Public Safety Committee on Jan. 27th, 2015

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's right.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

However, I can say that if there is a concern regarding the protection of society—and again, this section is going to come into play within that roughly five-day period when he has been granted parole, if he has now tested positive prior to his being released from the institution, or if he refused to be tested—that's where the board has to take that into consideration.

We are an independent administrative tribunal. Each board member makes decisions based on their assessment of all relevant information, and if they have concerns regarding the purpose of conditional release—to ensure the protection of society—they take those into account and they make and write their decision based on that information.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Then what you're telling me is that regardless of this decision, this legislation will be a factor in your decision, but the discretion is still left up to the board.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

That's right.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay. Thank you.

So it's not quite as absolute as the minister led us to believe.

There is a lot of confusion, Mr. Head, around the numbers the minister was talking about this morning. What percentage of the prison population is currently in drug treatment? Can you give us that number?

[Don Head]

It varies because of the new approach we're taking with the integrated correctional program model. Before, we used to be able to just count everybody who was in the substance abuse program, but with the introduction of the integrated correctional program model in two regions, where they start their initial program primers right at the time of admission, those numbers now get confused.

If you don't mind, I'll just talk about the integrated correctional program model. It's a new approach we're taking to get offenders enrolled in their programs as early as possible in their sentence. We start delivering what are called the primers. If we look at the substance abuse program, the cognitive skills program, and the anger management program, the first several modules are the same in each of those programs. We are now starting to deliver those early modules right at the time of admission, so within the first 90 days.

In the last two years, offenders admitted in the Pacific region and the Atlantic region have started those program primers within the first 90 days.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So to get into the substance...as everyone agrees on the number that 75% of the people coming into the prison system have an addiction, whether it's to alcohol or drugs or whatever. I don't disagree at all with that early intervention, anger management, and the rest of the programming. But getting to the drug addiction issue, which seems to be the big one, if we listen to the correctional investigator, they'll claim the numbers went down from 11 million five years ago to 8.7 million now.

Is that the whole story, or just part of the story?

[Don Head]

Thank you for that question and the opportunity to clarify. It is actually part of the story. If you go back and look at the amount of money that we were spending just on substance abuse programming back in 2009, we were spending about $11.7 million. Now, with the approach of the integrated correctional program model combined with the substance abuse programs that we're still offering in the other three regions, we're spending just shy of $23 million. Because the approach with the integrated correctional program model is hitting every offender when they come through the door, we're actually spending more time, energy, and money in delivering programs than we were five years ago.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It could be a number of problems combined, I'm sure—anger management and addiction, etc. So it's $23 million then, in total.

Coming back to the numbers the minister raised, he said there was a 95% success rate for people who take programming. Can you expand on that a little more?

Is that 95% success rate on programming just for substance abuse? What percentage success rate would that be in terms of the prison population?

[Don Head]

Just to clarify again, the 95% actually refers to the number of offenders that complete at least one nationally recognized correctional program prior to warrant expiry date. So 95% of offenders, before their entire sentence is up—both the institutional and community part—have completed at least one nationally recognized program in relation to their correctional plan. Many of those offenders will complete two or three during their length of sentence. As you remember from your days, individuals who have longer sentences have more opportunities to complete more programs than somebody who's doing a two-year sentence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Rousseau, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for being here. I'll be speaking in French, of course.

I'm worried about something.

Is there an ongoing information-sharing mechanism between Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada? Are updates made to ascertain the progress of rehabilitation programs and tests?

How does this mechanism ensure that every individual is under constant supervision and, more importantly, that public safety is not jeopardized when someone is released under false pretenses or a wrong assessment?

[Don Head]

There are several ways in which that occurs.

To begin, I'll talk about individuals who are coming forward for conditional release. During that process there's a significant exchange of information between the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. As well, that same information we share between the two services is also shared with the offender, so that the offender understands the basis for the decision-making going forward.

We also have a requirement that if there is new information that comes forward for certain kinds of situations, there are mechanisms where that information is brought to the attention of the chair of the Parole Board. For example, if we're talking about detention cases, if new information comes up within specific timeframes, I am actually obligated under the law to write directly to the chair and bring that kind of information forward to him.

