Public Safety Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

[Don Head]

As I said, about 80% of the offenders who come into the system have had some form of substance abuse problem in their lives. About 50% of the offenders who come in to us have had a substance abuse problem that was directly linked to their criminal activity or their criminal behaviour. Those are the ones we target first, because there is a direct link between their substance abuse addiction problem and getting involved in criminal activity.

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

Do all those who want to participate in substance abuse programs have access to them?

[Don Head]

Yes. As was discussed earlier, we have some wait lists for people to get into those programs. We'll identify through the assessment that they have a problem; we'll identify in their correctional plan that they need to be involved in the program; we'll give them the opportunity to participate in the program. We'll put them on a wait list depending on their level of intensity and need and potential earliest release date. We'll use those as factors to determine who will go in front of somebody else on the wait list, and then they'll go through the program.

Our substance abuse programs have relatively high completion rates. On average, most of our programs have around a 70% or 71% completion rate, but the completion rate for our substance abuse programs is between 83% and 85%.

We'll have people drop out for various reasons and not complete the program, and we'll look to offer the program again later; or they may be transferred because they've gotten into trouble—those kinds of things. But we know that if we get them to complete the program, get the booster program lined up before they go out into the community, get them linked to the community maintenance program, if that's appropriate, and keep all those pieces strung together and keep them focused on the program, the stats show that they're about 45% less likely to commit an offence. That's what leads to good success rates

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

Okay.

Do you think that increasing funding for those programs would help you get more people to participate? We see that there is a direct link. When those people attend the programs, they are almost twice less likely to reoffend. Would an increase in funding improve the percentage?

[Don Head]

Most definitely. My belief is that the more programs I can offer to all those inmates who have the need, the more likely I am to produce even better public safety results than those we have. The more opportunities I have to provide those programs and make them readily available sooner, the more I can have the inmates motivated to be part of them.

On any given day, maybe 20% of the offender population will refuse to participate in programs. They're very entrenched in criminal behaviour and don't want to be part of anything we offer. But if I can get at them and get them involved in the programs very early on in their sentences, I'm going to address that problem as well. We know if we get them involved early on, put the support around them, and work with them through their sentences, we're going to produce good public safety results both inside the institutions and out in the community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the committee. Those were all very good questions and good answers.

I don't want to mess up by asking a bad question, but I'm wondering. My constituency includes Drumheller and the Drumheller institution. There are some very good things happening in that institution as far as information-sharing is concerned, and being able to coordinate and recognize.... I've been on a number of tours over the years. You walk into a room, and they have a board, and they have pictures, and they're sorting out the gang affiliations. They do a lot of information-sharing with the RCMP and correctional workers.

I know that in Alberta this is viewed as a very good program. The last three wardens—Tim Fullerton, Floyd Wilson, Mike Hanley—have all bought into this a bit. I wonder whether that type of sharing of information is going on in other institutions. If it is, great; if not, why is it not?

The other thing is what Mr. Chicoine brought up in his question. Are there incentives for taking some of these programs? Can you explain to us, if someone comes in who is an offender who refuses to take part, and your tests show, perhaps, that he has a drug problem, what the incentives are for his moving into a place where he's willing to take part in rehabilitative programs?

[Don Head]

Mr. Chair, I have to say that those are two exceptionally good questions.

In terms of the first question, what you saw at Drumheller is our expectation across the country. Through our security intelligence staff, through working with all the other groups of staff in the institution, the gathering of that information, the analysis of that information, and the dissemination of it back out is key to having a safe environment. As well, working with our other criminal justice partners, such as local police and even in some cases CSIS and Canada Border Services Agency, is key to having an environment that's going to be safe.

As part of the investments we've received over the last few years, we received investment to increase our security intelligence capacity, to allow us to do that very thing you've talked about. And I can attest, Mr. Chair, that your picture and name don't show up on any of our i2 charts at all, just to alleviate any concerns of any of the other members.

In terms of the issue of incentives, again, one of the things I'll refer to is Bill C-10. One of the things that I'm glad to see in there is the item that will give me the opportunity to address the very issue of incentives.

I have a very quick story, Mr. Chair. Right now, if Mr. Price and I were two inmates with relatively the same length of sentence, the same kind of offence, and Mr. Price, being a much better inmate than I, decides he's going to follow his correctional plan, he's going to participate in programs, his behaviour is going to be good, and he'll ultimately apply for whatever discretionary release he may be entitled to, he's entitled a series of privileges in the institution. If I choose not to follow my correctional plan and my behaviour is not serious enough to move me to maximum security or put me into segregation, the only difference between Mr. Price and me is that I probably won't get a discretionary release, a day parole, or full parole, but I'm entitled to the same privileges as Mr. Price, as it stands right now under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

We don't believe that's the kind of incentive regime that's going to work in terms of moulding people to be accountable for their actions. This goes back, Mr. Chair, to one of the questions around inmate accountability.

