Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 13 - Evidence for October 21, 2010
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:35 a.m. to study Bill S-10, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is continuing its study of Bill S-10, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
This morning we will be hearing from the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Don Head.
[English]
Mr. Head is accompanied by Mr. Chris Price, Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs.
Welcome back to the committee, Mr. Head. This is not your first appearance. We are very glad to have you with us again. I think you have an opening statement.
Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada: Good morning, senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you in regards to Bill S-10. It is my pleasure to appear before you to respond to any questions you might have about the Correctional Service of Canada's response to implementing Bill S-10.
As you are aware, CSC administers sentences of two years or more, while those sentenced to less than two years serve their time in a provincial facility. Currently, CSC is responsible for approximately 13,700 incarcerated offenders and 8,600 offenders under supervision in the community.
It is difficult to estimate in the long term how many offenders would incur a sentence of two years or more as a result of the mandatory minimum penalties proposed in this bill and who would therefore come into the Correctional Service of Canada's care and custody. That being said, CSC continues to position itself to meet the challenges of a complex and diverse offender population and to build on the public safety results we deliver for Canadians.
We continue to focus on initiatives that will help us adapt our programs and interventions to address the diverse needs of the offender population across the country. As you might recall from my appearance last November, I indicated that one of the ways in which the CSC strives to provide good public safety results is through the gradual release and community supervision of provincial offenders who are granted parole in provinces in which the Parole Board of Canada is the decision-making authority. This includes British Columbia and the Atlantic and Prairie provinces.
We expect that the mandatory minimum sentences will result in an increase in both the case preparation requirements for parole board reviews and the community supervision of provincial offenders granted parole. To effectively manage the increased workload that will arise if Bill S-10 is passed, CSC has been approved for $23.3 million in funding over five years and an ongoing cost of $6.4 million. Should there be any substantial increase in Correctional Service of Canada's offender population as a result of Bill S-10, we are able to make application through our normal quasi-statutory budgetary process, which I mentioned at a previous appearance.
Regarding the care and custody of offenders with substance abuse issues, the delivery of correctional programs is pivotal to the safe reintegration of all offenders returning to their communities across Canada. This is particularly true for offenders with drug or alcohol addictions. Currently, approximately 80 per cent of offenders came forward at admission with some form of drug or alcohol addiction issue. A good number of them have a direct link between their drug and alcohol abuse and their criminality. However, it should be noted that the severity of drug and alcohol problems of offenders varies.
To help offenders address these issues and to prepare them for safe reintegration into the community, CSC currently provides a range of substance abuse programs for specific populations and at various intensity levels to best match offenders to the most appropriate programming.
As I also mentioned last November, in tandem with providing programming to assist offenders in adopting and maintaining a drug-free lifestyle, the Correctional Service of Canada is committed to maintaining safe and secure institutions free of the presence of illicit drugs.
To support our efforts, two years ago the Minister of Public Safety announced $122 million in funding over five years to help eliminate drugs coming into federal institutions. This is supporting initiatives such as an increase in drug detector dogs, the purchase of security equipment like ion scanners and X-ray machines, and the reinforcement of search policies at the main entrances of our penitentiaries. This multi-faceted approach has made a considerable impact. We have seen a 10 per cent increase in seizures at our principal entrances and about a 31 per cent increase in seizures in our recreation areas, on institutional property and outside the perimeter. All these efforts, of course, are part of our larger anti-drug strategy, which takes a three-pronged approach: prevention, intervention and enforcement.
To conclude, although we are not able to offer projections about the potential impact of Bill S-10 and what the direct impact would be on CSC's population levels, we are continually assessing the cumulative impact of all proposed legislation and are adjusting our plans as required. Rest assured that CSC will continue to ensure appropriate accommodation measures are taken to fulfil its mandates, with public safety as the paramount consideration. Although Bill S-10 would introduce new challenges, I am confident that the Correctional Service of Canada and my professional staff will continue to fulfil our mandate and to ensure that we deliver good public safety results to Canadians.
We welcome any questions you may have today.
Senator Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Head. It is good to have you back again.
Mr. Head, the responsibilities you have obviously require that you have adequate facilities and services, and of course providing those requires money. Can you give us a sense, over the last five years, say from 2006 forward, of the funding that has been made available to your department and give us maybe some indication of what increases have occurred over that time in the money allotted to you for that purpose.
Mr. Head: Over the last several years, we have seen several increases to our budget. As I mentioned, we received an increase of $122 million over five years to help us address the issue of illicit drugs being introduced into our institutions. That has gone a long way to help us equip our staff to detect the introduction of drugs coming into the facilities. We have also received a significant increase to our budget for the delivery of programs. You will recall that at my last appearance I mentioned that for our overall program education and vocational training budget, we had about $130 million. This year, we are up to $144 million, and we will be continuing to ramp up over the next two years to about $164 million.
As well, as a result of the strategic review process we went through, we will also receive, in two years' time, when we have the total ramped-up funds, $48 million additional funds particularly focused on the delivery of programs to offenders. That money is allowing us to strengthen our approach to doing the intake assessment of offenders when they come into our penitentiaries. It is allowing us to increase our capacity to deliver violence prevention programs and the community maintenance programs that are needed when offenders are out under supervision, under our care. It is also allowing us to increase the delivery of programs specifically to Aboriginal offenders. It is also allowing us to increase our Pathways Units. These are dedicated units in institutions across the country that are targeting Aboriginal offenders and creating an environment that is culturally sensitive and respectful of their needs. There has been significant investment there as well.
We have been receiving investments on both the security side and the programming side over the last several years, and this is allowing us to close some of the gaps that you have heard about through various reports over the last couple of years.
Senator Wallace: Regarding the adequacy of the facilities you have, as you pointed out, you do not have hard and fast projections as to the impact if Bill S-10 is brought into law. You do not have a firm forecast of what that might mean in terms of your population within the institutions. However, I am wondering if you could comment about the adequacy generally of your facilities and, as much as you can at this time, anticipate the adequacy of those facilities if Bill S-10 is implemented into law.