In terms of progress going forward once a decision is made and a release occurs, the dialogue of the ongoing monitoring is really one by exception. That's probably the best way to describe it. If a case is being managed well, an offender is not getting into trouble and is not violating their conditions, there is really no ongoing discussion or dialogue with the Parole Board. Very clearly their expectation is that they set out the conditions for success for that offender; our job is to ensure the offender abides by those conditions and does not get into trouble. When offenders do get into trouble, then we have an obligation to bring that to the attention of the Parole Board for it to make the subsequent determination of whether it wants to revoke the parole.

Maybe I'll defer to the chair to talk about that process.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

The issue that's extremely important here is to ensure that the offender has all the information that the board members get when making the decision. There are no secret papers that aren't made available to the offender. The offender has all the information that the board members have, which is provided by CSC, and then the board members review the file and make their determination.

In the last two years the Parole Board of Canada has seen some of the best parole outcomes in more than a decade and a half, more than 15 years. For example, 99% of federal day parole periods and almost 97% of federal full parole periods were successfully completed by offenders without reoffending in 2013-14. Those are very good rates. In addition, more than 99% of the parole periods, both day and full, were successfully completed without a violent offence occurring. This is up to their WED.

The board has invested heavily in board member training over the last five years. As the chair, when I came here we determined that we needed to develop a stronger risk assessment regime and we developed a number of standardized tools to support high-quality decision-making for board members right across the country. You can see some of these positive results that are occurring. The ones who have worked to be released back into the community as law-abiding citizens are those who have made it. The others are being denied and are still in our institutions working on their next opportunity for a parole hearing.

[Don Head]

I would add that the combination of the risk assessment approach that the Parole Board uses and the risk-based supervision approach that our staff applies in the community is what is providing those public safety results for Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

Mr. Payne, you have five minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thanks to the witnesses for being here. It's important that we get this information.

Mr. Head, you talked about the total sum of $20-some million in terms of the combined programming. Could you review that again for me?

[Don Head]

Yes, and just to clarify, that's not my total program budget. That's just if we're talking about the opportunities to address substance abuse issues. Currently I'm spending about $8.9 million specifically on substance abuse programming and with our new integrated correctional programming module, which delivers those primer portions of the programs to all offenders coming in and now admitted, I'm spending $14 million. The combination of the two is approximately $23 million, which is targeting issues that we would target through the normal substance abuse programming activities.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

With some of the programming that you've done, I think you indicated earlier in some of your comments that in fact some of those are newer programs, and I'm going to say world-class, but I'm not sure that is correct.

[Don Head]

I'll accept that comment.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay, and I'm glad to hear that it is world-class.

Could you give us an update as to when some of these programs came into effect, how you've seen them instituted and the results from those programs?

[Don Head]

It's worth mentioning that several programs, particularly the work around the cognitive behavioural skills development, substance abuse programming and the anger management violence prevention programs have been in our service for well over 15-plus years. In relation to the substance abuse program its early infancy was almost 20 years ago.

What we've seen, as the minister pointed out in the statistics that he shared, is that offenders that complete these programs are four and a half to five times more likely to receive conditional release. They're about 45% to 50% less likely to commit an offence while they're out under supervision. About 65% of them are less likely to commit a violent offence while they're out in the community. These kinds of success rates in terms of correctional programs are unheard of in relation to a lot of the smaller programs that you hear about in some jurisdictions. Our substance abuse programming, our anger management programming, and our cognitive behavioural-based programming have been sought after by many international correctional jurisdictions. They have been implemented in other countries as part of their public safety approach. We see the impact in terms of public safety, in terms of a less likely commission of offences while they're out there. We see it in terms of individuals reaching their warrant expiry without being revoked by the Parole Board. The research that has been done over the years continues to validate the efficiency and effectiveness of these programs.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I want to review this in terms of the timing of the inmate having had drug testing just prior to a potential parole. Can you tell us what that timing would be so the Parole Board, along with the inmate, would have that information?

[Don Head]

Thanks for that question.

As the bill stands, there is no requirement for us to do a urinalysis test immediately prior to release. All it requires us to do is that if there is a drug test that occurs before the release, either through random sampling in the institution or because we've had reason to believe that the individual is involved in drug activity, then we would be obligated to share that information. We would have done that anyway, but the fact that it's in law now makes it absolutely clear there is no question that this has to be done. There is no requirement for us to administer, from the time the decision is made until the release...there is no automatic requirement for us to do a urinalysis test unless it meets the current legal definition in order to administer one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Your time is up, Mr. Payne.

We will now go to Madam Doré Lefebvre.