Public Safety Committee on Jan. 29th, 2015

[Kim Pate]

Unfortunately, no. In my 23 years in this job and working with women in the prison system, I find the resources are more diminished. As has already been presented when you had discussions in the House, I'm understanding something in the neighbourhood of over $100 million has been spent on drug interdiction techniques and processes. Even an increase from $8 million to $22 million, when as you've heard Mr. Grabowsky describe and what we're seeing is the influx of prisoners, means that precious little is available to those who require the resources.

I want to take this opportunity, if you don't mind, to clarify something. It was Mr. Norlock who commented in the debate in the House on the programs being used in Norway that have been highly effective. I would encourage us to re-examine some of the measures that have been abandoned by Correctional Service Canada over the past couple of decades.

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

Ms. Pate, we know that quite often addiction issues are associated with mental health issues. I would just like to ask you about the ability of those with mental health issues to receive addiction treatment in prison.

We know that people quite often end up in isolation inappropriately. How does that affect dealing with the addictions that go along with their mental health issues?

[Kim Pate]

Unfortunately, being in isolation usually exacerbates the mental health issue.

Often the treatment is to use medication, because there is so little in terms of other kinds of interventions, even though, as I mentioned, some of the most recent research, and some that Catherine Latimer spoke about happening in both the corrections and addictions areas, is showing that the most effective means are social interventions, providing support for people, not putting them in isolation, and providing opportunities for them to do other things.

In some ways it sounds almost like common sense. Of course, if you have other things to do, you're not in isolation and you're not stripped of your ability to read or have education, then not only might your mental health improve, but also your likelihood of wanting to anaesthetize yourself with drugs will also diminish.

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

Thank you.

If I have a little bit more time I want to go back to Mr. Grabowsky.

In terms of the effect of increased interdiction on programming, what I've heard locally is that quite often there are more shutdowns and more lockdowns because of interdiction, and this interferes with programming.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Yes, and that's why I say you have a 24-hour day and you have to try to cut up the piece of that pie to make everything fit.

Then you have incidences of violence on the rise, and gang activity is on the rise in prisons. That brings more lockdowns, which then shut down or postpone that program for a period of time as we search the jail looking for drugs or different things like that.

It does impede that as well.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Grabowsky.

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Payne, you have the floor, sir.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. It's an important bill, and I believe most Canadians believe that we certainly need to reduce drugs in prisons.

First of all, as I understand it, when Mr. Head was here, we were advised that the prison population is actually holding steady at around 15,000 and not really going up. I'm assuming that is correct.

Also, we were advised that there had been new cells added to existing prisons. From that standpoint, Mr. Grabowsky, I'm just wondering if the double-bunking direction has gone down.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

The double-bunking is lowering. The Prairies and Ontario regions still have double-bunking.

The new beds and new units coming online certainly are welcomed by us because they reduce the double-bunking.

The problem is that the infrastructure isn't there. You're still putting 400 inmates in a place that was built for 200. Whether they're in their own cell or a double-bunked cell, they didn't build the rooms to go with that and to do the programming. That wasn't allotted in there.

We still run into that crunch.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Grabowsky, obviously from an occupational health and safety point of view, I'm sure a reduction in drugs in prisons for the protection of your workers is most prevalent for you and your correctional officers.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Yes, sir. Some of our primary jobs are looking for contraband, looking for drugs, interviewing inmates, and finding out what's going on in the jail, who's running the drug trade, who's running those things. That's most of our day. So more tools certainly are welcome.

We're just not sure how we put this bill into operation to see where its usefulness is. If it says in here that if you refuse the drug test you're not going out on parole at that refusal right then and there, that's one thing. To turn around and say that if you provide a sample, you now hit the street, and it takes three weeks or a month for us to get the test results back and pull you back in, that's something else.

Again, for us, just on this bill alone, it's putting it into operation that we have our questions on.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I can understand that. From my experience in business, I know that when new policies come into place, you need to have a full understanding and training on that aspect.

In terms of this process in which prisoners' parole could be stopped, do you believe knowing that would have an impact on the decisions made by those inmates to maybe reduce the drugs or get off the drugs?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

You're asking the million-dollar question. After 35 years, I don't know if I can truly answer whether something has made an inmate turn left rather than right simply by that. That's a very difficult one to answer.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I guess you're right. It depends on the individual, and I would think that for the vast majority of people who have those kinds of issues, realizing that they may not be able to get out of prison would have some impact on their decision-making with regard to getting off drugs.

As was previously said, there's a lot of funding going into programming, and particularly to help those individuals. We heard that from Mr. Head and also from Minister Blaney. I believe they said that some $100 million was spent on detection measures in the institutions, and I think that is going a long way to trying to help your organization. Do you have any comments on that?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Certainly.