Mr. Head: One challenge we have is that our 57 penitentiaries across the country were built at different times with different philosophies in mind and different practices or approaches in place. They range from our most current facility, built about 10 years ago, to the oldest in my fleet, Kingston Penitentiary, which is celebrating its 175th anniversary this year. It is older than Confederation. You can imagine that a range of facilities like that were not necessarily all designed to be conducive to delivering modern correctional services to offenders.
I am very proud that my staff has continued to find ways to work around the challenges that have been presented by the infrastructure so that they can provide the services, interventions and programs that offenders need. The average age of my facilities is around 40 years. When you think about that in normal terms as it relates to a house, that does not seem very old, but when your house is being used 24-7, 365 days a year, it takes its toll, so some our facilities are not necessarily in the best shape they could be.
However, we are putting together a long-term accommodation plan that we will be taking forward through the normal channels to try to address some of these infrastructure gaps. As well, as you are probably aware, we are receiving an investment to add additional new units into many institutions across the country as a result of expected increases in our offender population.
Senator Wallace: The overall objective of Bill S-10 is perhaps to be more aggressive in removing those involved in the production, trafficking, importation and exportation of drugs from the streets to provide better and increased protection for society. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that the result of that could be an increase in the number who are incarcerated. With mandatory minimums, they could be there for longer periods of time. If that is the case, what are your thoughts on your ability to provide rehabilitative services to that increased inmate population? Do you have the ability, and do you project into the future your sense that you will have the ability to meet that rehabilitative demand?
Mr. Head: As it stands now, as I mentioned in my opening comments and previous appearance, one of the areas we are not able to definitively make a proclamation on is the impact of Bill S-10 as it relates to potential additional offenders coming to the federal system. That is partly because of the way the bill is prescribed in those very specific conditions.
However, as a result of our national capital accommodation and operational plan arrangement with Treasury Board, if we see an increase in the offender population that is specifically related to the provisions of Bill S-10, we can make representation back to Treasury Board for the additional resources needed as a result of any increase in the population that is directly linked to this.
We have been modifying our data capture systems so that if by chance this bill is passed, we will be able to monitor the offenders who are coming in as a direct result of this bill.
Senator Wallace: Thank you very much.
Senator Lang: I am wondering about your ability to project the increased caseload in the future and to what degree the increased caseload will affect the system.
One premise behind this bill is that for those who would choose to get into this type of criminal activity there will be much more severe consequences if they are apprehended and found guilty. The hope behind this bill is that when young people realize that there are consequences for this, a number of them will be dissuaded from getting into it.
Is it the case that you cannot project the increase very accurately because it is hard to tell what the effect of this bill will be in the general population once it is enacted?
Mr. Head: Yes, senator. Part of our problem is coming up with a predictor based on deterrence. We have no model for doing that. We have looked at other jurisdictions around the world that tried to do forecasting models taking into account the one variable of deterrence.
As I mentioned, given the prescriptive nature of the clauses in the bill, we do not have the data in either the federal or the provincial systems to break down a drug offence, for example, by the variables that are defined in the bill. However, we have put down a marker with Treasury Board, and we will modify our data capture to see how things change as we go forward in the coming years.
We made our predictions based on what that will potentially mean for our responsibility for doing case preparation and community supervision for provincial offenders in jurisdictions where the Parole Board of Canada has the decision-making authority.
We have done those projections. We have some relatively solid data to use for that, but we do not have enough data to make a firm financial prediction regarding in the impact on the incarcerated population.
Senator Lang: You laid out a number of programs on the operation and maintenance side of the budget and on the capital side of the budget in various categories. Sometimes I find it confusing, because there seems to be a program over here and a program over there.
For the benefit of the general public, could you give us the final amounts that have been committed to your departments for operation and maintenance, whether rehab, increased staff or anything else in your system, and also the final amount for the capital side of your budget, which is the requirement to upgrade your fleet, as you referred to.
Mr. Head: I can run down a series of numbers, senator, but it might be easier if I give you a chart, because the numbers are all associated with variables, including Bills C-25 and C-2, which have passed our normal growth populations.
I will give you some general numbers to give you a sense of this. Over the next three or four years we will be receiving over $870 million for capital to build new units in our facilities. We will have a total increase of staff of 4,119 over the next several years to respond to Bill C-2 and Bill C-25. As I mentioned, we have the ongoing monies for security. We have monies for mental health.
It might be easier if I give you the chart, because there are various issues and initiatives for which monies are coming in. I can do that for you. It would probably be much easier to understand on paper.
The Chair: Senator Lang, I have a supplementary to your question.
Mr. Head, you appeared before the House of Commons committee the other day, and you went into these projections. In addition to what Senator Lang has asked for, any data for these projections that you can provide for us would be terrific, and the sooner the better. Since you have already done it for them, I assume you need only run off more copies.
Mr. Head: Yes, we can give that to you before the end of the day.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Lang: I believe that there is $122 million to help eliminate drugs going into the institutions. Of course, we only hear about it when there is a major incident in an institution; then we realize there are problems of this kind.
When you say a 10 per cent increase in seizures at entrances and a 31 per cent increase in seizures in recreation areas, what is that 10 per cent and 31 per cent of? Perhaps you could expand on that.
Mr. Head: In the last fiscal year, the number of drug seizures over all was just over 1,700. We break those down to seizures at the front entrance and seizures around the perimeter in the recreation area. In previous years, there were 1,200 to 1,300 seizures. Investments in drug detector dog teams and security intelligence capacity as well as changes in approaches at the front entrances have given us more tools and approaches and better practices for making these seizures. As I said, the seizures at the front entrance are primarily related to visitors to the institutions trying to smuggle drugs in. In some cases it is contractors, and in a few very rare cases it is staff members. The seizures around the perimeter and in our recreation areas are when people have been sneaking up to our perimeters from a distance at night and launching drugs into our facilities. That has been done by taping drugs to the shaft of arrows, lobbing tennis balls in, and catapulting in dead birds stuffed with drugs. People have become quite innovative in trying to introduce drugs into our facilities as we tighten and reinforce our perimeter approaches and practices.
