Public Safety Committee on Oct. 4th, 2011

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

I'm a little confused based on the testimony we heard last week. On the one hand, we had the Commissioner of the Correctional Service saying that drug use is down, as evidenced by urine tests, which show that 12% of inmates tested positive a few years ago, and now we're down to 7.5%. But you seem to be suggesting that the problem is getting worse. Even the head of the union, Mr. Mallette, shook his head when we talked about urine tests, wondering to himself if somehow they've discovered a way to foil urine tests.

I'd like to know your opinion on drug use. Is it going up or down or is it stable? What do you think?

[Catherine Latimer]

I actually have always been of the view that a very small percentage of offenders in the facilities are using drugs, and it's a good sign if the number has moved from 12% to 7%. That's a very positive thing. My concern about things getting worse comes from the implication of the various serious interdiction measures being imposed in the custody facilities to screen visitors and a variety of other things. That is going to cause us problems in terms of rehabilitation.

To go back to your other point, the expected increase of offenders in the federal institutions relates to the mandatory minimums that are going to be imposed, a large chunk of them in relation to drug offending. So you may see moving into correctional facilities more offenders connected with drugs who might not otherwise have been there.

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

But there's something I don't understand in what you said. You seem to agree that drug use is down, but you're concerned that the screening of visitors, for example, is going to make the problem worse.

I'm sorry. I didn't follow the reasoning.

[Kim Pate]

Thank you for asking for clarification because I can see where the logic would be elusive. In terms of the drug interdiction methods, it has meant that, as Dr. Diane Riley predicted, more severe drugs--heroin, cocaine, PCP, and dangerous drugs as well--were being introduced in order to make it easier to conceal, both in terms of masking drugs and for getting drugs into the institution. This is versus marijuana and hashish, which are actually bigger and harder to get into the institution yet are seen as not having the same potential impact.

That was what I was referring to when I talked about making it worse, because I think it's far worse to have an addiction to a more dangerous drug. The numbers, I would agree with Catherine, have never been huge, but the interdiction methods have a huge potential impact on the entire population, their families, the community, and for all of us who go into the institutions.

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

It's resulting in harder drugs coming in. Is that what you're saying?

[Kim Pate]

Yes, and the overcrowding does increase that likelihood.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. We'll now move to Mr. Chicoine.

You have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you for being here. Earlier you said that the number of rehabilitation programs has increased in recent years.

In your opinion, is there a good number of them or should more be invested in rehabilitation programs? You seem to have a different perception from the witnesses who appeared before you.

[Catherine Latimer]

The translation isn't working. May I answer in English?

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

Of course.

You said that rehabilitation programs probably aren't important enough, that there probably aren't enough of them, even though there have been more of them in the past few years.

Would it be better to have more programs available to inmates?

[Catherine Latimer]

I think the rehabilitation programs are extremely important and should be encouraged. There's an opportunity to look at expanding on successful programs. What is key in rehabilitation for drug issues is matching the right type of treatment to the particular reasons for the addiction of the offender. Not every treatment program works equally effectively on every offender. So I think there is a broad scope for actually improving or testing innovative approaches that take into account cultural relevance, gender issues, and a variety of other things.

[Kim Pate]

I apologize as well because I need to speak in English.

When we looked at what was planned for the women's prisons, particularly the programs—and I'll talk about drug treatment in particular, because obviously that's what you're concerned with—it was thought that we ought not to have a cookie-cutter approach, with one type of program such as now exists for women. It's a great program as programs go, but it's a multi-faceted program that tries to reach everybody and doesn't actually meet the needs of many. With respect to women's prisons, because the numbers were relatively low, and because women were seen as a relatively low risk to the community, there was an expectation that women would go into the community programs unless they couldn't because of their security rating, the risk to the community, or mental health issues. So it was anticipated that women would go out to those programs. In fact, that hasn't occurred, so you end up with needs not being met. In addition to more limited access to programs, there are needs not being met.

To go back to the overcrowding issue, there isn't necessarily room for programs in many of the women's prisons. We've had trailers put into public space. We've had changes to recreation. If you're going to change behaviour, you have to have something to substitute, whether it's recreation or other activities. There's not a lot else you could do in prison besides recreation, and yet all the women's prisons have limited the space that inmates can walk around in. There isn't even a track anymore. Before, most of them could run or play ball. These are seen as activities that diminish stress. These things often go along with self care when you're dealing with addiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to the witnesses for your attendance today.

The government has an overarching policy to try to promote drug-free prisons. I'm curious: do your respective organizations support that policy and issue?

[Catherine Latimer]

It's a noble aspiration, but I think you're going to have to deal with the downside risk that it won't take place. There is considerable increased unrest and violence among inmates who are addicted and looking for drugs. Moreover, there's the damage done to facilitating family reunification, by impeding family visits.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Pate.

[Kim Pate]

Of course, we would love to see no drugs in the prisons, including many of the legal drugs that are pumped into prisoners. I think we should take a lesson from what some of the schools have done. They recognize that when you have drugs in a community, they're likely to be introduced. As a mother of two kids, I'd love to see no drugs in the schools. Instead we talk about universal education, harm reduction programs, other avenues, other things for kids to do, and other ways to engage individuals. It's not a great leap to realize that these individuals have already been marginalized, have already been drop-kicked out of those systems. We need to think strategically about how to engage them, if we want them to come back into the community, as eventually most of them will, in ways that are productive and pose no threat to the rest of us.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

So we all philosophically agree that drug-free prisons would be a noble objective. There are some practical realities, and I understand that. The drugs are getting in somehow.

I'm confused and concerned, Ms. Pate, about your characterization of strip searches as a sexual assault committed by the state. You're a lawyer, as am I, so help me through this. The Criminal Code defines an assault as a non-consensual application of force and then goes on to define sexual assault as having a purpose test for some sort of sexual need or gratification.

[Kim Pate]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say it has to be for sexual needs or gratification. It's something that can be seen as sexually demeaning and is not consensual.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Fair enough. Then you'll agree with me that if a person complies with the request, there is no force.

[Kim Pate]

You can be coerced into complying, which you definitely are if you're a prisoner.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Let's talk about visitors. If the person complies with the request, there is no force and therefore the test isn't made out.

[Kim Pate]

In the prison what is supposed to happen is that if someone is seen as a potential risk, they are asked.... In every case that I'm aware of, if somebody is believed to be carrying drugs, the police will be called immediately. The person will be detained and the police will then deal with it. If they're asked to be strip-searched, it generally means they don't have sufficient evidence. Maybe somebody's called in or informed on someone and then the person is supposed to be given the option of either proceeding with the strip search or leaving.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Right. But if the person consents, there's no force; therefore the test isn't made out.

You'll agree with that simple proposition?

[Kim Pate]

As long as it's not coerced, yes.