, staff, although I agree it's a minor issue. But from the standpoint of the average person in our society, we would expect--whether you be police, correctional officers, or border services officers--that criminal behaviour always seems to be heightened when that occurs.

One of the things that I was surprised to learn--and one would assume that if someone were coming back from being outside the prison, on leave from the prison and returning, because we know that's part of the integration into society.... It wouldn't surprise you to know that I know some correctional officers. I thought that if you suspected that an inmate was bringing drugs in.... And that would include, of course, the conjugal visits, because we know conjugal visits used to, and I believe still do--you could correct me if I'm wrong—form the largest avenue through which drugs as well as tobacco are imported into our prisons. I consider tobacco a drug, by the way, because it contains a substance called nicotine.

What I would like you to confirm, for the purposes of the folks at home—I always like to address that—is that you cannot simply do a body-cavity check, that you actually have to have an agreement from the inmate, and that a physician or a medical practitioner would do that. Is that correct?

[Don Head]

Yes. Anytime a body-cavity search is done it would be by a medical practitioner anyway, and the process by which we do that is very restrictive.

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

My point is that it's voluntary, even if you suspect it. The prisoner has to agree to it.

[Don Head]

Yes. It's obviously, as you can imagine, a very intrusive approach to searching.

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

My point is yes, it's very intrusive, but extrapolated it can cause the death of another inmate, because those drugs aren't just candy. Would you not agree that if you have reasonable and probable grounds, there should be an avenue by which we can make those determinations as to there being a need to do that by a nurse or someone?