Senator Lang: Is it safe to say we are on our way to eliminating drug use in these facilities with the measures you are taking?
Mr. Head: Yes. Some of the early indicators that we used to make that determination are linked to urinalysis results. Under the legislation we are allowed to do urinalysis testing of offenders in a strict way. Through those results, we see a decrease in the number of positive samples. Early indications are that we are making a dent in the introduction of drugs. We are seeing an increase in seizures on the perimeter and a decrease in the number of offenders testing positive for drugs. Therefore, the early conclusion we are drawing is that we are moving in the right direction, and as we continue to move forward and hire the rest of our drug detector dog teams and security intelligence staff and put in place some other pieces of equipment, I am quite confident that we will see the right movement in those various categories.
Senator Runciman: One significant criticism of this legislation and other initiatives brought forward by the government has been of the potential increase in the offender population. We are talking about the wrong end of the equation. In my view, Canadians generally support the measures that have been brought forward by this government to deal with offenders.
Senator Wallace, for instance, talked about offender treatment programs. When we talk about offender population, we should be focusing on recidivism rates. Given this situation of people going in and out of prisons, we should have treatment programs available that can have an impact on recidivism rates. An area that has been of interest to me for years is the mental health issue in prisons. We are told there is a direct link between substance abuse and mental disorder and that inmates suffer at greater rates than the general population, which contributes to violence in prisons.
The Office of the Correctional Investigator released a report last month. He found serious gaps in the implementation of health care services in the federal system. He noted that penitentiaries ``are becoming the largest psychiatric facilities in the country.'' The rate of mental illness in female inmates is higher than it is in male offenders — perhaps one in four. Mr. Head, what are you doing to address that issue?
Mr. Head: Thank you for that question. There are several things I would like to share with you in relation to that.
Over the last couple of years we have put in place both our institutional mental health initiative and our community mental health initiative. This has allowed us to do several things. It has allowed us to put in place a better process and tool for assessing the level of mental health needs of offenders when they come into the federal system. A computerized offender mental illness information system, CoMHISS, allows us to get a better assessment of the mental health needs of offenders when they come in. As a result of those investments, we have been able to do better planning for the offenders. We have also been able to move forward in addressing the needs of at least the higher-needs offenders with mental illness health problems.
Our community mental health initiative monies have allowed us to do better discharge planning to get offenders prepared for either gradual release into the community or ultimate release beyond warrant expiration. The investments have allowed us to do more training of our health care staff, our nurses, our psychologists and our front-line correctional officers.
Having said all that, we continue to have some gaps that are of concern, particularly as relates to our intermediary health care needs for offenders. We are in the process of putting in place a couple of pilot projects to try to see what our best response to that group of individuals could or should be. We are focusing at the moment on offenders who are at high risk of self harm or who are chronic self harmers. We will see where that leads us, but we continue to have some gaps. As I mentioned at the parliamentary committee the other day, at this committee previously and will mention again, my biggest concern is about correctional services becoming the default mental health system in the country. This is of grave concern to me.
Senator Runciman: We have some gaps. The Correctional Investigator said that a significant portion of the inmate population suffering from mental illness are falling through the cracks and ending up segregated or warehoused rather than treated. That is more than having some gaps. Mr. Sapers recommended that you explore alternative services with the provinces.
This is anecdotal, but I would like your response. We were told that your response was that you are against any separate facility and that you want to keep it all in-house at CSC and that you do not want to look at success stories outside of the Correctional Service of Canada. If you look at the clinical staff ratio to correctional staff ratio in the facilities to treat people with mental illness health challenges, it is I am told about 80 per cent correctional and 20 per cent clinical. I am told you cannot attract many top-notch professionals to work in a prison environment. If there are more effective treatment alternatives available, why would you not be prepared to consider them?
Mr. Head: I will be honest with you, senator. The statement that you attribute to me is not true at all. We have been in discussions at different times with provinces to find joint collaborative approaches that can be pursued. We are taking this into account in formulating our long-term mental health strategy and trying to address the significant gaps, however you want to phrase them. Correctional Service of Canada does not want to own and solve this by ourselves. We know that we need to find the kinds of partnerships and relationships that will help us ultimately to address the needs of the offenders.
One of our more immediate and significant gaps is the support offenders need when they return to the community. As you well know, senator, many of the services in communities right now are extremely overtaxed and taking on additional workload as a result of offenders with mental health problems coming out into the community. It is a significant challenge for those services. This is a key priority for us.
At times we have worked in collaboration with various provincial facilities, we and will continue to explore those. This is not an issue that I want to own solely. The statement being attributed to me is absolutely false.
Senator Runciman: This is on the record. I appreciate that comment. I appreciate that that is the position you are taking.
I was involved with this in Ontario when we established the Secure Treatment Unit in Brockville, which is a 100-bed maximum security facility to treat inmates with mental illness disorders. It was a unique partnership with the Royal Ottawa Hospital and the then Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services. They have had an impact on reducing recidivism rates by almost 40 per cent over the time of its operation. We have been encouraging the two to talk to the federal government about operating a female unit. When I was the Minister of Correctional Services in Ontario, we had resistance within the ministries of health and corrections to moving toward this kind of model. It is unique in Canada and has 80 per cent clinical staff and 20 per cent corrections staff. The treatment centres are the complete opposite of what is happening in the federal system. I am glad Mr. Head said they are prepared to look at something like that because it has had impact on reducing recidivism rates. It is the kind of impact that we want to see on the prison populations across this country.