As I said, detection is a big key. You know you have a good handle on the drug trade when you start seeing lots of brew being made in jail. They make home brew. That's an indication. That's almost, as correctional officers, what we strive for. I say that jokingly, but when you see more brew in jail, you know you're starting to dry up some of the drug trade. That being said, an inmate on brew is probably not that much easier to deal with than an inmate on drugs. Certainly, that's our goal. That's the goal of every officer going into work every day, to stop and find that contraband and those things that they're doing.

In answer to part of your question, in my experience, inmates coming into an institution are predator or prey. I've found that when that inmate hits 40 or 45 years old, if he was a predator, he now sees himself as prey and looks over his shoulder and sees the young guys coming in. That's when he really doesn't want to be in prison anymore. That's when he's tired of being in prison. That's when he's going to say, “I'm going to abstain because I want out.” Until most inmates reach that predator to prey point, wherever they fit in there, it's a little more difficult for them, or the temptation is, when it's there.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That's an interesting process.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

My colleague was talking about needles. I think needles in an institution like that are also potentially weapons, and there is obviously the possibility for injuring correctional officers. I'd just like you to comment on that.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

For us, they're contraband. We've never looked at or supported a needle exchange. I know there are a lot of different things that happen on the street and in different countries to deal with needle exchange, but we always see them as weapons. We see them as a danger for us as correctional officers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Grabowsky.

Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Mr. Easter, you're up, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Grabowsky, in the line of questioning from Mr. Payne, you indicated that the individual sees the young guy coming in and that's when he wants to take programs, but it's pretty hard to take programs when they're not available. Clearly this government's direction is that penalties rather than rehabilitation programs are basically everything. Are there more or fewer programs available? If offenders want to take programs, are they available and are they accessible?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

They're not as accessible as they once were. We have seen a decline in the availability for a host of reasons. One is the higher numbers and the double-bunking.

Ontario and the Prairies are probably two of the biggest in terms of double-bunking. It's difficult, because you don't have the infrastructure, you don't have the area where you can put that group of inmates. We end up dividing our populations because of gangs, because of the crime, for example, so the rapists and child molesters don't intermingle with the murderers, etc. We have that division in populations as well. In terms of the gang activities, especially in Ontario and the Prairies, there are so many of them. We divide our population up so much that to move those inmates around and to give them the time, it limits....

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

There are a number of factors, then, for why the programs may not be available. Some of it is due to the changing prison population.

Ms. Latimer, you said in response to Randall's question earlier that parole release dates are later and later in the sentence. That is a serious issue. I think there's the debate on whether prisons are places of rehabilitation or becoming universities for crime. That's a dangerous dilemma.

In your estimation, why are parole release dates coming later and later?

[Catherine Latimer]

I think there is an element of risk aversion on the part of the parole boards. I also think some of the legislative changes that are being contemplated are actually going to make that worse.

One of the bills that is now before the Senate will make coming forward for parole once every five years if you get denied. Most sentences are under five years, so you're ending up with one shot at parole. If you don't get it the first time you appear, you're not going to be eligible to come forward before the Parole Board again until after your release date or stat release date or warrant expiry date.

If what we're hearing about no parole eligibility for some serious murders coming forward.... The only way people with life sentences are getting out now is through a paroling process, which is a gradual process for them. If that goes, you wonder what the point is of having a parole board if they're not actually going to be taking the decisions that lead to a graduated release.

I think the whole area of paroling and graduated and supported release is one that needs some serious consideration and reflection, because it's becoming totally dysfunctional now.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

I'm well aware of the bill you're talking about in the Senate; we had some strong reservations against that particular bill. You did say that on this bill, you didn't really see a lot of change, that the discretion remains with the Parole Board. Yet when the head of the Parole Board was here the other day, I got the impression that even though discretion would remain with the Parole Board, they would be certainly taking direction from this bill, probably feeling the pressure of this bill to deny parole.

Can you expand on that a little more? I know the drug-free prisons act, as they call it, certainly leaves the impression that prisons are going to be drug-free. Discretion is still with the Parole Board, but what will be the end result, in your estimation?

[Catherine Latimer]

My belief is that they will be exercising their discretion to deny—that's been the pattern—or to revoke parole. The way the winds are blowing currently, I would see all of this resulting in more denials of parole and releases on the basis of this particular bill.

I'm happy that the scope remains in the legislation, because if the winds ever change, you could see the Parole Board exercising its discretion around whether it makes sense for the successful release and reintegration of a person, whether this particular drug infraction is sufficiently serious that parole should be denied.