Public Safety Committee on Oct. 6th, 2011

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

Thank you, Mr. Normington.

For Mr. Snedden, I really welcome the statement on page five of your submission about requiring a multi-faceted approach that aims to reduce both demand and supply.

I have two questions for you. One, do you feel that you receive proportionate resources for the multi-faceted parts of this, or have you had disproportionate resources for one? My second question was just prompted by Mr. Normington. If you had more resources for interdiction, would you continue to get the same kind of returns from applying additional resources in that area?

[Kevin Snedden]

Just on the first question, the term you used was a “proportionate” allocation of resources. I'm not sure of the definition one would use there, but I can give you my operational sense as a warden. As I mentioned in my opening statement, at Collins Bay I have received resources for additional multi-function posts and detector dogs, which are typically seen on the interdiction side of things. But those also have benefits on the other side of the house, because those staff, especially the intelligence people, work with my program delivery officers and parole officers in key work areas with offenders.

So with regard to the issue of proportionality, I do think we're being balanced. I have interdiction tools, but I also have program delivery staff and parole officers, and we bring them together in a cohesive manner to try to coordinate all of their roles. I view the institution as a city: we have to provide all sorts of different services. Think of any small municipality. Anything a municipality has to provide, I have to figure out how to do within the confines of those 30-foot limestone walls. And we do that in an integrated fashion.

I can't really give you an answer that there's this much here, and this much there, because they're all intertwined. If I take one piece out, the rest of it collapses. I must have that integrated approach and I think we are doing that at Collins Bay. Every morning at my ops meeting, we read out observation reports from the 24-hour period before. Issues are brought up around contraband being seized and whether or not we know the individual the product was going to. It doesn't end there, as my program delivery officers and parole officers get involved. We really take that multi-faceted approach.

On the second part of your question about more resources, we'd always like to have more. I think we're trying to be as effective and as efficient with what is being provided to us—and, again, doing so in that balanced way.

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

Your testimony did say that you've taken a lot of measures. I guess to really focuses my question, do you believe there's a lot more you could do in interdiction that would produce value? Or, given that you need to be multi-faceted, could you use more funding in the other areas at this point?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It will have to be quick.

[Kevin Snedden]

Just quickly, yes, we always could use more, specifically around interdiction. I think every dollar we get, we put to maximum use. At Collins Bay I think we've done a pretty good job of being balanced at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison, and Mr. Snedden.

We'll now move to Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

We've heard quite a bit about the balance. I think everybody would tend to agree that it's a clear-cut message for us.

If we were to just deal in hypotheticals for a moment and say that we had the perfect balance of programming and addictions counselling and treatment, and a perfect balance of interdiction, would it be accurate to say there would still be a drug issue, to a certain degree, within the institutions?

[Kevin Snedden]

I think that would be accurate.

I mean, you strive for perfection. As Mr. Sapers said, we've set a lofty goal for ourselves, and that's one of the things that I think Canadians can take pride in. In our organization we do set those goals. You heard from the commissioner last week about other countries that come and visit and take a look at our stuff. As a warden, I guide those delegations around.

But we don't rest on that. We don't rest on our laurels. We strive to ever improve.

In a hypothetical world of boundless possibilities and resources, I think if we applied absolutely everything we could, then ideally we would be at that zero level. Ultimately, that is my goal as a warden, to have no contraband in my institution whatsoever. As to the reality of that, it's still our goal. Whether or not we'll ever be able to make it to that absolute zero, I would say in practical terms that maybe we'll never get to absolute zero, but I'm going to strive to get as close to that as humanly possible.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

From the perspective of that goal then, we can strive for perfection and recognize that probably there will always be a percentage of drugs in the institution. But I'll just put out the point—if you want to comment on it as well—that a small percentage of people bringing drugs into the institution or accessing and utilizing drugs has a huge impact on the larger percentage of those who want to take programs on positive behavioural change.

We have heard a bit of testimony about false positives in the ion scanner and some testimony about false positives with dogs' recognition of drugs. Could you maybe speak to us a bit about the significance of having those things, while respecting that fact that they can create some false indications, and the importance from your perspective and experience of the appearance of non-tolerance of that?

[Kevin Snedden]

I think it's an important part of it. It's an important deterrent to have that.

The ion scanner is a machine. If it's operating properly and operated properly by the operator, it's a very reliable tool. To guard against things like false positives, we'll run second tests and things of that nature. It's a piece of information that we'll consider when we do our threat risk assessment. If we do get a high hit on an ion scanner or some hits over the threshold, we'll do a threat risk assessment and try to bring all of the information we have to bear to make a decision to safeguard against those false positives. But not having that machine in the first place or our detector dogs would be detrimental to our goal of trying to keep drugs out of the institution.

As warden, I try to reinforce with staff that these are tools in our tool box. We have to apply them. We do so with dignity and respect toward those who are entering our institutions. We follow our policies that have been established to guard against things like false positives and things of that nature. We don't just believe the box, to the effect that “As the box says, I will do”. No, it's a human business and we apply human judgment in a policy context to what those readings are.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Are staff subject to pre-screening with the ion scanner and the dogs?

[Kevin Snedden]

For staff, no, we don't use the ion scanners and dogs.

When I walk into the institution in the morning, for example, I go through a similar process that visitors to this building would go through with metal detectors. All my baggage, my briefcase, and things of that nature are all scanned through an X-ray machine.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

But other staff are not?

[Kevin Snedden]

No, everybody is.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Oh, everybody is, okay. Sorry, I didn't hear that correctly.

Can you quickly tell us about the inmates' accounts and what the maximum dollar value is that inmates are allowed to have in an account within the institution, how money is allowed to be transferred, and what role that plays with drugs?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Please be very quick.

[Kevin Snedden]

Very quickly, inmates basically have two accounts: their current account, which is like a chequing account; and then a savings account.

Offenders who earn money in the institution through inmate labour get their pay; it's a cashless process, all handled through computer. A portion of their pay cheque must go into their savings account for planning for the future and eventual release. The other portion is allowed to go into their current account.

Family members and people of that nature can send money to the institution. All of those moneys must go into their savings account, and in a fiscal year they're allowed four transfers from their savings to their current accounts, to a maximum of $500.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you very much for being here to testify today. I appreciate your comments.

I have a couple of questions. One has to do with your comment that the effort has been very successful since $122 million was put into drug and alcohol interdiction programs, and you gave some good examples of that. Could you tell me what the evidence of the success is? What was the rate of the presence or use of illegal substances in your facility beforehand, and what is the volume or rate of drug and alcohol presence or use in the prison now?

[Kevin Snedden]

I can't give you a rate off the top of my head. What I can say is what I reported on October 6, 2008. Our focus has been on both providing the program to our offenders as well interdiction. One of the key areas we've been focusing on, other than our principal interest, has been the throw-overs that I mentioned in the opening statement. We're getting more intelligence, as a measures of success.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'm just wondering what the evidence is, because you're saying that you want to get to zero drugs and alcohol in the prison, or close to it. We've heard before that it's perhaps not realistic, but idealistic. I would expect that you have some evidence to support your view that this is an effective way of reducing drug and alcohol use.

[Kevin Snedden]

The one indicator is the seizures. Everything I've managed to interdict isn't in my population.

The other thing that we look at is urinalysis.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Sorry, excuse me. That's really not evidence; that's anecdotal.

[Kevin Snedden]

It's anecdotal.

So from a more strategic or results-based standpoint, as a warden, one of the indicators I watch is my urinalysis stats.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Sorry, your what stats?