The Chair: I do not think that was a question, but it was most interesting and helpful for our work.
Senator Baker: I congratulate Mr. Head and Mr. Price for the great job they are doing.
The bill that we are about to approve will add, on the face of it, substantially to your prison population. There is one definitive statement in this bill relevant to someone found to have committed a trafficking offence while in prison, as defined under the Criminal Code, section 2, which says:
``prison'' includes a penitentiary, common jail, public or reformatory prison, lock-up, guard-room or other place in which persons who are charged with or convicted of offences are usually kept in custody . . .
Automatically, with a minimum sentence, two years in jail, that person goes to you. You recounted that in your own institution there were 1,700 drug seizures this past year. Mr. Head, I do not know whether you have looked into this bill as much as the department has. A whole new range of drugs is being placed in Schedule I; prescription drugs and drugs that are common. Ecstasy, for example, is being lifted from Schedule III to Schedule I. The witnesses yesterday before the committee did not verify that, but I had to verify that in case law last night.
Here you are being faced with this. What is the problem with your being able to look at the numbers of people who were convicted in the past for this offence and projecting for the future, if it remains the same number, what your additional load will be? Is it not as simple as I just said?
Mr. Head: Senator, I wish it were as simple as that. I will respond to a couple of points that you raised.
Being the head of the Correctional Service of Canada, I will speak about the provision around trafficking within our prisons. I welcome that provision because it hopefully will allow us to address a problem that we have had for many years: When we have caught individuals in the institutions with drugs, it has not necessarily been seen by police or by prosecutors as a serious issue, because of the quantities.
In my world, a small amount of drugs is enough to get someone killed. This is a problem for me. Therefore I really welcome that provision, which hopefully will allow us to address the long-standing problem that there has not been active pursuit around charging or convicting individuals with drugs within our walls.
Senator Baker: That is not my question.
Mr. Head: I know, but I want to make sure that is understood. In terms of actual projections, we have looked at the bill in detail. Again, going back and trying to finding specific data, either court data, data in the provincial systems, or even data in our own systems, there just is not enough data for us to say that this bill will equal X number of offenders coming into the correctional system.
I have said several times, however, that we do have a clear understanding with the Treasury Board that as we track the data as we go forward, at the point that the bill comes into law we can make representation for the resources that are needed within the Correctional Service of Canada.
Senator Baker: The definition of trafficking is to sell, to give, to transfer just one pill, as well as to offer to do anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) — that is, to offer to sell, to offer to give and so on — and then not just the controlled drug but also a substance that is a part of the pill. Tylenol 3 is in the area now of Schedule I and Atasol- 30 is in Schedule I. There is liability for life imprisonment, but certainly now under this bill a person would be subjected to two years in prison minimum, which puts the person right into your hands. You have done no projections? With the addition of these new drugs and the imposition of this new bill, you know for sure they will be in your hands for at least two years. Were you not able to do such a projection?
Mr. Head: No. As I have indicated, senator, we cannot find significant data based on previous trends.
Senator Baker: Provincial jails?
Mr. Head: Exactly; the data is not readily available. We would have had to have done a significant manual file review to do that. There is no simple way to extract that data. As many of you well know, when an initial charge starts out at trafficking and moves its way through court and becomes a different charge at the end of sentencing, then that makes it even more difficult for us to determine whether the original offence the way it was defined would meet this definition. That data is just not available to us.
Senator Baker: Even if it ended up as possession, when it is in Schedule I, it is seven years. If it is in Schedule III, it is three years, and all of these new drugs are being brought up to Schedule I. You cannot figure that out.
Have you been given a list by the Department of Justice — because we have not — of what these drugs are that are in this bill, all these chemical names on these drugs? Have you been given a simple, readable list that the ordinary reasonable person would understand and know what we are talking about? Have you been given a list of those new drugs?
Mr. Head: We have the multi-syllabic list, which I assume you have as well.
Senator Baker: No, we do not. We have the chemical list in this bill.
The Chair: I think that is what Mr. Head says he has.
Senator Baker: Well, then you do not have anything, do you? Ecstasy is number 4 listed there; I have checked that out. There are others for what we were talking about yesterday, for behaviour problems in children, Ritalin and so on. Certainly ecstasy, the common drug you see being exchanged in your prison, is now in Schedule I.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: In your presentation, you mention that 80 per cent of offenders admitted to the correctional system present with a substance or alcohol issue.
You work with these people. If offenders really do present with this type of issue, has it been your experience that minimum sentences act as a deterrent? Do you know of any drug or alcohol abusers that have resolved their issues because they faced a tougher jail sentence?
[English]
Mr. Head: Senator, as I mentioned before, I have not seen any definitive research that talks about the impact from the perspective of deterrence. We just do not have that. As a matter of fact, if we had, we would have taken it into our calculations as well. I would just be speculating if I told you one way or another that deterrence would lead to a certain outcome.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Therefore, although this might be desirable, it is by no means a given. There is no cause and effect relationship between minimum sentencing and the reduction or elimination of substance or alcohol issues.
Please allow me to make a second point. You have provided us with figures on the effectiveness of the steps you have taken to prevent drugs coming into facilities. Indeed, you provide treatment programs for offenders with substance and alcohol addiction issues. Could you provide us with an assessment of the performance or effectiveness of these programs? I am of course cognizant of the fact that you are only able to provide an assessment of the current population. However, this Bill will increase the prison population and do you not think that this could potentially reduce your ability to assist offenders with substance and alcohol addiction issues?
[English]
Mr. Head: That is a very good question, and there is some information I would like to share with the committee about the efficacy of our programs.
We have for years spent a lot of time developing evidence-based programs that are intended to lead to results where individuals are not committing offences again. As I have shared with you in the past, we have a range of, substance abuse programs, a range in levels of intensity — low-intensity, high-intensity and moderate-intensity programs — Aboriginal offender substance abuse programs and women offender substance abuse programs. We have found through our research that the programs we have developed over the years have been producing very good results overall. I would like to share some of those with you.