There is a provision now in Bill C-10 that would give me the authority to establish the appropriate scheme for incentives for individuals who are engaged in their correctional plan versus those who are not engaged, and we look forward to that piece being passed as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all members for their questions today.

Thank you both for appearing.

We are going to suspend momentarily.

Some of you may want to grab a lunch prior to our welcoming our next guests. We will fairly promptly ask them to take their seats, and we look forward to their testimony as well.

Thank you.

We suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're going to call this meeting to order once again.

We're pleased that in our second hour we're continuing with our study on drugs and alcohol in prisons.

We have testifying before us today the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. We have their national president here today, so we welcome Pierre Mallette. Again, we thank him for coming on such short notice. We appreciate that. Appearing with him today is an advisor of his, Michel Bouchard.

To both of you, we welcome you and thank you.

We'll proceed. I noted that you were here for the previous presentation, and this will be much the same. You may give an opening statement, and then we'll go into a number of rounds of questions and answers.

Monsieur Mallette, please.

[Pierre Mallette, National President, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN)]

I would like to thank everyone who invited us to give a presentation.

First, I would like to point out that I am wearing my uniform this morning because I have been a correctional officer for 25 years. I am proud to be one and to represent the union members as their national president.

Our presentation deals with a major topic of great importance to us: drugs and alcohol in penitentiaries.

In order to talk about this problem, the issue has to be divided into four separate topics: the tools we need, visitor screening, population management and, finally, programs.

In terms of tools, over the past few years, we have actually received new resources in the form of dog handlers and security equipment. But I would point out that medium and maximum security penitentiaries are often surrounded by woods and they are easily accessible through the trees. In those prisons, we often see what we call the throw over. Flying packages are thrown over the fences. People might think that all the towers around our penitentiaries have guards at night and that there are several patrols, but that’s not true. A patrol sometimes covers a perimeter of two kilometres. In some cases, if there is no perimeter, only one tower has guards. But the fact remains that, in most institutions, none of the towers have guards at night. So this means that it is now easier for offenders to get drugs in at night if they want to.

I would also like to point out that prisons are not closed environments. We often talk about the number of visitors who come to see the inmates every year, for various reasons. They could be family, friends, community groups, inmates’ rights groups, entrepreneurs and contractors. There are also social events. There could be up to 5,000 visitors every six months. That is a lot of people. And the more visitors, the higher the chances for increased criminal activities, unfortunately.

As union members and as correctional officers, we feel that the third topic is the most important. I would really like the committee to take the time to study it. I am talking about population management. Just now, I heard Mr. Head talk about inmates who commit to their correctional plan and those who do not. We have always felt that we should do everything in our power to help inmates who make a commitment and focus on rehabilitation, by providing them with programs and the necessary tools. However, we are dealing with a group of individuals who are not necessarily interested in committing to their correctional plan. Unfortunately, these people sometimes create problems within the institutions. They can ruin the program for other inmates. There should be a separate program for them. But we need tools for that.

I would also like the committee to look into what gangs do and what power they have in prisons. Some of the commissioner's directives pertain to criminal groups. There are positions of trust in prisons, such as canteen staff, the chair of the inmate committee or the chair for inmates’ complaints. I suggest that the committee members take the time to look into that. They will see how often those positions are filled by people from biker gangs or the mafia. Those groups control all the underground economy in the place. And what is the underground economy? It is the money used for or made from illegal sales.

We have two types of problems. On the one hand, we have people who use drugs. The numbers get up to a staggering 80% or so. On the other hand, we have people who want to make money from selling drugs. They are the ones who control the underground economy and get inmates to do drugs and become addicts.

As a result, those inmates get hopelessly trapped. They are screwed, as they say. The amounts of money they owe are so large that they have to ask for protection. Getting protection means that another population has to be created; they leave the population where they owe the money and so another population has to be created. That is what I call population management. We need one type of program for the inmates committed to their correctional plans and another type for those who are not committed.

The last topic is also important to me. It includes substance abuse programs, the possibility for inmates to follow those programs, insufficient employment opportunities in the institutions, meaning positions that are not open to the general population. In the 1990s, we were told that the symptoms of having no programs were connected to the revolving door syndrome, which means that people go to prison, serve their time without attending any programs, and are released without necessarily succeeding in rehabilitating themselves.

I feel that your committee is faced with a major challenge. If we had had more time, we would have prepared a brief. I am not sure whether it's too late, but if we can give you more information, we will be more than happy to help you with that. I have to say that we got the invitation yesterday afternoon. But we still managed to outline the issues at hand.