We know that offenders who go through our high-intensity substance abuse program are 45 per cent less likely to return to custody with a new offence and 60 per cent less likely to return to custody with a violent offence. For us, these are very good numbers. With our moderate-intensity programs, offenders are 26 per cent less likely to return with a new offence and 46 per cent less likely to return with a violent offence. With our Community Maintenance Program, which is linked to the programs delivered to offenders in the community under supervision, offenders are 40 per cent less likely to return with a new offence and 56 per cent less likely to return with a violent offence.
The Aboriginal Offender Substance Abuse Program is based on our standard substance abuse program but recognizes the cultural and spiritual needs of Aboriginal offenders. We are finding that individuals who go through that program are 21 per cent less likely to be revoked while they are under community supervision, and only about 5 per cent are coming back with a new offence.
For women who go through our intensive Women Offender Substance Abuse Program the rate of return with a new offence is around 39 per cent.
For us, these are very positive results. A U.S. state independent agency did a review of 73 substance abuse programs offered in the United States, and their rates of people less likely to return were only in the range of 3 per cent to 17 per cent. Our programs overall seem to be very effective.
As we go forward, a key thing for us in responding to any institutional impact that may arise as a result of Bill S-10 is to ensure that we continue to have the capacity to deliver the effective evidence-based substance abuse programs that we have been delivering.
Senator Joyal: Welcome, Mr. Head. Coming back to your statement, may I ask you the following question? In the third bullet on page 2, you refer to an increase in case preparation requirements for parole board reviews. What is the backlog of cases waiting for file preparation for parole review? Is there any backlog?
Mr. Head: For the provincial cases?
Senator Joyal: Yes.
Mr. Head: Not that I am aware of. I can double-check that, but I am not aware of any backlog in the provincial cases. With the provincial cases, the sentences are short and the numbers are relatively few anyway. These cases are treated as a priority basis because the time to process them is much shorter than for a federal offender.
Senator Joyal: On page 3 of your brief, in the third bullet, you mention that you provide a range of substance abuse programs. Is there any backlog there for an inmate who wants to register and be treated according to the content and the aims of the program?
Mr. Head: Yes, senator. Because of the overall need of the offender population, we have wait-lists for our programs. We are getting at that in a couple of ways.
Senator Joyal: What is the size of the wait-list?
Mr. Head: The size of the wait-list is around 2,000 offenders. The wait-lists are a little misleading, because the wait- lists are actually just individuals who may have been referred to a program. However, that does not necessarily mean they would be a priority for the program or that that is the right program for them. Once they are referred, an initial assessment is still done to determine whether they are suitable for that program or whether the program is the right match. We know that there are about 2,000 or so offenders on the wait-list who just have not gone through the pre- assessment to see whether it is the right program.
I want to mention a process that we are putting in place to try to address the whole issue of wait-lists or length of time to get into a program. Through a pilot project in our Pacific Region, in British Columbia, we are implementing the Integrated Correctional Program Model. This model is an approach that allows us to get offenders assessed and into programs more quickly than in the past. Previously it took anywhere from 150 to 235 days before a federal offender started in a program, any program within the federal system. Through the pilot project we have implemented, we have dropped the time to start a program down to about 45 days after admission. This new approach will hopefully address all the issues we have been facing around wait-lists or backlogs.
Senator Joyal: In today's context, could inmates be released without having gone through a rehabilitation program?
Mr. Head: It is a broad assumption, senator. From what we know, particularly about offenders who have serious substance abuse problems, it is more than just going through a substance abuse program that will address their criminality. The vast majority of offenders who have serious substance abuse problems have multiple challenges, including issues around criminal associates, unstable families and not having employment or employability skills. It would be a broad assumption to say that just because they have not taken that program that they are being denied a release. With most of those individuals, there is a lot of other work we have to do with them. The substance abuse program is one component of that.
Senator Joyal: On the same page, with regard to the number of inmates, how many of the 13,700 are double- bunking?
Mr. Head: Currently, across the country, we are averaging just over 10 per cent. Some institutions are higher than that. Our assessment units now are significantly higher than that. On average, across all our cells, about 10 per cent are double-bunked.
Senator Joyal: To come back to your system of assessment generally, you mentioned that you followed the Treasury Board Guide to Costing, if I understand the system you provide. In reading the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer released June 22 this year, I was surprised to read, on page 7, paragraph 3.2, under ``Issues and Challenges,'' that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, having requested information from you, stated: ``CSC staff failed to meet with PBO officials during the time that the project was being undertaken.''
Why did you refuse to meet with the PBO to study the impact of the Truth in Sentencing Act?
Mr. Head: Actually, we did not refuse to meet with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In my letter of December 10, 2009, to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I indicated our contact person within the department with whom his staff could meet. What the Parliamentary Budget Officer was really getting at is that the information that was deemed to be cabinet confidence — about which we previously had a wonderful discussion at this committee — we were not able to release to him. We provided the Parliamentary Budget Officer all the information that we could that was not under the cap of cabinet confidence.
Senator Joyal: Even so, the following page, page 8, paragraph 3.3 reads:
Only a rigorous bottom-up costing consistent with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing will provide Parliament with the highest assurance regarding the cost implications of the ``Truth in Sentencing Act.''
In other words, as I understood this statement by the PBO, you are not really following the Treasury Board's Guide to Costing, which, as you said, from experience, you take the figures on Monday morning.
If there are 10 new inmates, you total them as long as they come into prison. Then you go back to the Treasury Board and you say this month I have 200 more inmates, and a projected figure of — let us say — 1,000 more, so now you have increased my budget by X amount of money.
I understand that that is the way it works. It is not the other way around, which is a projection from the top level down to the ground. Is the way that you work to simplify it to provide the figures that the PBO is requesting?
Mr. Head: No, we follow the Treasury Board guidelines for costing, senator. Every submission we put forward that goes to Treasury Board is in compliance with that. If it was not, I would receive a letter from either the president or the secretary of the Treasury Board, indicating that my submission was not in compliance.
In general terms, as we go through the development of any submission for money to the Treasury Board, we have a very detailed explanation that we go through with them; we follow the guidelines. On occasions when there are questions about the numbers, we will meet with Treasury Board officials or Department of Finance officials to go through those. All our Treasury Board submissions have been in accordance with the rules laid out by Treasury Board.
Senator Joyal: It does not seem that you followed rigorously that analysis, according to the statements on page 8 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report.
Mr. Head: I can only suggest that the Parliamentary Budget Officer may not have had access to all the documents, and therefore he is making that conclusion. All I can tell you is that the submissions that we put forward to the Treasury Board and our engagements with them and the decisions that came back from them have been in compliance with the rules laid out.
Senator Joyal: Maybe one way for him to have the right statistics is for you to meet with him, because the PBO says you failed to meet with PBO officials during the time that the project was being undertaken.
Mr. Head: As is indicated in our letter of December 10, we indicated clearly who our point of contact within the department was for the PBO staff. Again, it is not that we did not give the PBO any information. We gave them all the information that was publicly available. It was the information that was at that time under the umbrella of cabinet confidence that he did not receive.
Senator Joyal: Let me ask a further question. Did you provide the cabinet any statistical information about the financial implications of this bill that you cannot release to us today?
Mr. Head: I have indicated our costing, and I can explain the assumptions that we used.
Senator Joyal: Why do you not answer my question? My question is very specific. Did you provide to the minister, to the cabinet, financial information in relation to the implementation of this bill that you cannot provide to us this morning?
Mr. Head: Again, I can share the assumptions we used that formulated the budget that has been approved.
The Chair: I think we are at an impasse on this one, Senator Joyal.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Head and Mr. Price, welcome. It is a pleasure to meet you both. I would like to discuss with you the issue of the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.
I am sure that you are aware of this paper Madam Chair. It is a very interesting report entitled A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety.
The Chair: Please give a copy to the clerk.
Senator Boisvenu: This is the only one I have and I had a hard time obtaining it. I will provide you with a photocopy. It is a very interesting paper from November 2007. It was produced by a Department of Public Safety independent committee made up of police officers, criminologists and psychologists from all the Canadian provinces. They travelled across the country and visited around twenty penitentiaries.
The report makes 107 recommendations. There is a major problem of substance and alcohol addiction in prisons. It impacts on both staff safety and offender rehabilitation programs such as disintoxication, training and work placements.
I am sure you are aware that I have just finished a tour of provincial penitentiaries. I visited five of them. Before I ask you my main question, I would like to share with you some of what I observed.
I should also mention — as you probably know — that at the same time the Department also published a second paper on the challenges of reinsertion. It is very critical of program performance.
It seems to me that you face a major challenge implementing effective rehabilitation programs in our penitentiaries. Drug use and dealing are particularly problematic since a lot of dealing occurs within penitentiaries.
I would like to share my observations with you Mr. Head. Please correct any misconceptions. First of all, occupation and activity levels are very low among offenders. Apparently only one in every two offenders is engaged in activity within the penitentiary, either through a work placement or rehabilitation program.
I was also struck by the re-offense rate. Approximately 50 per cent of offenders serve more than three or four prison sentences.
Another point I would like to raise with you is the fact that we have no data on first-time offenders in provincial penitentiaries, who are likely to develop a substance or alcohol addiction in prison.
It seems that penitentiaries are managed in a vacuum.
I also noticed — and I asked your managers about this — that there is robust data on offender occupation rates within available programs but none exists for success rates once they are released from the penitentiary. It looks as though your responsibility for the offenders ends after their probation period. An offender with a substance abuse issue, for instance, requires long-term care. Your responsibility for offenders ends a year after they are released. Therefore, they are at that point again free to take drugs and to indulge in ``criminal'' behaviour.
This report is vital if we want a penitentiary system that is —
The Chair: I shall have to interrupt you there. Are you referring to this paper?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
The Chair: We have the Web address for those of you who are interested.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you Madam Chair. It is a crucial report for the development of a Canadian penitentiary system with a primary focus on ensuring the safety of the prison population but also on rehabilitating offenders. Billions are allocated to these issues. What is your strategy Commissioner to ensure success?
[English]
Mr. Head: Thank you for the question, senator. That document has been the basis for what we have been calling for the last two years our transformation agenda. I think I made reference to this either at this committee or at a parliamentary committee within the last couple of years.
That transformation agenda has had five basic themes that we have been pursuing. One is around the issue of offender accountability, the accountability of offenders when they come into the system. The way that the law is currently written, the accountability is with CSC — and on certain things, rightfully so.
One thing that is stressed in that report and what we are moving forward with is stressing the accountability of the offenders when they come into the system: the accountability to be involved in the development of their correctional plan, to be actively engaged in participating in programs, education and skills development, and to be responsible for their behaviour while they are in the correctional system. That is a key part of that document and a key part of our transformation agenda.
I have already talked about the second theme the issue of the elimination of drugs within the institutions. As a result of that report and Budget 2008, we received $122 million over five years, the infusion of money that I talked about, which has given us the money for the drug detector dog teams, security intelligence staff and the technology that we have been buying. That has been a very active component of our transformation agenda.
To give you a sense of that, when we started pursuing that element of the transformation agenda, we had approximately 47 drug detector dog teams in our facilities. We are now up to 80 drug detector dog teams, and by the time we finish in two years, we will have 125 drug detector dog teams in our facilities, and we will have increased our security intelligence staff by 165 additional staff. We are continuing to pursue that.