We are now ready to take your questions. It is our pleasure to do so.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Mallette.

One of the things I would like to thank you for is for bringing up all the different parts of it. Also, although you've appeared on short notice, and we appreciate that, I would encourage you to please feel free to forward us a brief, if you have one, regarding drugs in prison, to rehabilitation, and the issue of danger to correctional officers because of it. We can get you a copy of our motion and the study we're doing, and as long as you keep your briefing to that study, it would be very much appreciated.

We'll move to the first round of questioning. We'll go to Mr. Leef, please, for seven minutes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Mallette, for appearing and for your comments today.

I want to go into the topic of visitors, from your experience. You talked about that. I'll speak slowly because I know they're going to translate it for you, unless you're fluent in English. Okay, that's great.

We heard the commissioner talk a bit about the consequences--and they're outlined in the video--and for visitors. Can you maybe give us some of your perspective and background on what exactly those consequences are? I don't necessarily mean directly from the video, and not the warned consequences, but from your perspective as a frontline officer, which consequences are actually realized? Are they serious? Are they the kinds of things that are deterring drugs from entering a facility? Are they sufficient, from your perspective?

[Pierre Mallette]

I am going to answer from my perspective as president of the union. We often get calls from members saying that they don't always trust the system. Visitors go through the IONSCAN that can detect drugs, but sometimes the consequences are not always clear to us. We assume that, if a visitor comes to the institution and the machine goes off, the visitation rights will be suspended. But the big question about visitation rights is whether they are a right or a privilege. What does visitation mean? Should there be contact allowed during visits or should they take place through a window?

I would like to draw your attention to one more thing. In my career, I have witnessed very sad situations. I have seen mothers come to visit their children—sometimes children are criminals—and they were forced to try and smuggle drugs in to help their sons. In one instance, a lady called the institution completely devastated. We tried to make her understand that we had to protect her son too. We warned her that she might well come and try to bring drugs in, but that it wouldn't work and she would be arrested. There are consequences for everything.

Sometimes people wonder what the consequences are for visitors, but we also have to determine what the consequences are for inmates who put pressure on their families and friends to bring them drugs. Those consequences are not always clear to people.

Are visits a right or a privilege? If we are dealing with a right, do we allow contact or do we require visits with indirect contact if the person has already tried three times to bring drugs in?

That's what this is all about. We have the people who want drugs and the people who want to make money from drugs. The consequences must be clear, but that is not always the case. I know that CSC has policies, but unfortunately they don't always seem to be the right way of doing things.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for that.

Would you at times then see the visitors who have been caught with drugs or any other form of contraband having these consequences levied against them, such as going from an open visit to a closed visit? Or sometimes do you observe them not subject to any consequences at all, so they are caught one week and then are there again with free and clear access to the inmate population?

[Pierre Mallette]

Let me make a distinction. The IONSCAN does not necessarily go off because the person has drugs on them. It can go off because they were in contact with drugs or they were around drugs. It doesn't mean that you have to have drugs on you. We must be careful.

So if a visitor is stopped for being in possession of drugs, they can be charged with a criminal offence. It is the responsibility of the police to come and arrest them.

In order to deal with offenders who get drugs in, are in custody and have pushed hard to get the drugs, we need the help of the public, judges and crown prosecutors, who must take those offences very seriously. But if the offenders are already in prison, there is no point in bringing them before the court again; they are already in prison. What else could happen?

All those things have to be factored in. There have to be consequences for both parties, meaning the people who try to get the drugs in and those who bring them in.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Great. Thank you.

Going to your topic of managing prison populations, can you give us some background on what the inmate cash limit is? They have bank accounts they can access. Where are we with that and their ability to hold funds that can be transferred in and out of the institution? What's the limit--and in your opinion, is that a reasonable limit?

[Pierre Mallette]

There are usually two accounts—unless things have changed. I will tell you what I think the situation is. I am actually almost certain. There is what we call a current account and a savings account. If I am not mistaken, once or twice a year, inmates have a right to transfer money from their savings account to their current account in order to buy Christmas gifts or a specific piece of equipment.

Let's talk about the underground economy. It is important to check those types of money transfers with the help of a good intelligence service. So we must make sure that those inmates, who have a right to transfer the funds, buy only what they really need.

I told you earlier about positions of trust in the institutions. Who is on the canteen staff? Inmates are going to buy things at the canteen. Some of the canteen staff are not civilian personnel. They are inmates. When inmates want to buy pop or chips, they don't get them from a staff member, but from another inmate. So an exchange takes place, but not a money exchange because there is no money. It is done through the hands of someone and it is all electronic. The fact remains that someone gives the inmates what they want and they have to pay for it.