The third major theme of our transformation agenda is around the programs and skills development piece that you mentioned, and that is a significant part of that report. As I mentioned early on in response to the question from Senator Wallace, the investments we have received for programs are very much in line with a report and give us the capacity to develop those evidence-based programs to address the criminogenic needs of offenders.
The fourth theme in the transformation agenda is around community corrections and enhancing our capacity to develop and implement an effective community corrections strategy so that we are able to supervise and monitor offenders while they are out in the community, either under day parole, full parole, statutory release or even the long- term supervision orders that can run up to 10 years after warrant expiry. Part of our response to that has been increasing our capacity to deliver programs in the community while offenders are under our supervision. We have been working very closely with halfway house associations across the country to ensure we have the right capacity for the type of offenders being released into the community. We have been updating our community corrections standards and have been doing a lot of work in that area.
The fifth major theme is around the infrastructure issue. As I mentioned earlier, we are continuing to pursue this one, and it will form the basis of our long-term accommodation plan that we will be taking forward through the normal government approval processes by this spring.
One other element I will mention in that report, and I know it is a subject very near and dear to you, senator, is our response around victims as well. Everything I have talked about until now has been in relation to offenders, but we been making investments as well in our capacity to respond to the needs of victims. For example, we have been working closely with the Parole Board of Canada to develop and implement a more seamless approach that allows victims to engage the government agencies in a way that does not traumatize them further. As a matter of fact, as a result of comments in that report, we initiated a pilot project in the Atlantic Region and are looking to expand that so that we have one point of contact for victims as opposed to their having to go to the Parole Board of Canada for one thing and the Correctional Service of Canada for another. We have combined our staff and collocated them to make a more seamless and less burdensome approach for victims. It is one of the other significant elements that we are pursuing directly as a result of that report.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Boisvenu, time is moving on and we have other witnesses to hear from.
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Head, I have a comment I would like to make. Prisons use surveillance to monitor drug use and dealing. Very few penitentiary cells are equipped with surveillance cameras. Prison guards use a visual observation strategy.
Offenders have access to pay phones within penitentiaries in the same way they would in the outside world. They have calling cards and are able to call just about anywhere. Cells are searched once a month and telephone calls are monitored when inmates are suspected of committing a crime.
Would it not be possible to develop a penitentiary surveillance strategy tailored to the specific prison environment? Could we not implement a much tougher surveillance strategy in our prisons as a way of controlling drugs?
[English]
Mr. Head: Yes.
The Chair: For the record, colleagues, the document to which Senator Boisvenu referred, which is a mine of information, is the report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel entitled A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, and it can be found on the Internet at www.publicsafety.gc.ca. It was submitted in October 2007.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I will be brief. Mr. Head, you stated in your presentation that it is difficult to estimate long term how many offenders are likely be sentenced to prison time if this Bill becomes law. That I understand and you have answered several questions on the issue.
If I have understood correctly, you have begun analysing the impact of Bill S-10 on various areas of Canadian penitentiaries, such as space and programs.
Have you thought of looking at how minimum sentencing has led to an increase in the prison population in other jurisdictions as a way of gaining a better understanding of the implications of Bill S-10? Have you considered, for instance, the experience of California or other U.S. states? Have you undertaken this type of comparative study?
[English]
Mr. Head: We have looked at the impacts in some of the jurisdictions in the United States, and it is hard for us to draw comparisons, to say that this is a response that is comparable and then be able to draw any kind of conclusions from that, because in many cases there are differences in the way services or interventions or programs are delivered.
We have not been able to find jurisdictions that are comparable in terms of delivering services and interventions. I co-chair the meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial heads of corrections twice a year, and we are collectively monitoring the impact of changes in legislation so that we can all better improve our forecasting models at the provincial, territorial and federal levels.
The Chair: Before you leave, Mr. Head, I have one question. I believe the projections for expansion of capacity that you outlined to the committee in the other place included a confirmation that you will be increasing the use of double- bunking. Is that correct?
Mr. Head: Yes. In the short term we will increase our double-bunking based on our projections of the increase in the offender population until these new units that are being built over the next three years come online. Therefore, between now and 2013-14 we are anticipating a significant increase in the level of double-bunking in our federal correctional facilities.
The Chair: When you send us your information, would you include a definition of what you mean by ``significant increase.''
Mr. Head: Yes, I can tell you that.
The Chair: Do you mean 50 per cent, 100 per cent? What are we talking about?
Mr. Head: It will vary between institutions, but it could be as high as up to 30 per cent or 40 per cent.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Head. Mr. Price, you have been very patient.
We are continuing our study of Bill S-10, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
To discuss Canada's National Anti-Drug Strategy, we now have representatives of no fewer than three federal departments. From Health Canada, we have Ms. Cathy Sabiston, Director General, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate.
[Translation]
From Public Safety Canada, we have Mr. Daniel Sansfaçon, Director, Policy, Research and Evaluation at Public Safety's Crime Prevention Centre.
[English]
From the Department of Justice Canada, we have Ms. Catherine Latimer, General Counsel and Director General, Youth Justice, Strategic Initiatives and Law Reform. Again this morning, we have Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, who was with us less than 24 hours ago on a different panel.
We all thank you very much for being here. This is an important part of the study of this bill.
I believe you have asked to have Ms. Latimer go first, followed by Ms. Sabiston and then Mr. Sansfaçon. Ms. Latimer, I believe you have not provided copies of your presentation.
Catherine Latimer, General Counsel and Director General, Youth Justice, Strategic Initiatives and Law Reform, Department of Justice Canada: I have provided copies for translation purposes.
The Chair: However, not for the committee.
Ms. Latimer: No, I do not believe so.
The Chair: You have provided them for the interpreters in English only, as I understand it. I should tell you that this committee puts quite a high premium on receiving material in both official languages from agencies, institutions and branches of the Government of Canada. In the future, we would appreciate having any documents you provide to any element of this committee provided in both official languages. That said, please go ahead with your presentation.