Since we are talking about positions of trust and we are looking at all that... I would ask your committee to take the time and look into that, to ask questions in order to find out who is in those positions of trust, and who the canteen workers in an institution are. Let's say the canteen person is Joe X. Is he a member of an organized crime group, or a street gang? Is he with the Hells Angels? I encourage you to check that, to check that information. You will see the extent to which the underground economy is managed by people with bad intentions, unfortunately. They belong to organized crime groups outside prison. Can we really believe that, once in prison, they are not going to try and organize themselves in the same way? Of course they are going to try.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Mallette and Mr. Leef.

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

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank Pierre for being here this morning and I want to thank the men and women who serve in our correctional system, especially the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. They have been doing a wonderful job and I'm very thankful for their service to Canada.

This may be for another day, but I also want to acknowledge that you work under extreme and very difficult circumstances, and a lot of times your safety is a concern to your members. I want to assure you that we on this side of the House are also concerned about the safety of men and women who are providing an essential service to Canada.

Pierre, if you had to say one thing, just very briefly.... We've seen, over the years, a number of preventative programs being put in place where we have sniffer dogs, metal detectors, and such. Have these reduced drug usage or the number of drugs available to the inmates? You've had 25 years' of experience. Are they still able to access drugs, even with all of this detection and dogs and all of that?

[Pierre Mallette]

One thing I would like to say is that the new equipment we have received, dogs and detectors, are good tools. We need those tools. We're not going to say that is not good equipment.

Are we better with this equipment? Yes. At the same time, you can have all the equipment you want; you can have everything you want, but at the end of the day there are people in there who want to make money. They want to take drugs. There's a problem with that too. They're always going to try to find something else, and they will be better.

I was talking about the fence. To give you an example, I saw some place where they were using a tennis ball and a racquet. They threw the ball inside. There's always something.

People tell me, “But don't forget, Mr. Mallette, in the morning somebody is supposed to search the yard”. Of course somebody is supposed to search the yard, but you're asking one person to search the yard. Do you believe the yard is the size of this? No, it's huge. Of course they know that somebody is going to search the yard, and they try to make that thing more difficult to find. In French we say it's

It is the old cat and mouse game.

In English maybe it's a cat and mouse play. It's huge.

But I cannot say that these tools are not good to help with the drugs. They are good.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

If I wanted to summarize, would this be fair: that those tools help, but the amount of drugs accessible to inmates is still huge?

[Pierre Mallette]

Those tools have to apply with the management of population. That's what I was saying: the management of the population is so important.

There are so many problems there. In some institutions you've got nine kinds of population. There's the population where this inmate cannot talk with this inmate.

We don't make a separation between somebody who is engaged and somebody who is not engaged. I'm going to use the same example as Mr. Head. I'm inside with Michel. Michel is following his plan. I wonder why I would do that when I have the same privileges as him. I've got the same tools. I have everything.

That's the problem we have tried to fix for a long time, since 2001. UCCO were involved in the regime. We sent Mr. Grabowsky to Ottawa for four months to sit on committees. We never succeeded. We never got anywhere with that. The reply we got on the law at that time was what is a right and what is a privilege?

That's still going on. The new law is maybe going to succeed in trying to make a difference, but it's huge.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

You talk about segregation, somebody who is engaged, somebody who is not engaged. Can you elaborate on what that means?

[Pierre Mallette]

“Engaged” means it's my first sentence inside. One of the program we always talk about on first sentences is whether there is a place in the country, in each region, where you can send a first offender.

So say it's my first time. I stole a car. I have a file. I'm coming in. I don't want to go back to the criminal stuff. I want to change. I want to get out of that. But for now I'm going to an institution with people who come from gangs.

Do you seriously believe a guy who is so proud to be a Hells Angels, is so proud about what he's doing outside...?

They call us “les citoyens”.

We are paying taxes for them. We are paying money to government for them. They have a beautiful life. They are not engaged, to us. They are complicated. And they're going to put pressure on the guy coming in.

When you're searching a range and they want to hide some brews, some drugs, they are going to go to a new guy on the range and tell him he's going to put this, this, and this in his cell.

Don't forget this guy is facing a Hells Angel. He's facing a tough guy. He's going to be a little bit scared about that, so he's going to do it.

And guess what--when we search, we're going to find the drug in his cell. Is he going to tell us it's not his, it's the drugs of the bad guy? He will be scared. He will have to go to segregation because he's going to ask for protection.

It's complicated.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

With those who want to be engaged, want to get involved in the programs, do you find that programs are readily available to them and in a timely fashion?