Ms. Latimer: Thank you very much, senator. It is a great pleasure to be here today to talk to you about the government's National Anti-Drug Strategy. The Department of Justice is responsible for coordinating the strategy, and we worked very closely with key departments, particularly health and public safety, and with the 12 other partner departments who have an active role in delivering the National Anti-Drug Strategy.
I will attempt to keep my comments short because I know that you want to have sufficient time to pose questions, and we are happy to take those.
[Translation]
The National Anti-Drug Strategy (NADS) was formally launched by Prime Minister Harper on October 4, 2007. The Strategy is a focused approach to tackling illicit drug issues in Canada and includes three action plans that aim to prevent illicit drug use; treat those with illicit drug dependencies; and combat the production and distribution of illicit drugs.
[English]
We are looking at a targeted, focused approach to dealing with drugs, and it is a five-year strategy that began in 2006-07. There are three action plans, two on the demand-reduction side and one on the supply-reduction side.
The two demand-reduction plans relate to prevention. The issues that were identified for the action plan to address concerned the perception of increasing drug use among young people, earlier onset of drug use and concerns expressed by communities to the RCMP about drug use among their youth.
The activities to address those particular sets of problems through the Prevention Action Plan included a media campaign as well as community-based prevention activities.
The object is to help young people make smarter choices and be aware of the implications of drugs and to reduce the use of drugs by young people in certain communities.
The total amount of new resources that went into the overall plan was $232 million; $30 million in new money was directed toward the Prevention Action Plan. You will hear more about that when I turn over the floor to Cathy Sabiston.
However, because we have clear sets of objectives, other departments have also contributed to the Prevention Action Plan through their A-base resources. I think you will hear some of that when Daniel Sansfaçon of the National Crime Prevention Centre makes his remarks.
The Treatment Action Plan was also an important component of the strategy, and it was intended to address those who have drug addiction issues and who pose a risk to the community. The concerns identified were a lack of innovative, culturally relevant or new drug-specific approaches to deal with treatment. That includes such things as the drug courts.
The activities that were contemplated under this particular action plan included diversion and treatment options for offenders with drug problems, funding and treatment for individuals posing a risk to communities, and community treatment. The target populations for this particular plan included youth, offenders and drug-plagued communities, such as Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, and affected Aboriginal communities.
As I mentioned, $100 million of new money was allocated to that particular action plan, and that built on some resources that departments were already carrying out.
The Enforcement Action Plan was targeting illicit production and distribution of marijuana and synthetic drugs and diversion of precursor chemicals and was to deal with the adequacy of penalties for serious drug crime. I would go more into the Enforcement Action Plan, but I understand you will have before you on October 28 a panel of my colleagues who are responsible for the Enforcement Action Plan. I assume they would be better placed to answer questions about the Enforcement Action Plan. That gives us a chance to concentrate on the demand-reduction components of the National Anti-Drug Strategy.
We are now into the fourth year of this five-year strategy, and significant progress has been made with regard to the objectives and problems that have been identified. We look forward to sharing with you some of the progress that has been made.
Cathy Sabiston, Director General, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate, Health Canada: Thank you, Chair, and members of the Senate committee for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you about Health Canada's role in the National Anti-Drug Strategy. I am delighted to be here again. I last appeared here on November 18, 2009, when I made a presentation related to former Bill C-15.
As mentioned by my colleague at Justice Canada, Health Canada oversees the coordination and implementation of the prevention and treatment action plans related to the strategy. In 2007, the entire portfolio received approximately $144 million in new funding over five years for its prevention, treatment and enforcement activities through the strategy. Today I am here to talk about the $120 million of that amount going to prevention and treatment.
The Prevention Action Plan focuses on preventing illicit drug use among Canadians. Under this plan, Health Canada provides information to parents, educators and health professionals, develops materials for school-based awareness and prevention strategies for elementary and secondary school students, discourages illicit drugs through new national public awareness campaigns, and provides financial assistance to communities for local projects to tackle illicit drug use among young people.
The Government of Canada has invested $30 million over five years in a targeted mass media campaign that raises awareness among youth ages 13 to 15 about the dangers of illicit drugs. The campaign was launched in March 2008, first with a message to parents: Reinforce your influence over your teenagers and talk with them about illicit drugs. Health Canada then engaged parents on two additional occasions through TV and the Internet back in November 2009 and prior to the launch of the youth campaign, as well as this fall in September and October, in an effort to reinforce the importance of parents talking with their teens about drugs. Both campaigns resulted in an increase of visitors to the web and an increase in calls to the information centre as well as requests for and downloads of the parent booklet.
Launched in December 2009, the youth campaign ran until the end of March 2010. Our objective was to make youth aware of the harms of illicit drug use and to provide them with coping and refusal skills. This year's youth campaign builds on the momentum and success of the past. The campaign continued through the spring and summer with our ``Fast Forward'' television, cinema and Internet banner ads, and Health Canada also launched its first Facebook fan page through the not4me campaign, as we have a young target audience.
A new TV ad and interior transit and Internet banner ads are to be launched this November to coincide with National Addictions Awareness Week. I have with me my colleague Jane Hazel, Director General of Marketing and Communications Services Directorate, should you have detailed questions on that aspect.
[Translation]
In addition to the media campaign, the existing grant program, The Drug Strategy Community Initiatives Fund was refocused in 2007 to support the strategic priorities of the prevention action plan. The program provides financial assistance to facilitate the development of local, provincial, territorial, national and community solutions to tackle illicit drug use by young people in the 10 to 24 age group. The program contribution stands at approximately 9.5 million dollars a year.
[English]
The Treatment Action Plan focuses on treating people with drug dependencies by supporting innovative and effective approaches to treating and rehabilitating individuals who pose a risk to themselves or the community. This plan promotes collaboration among governments and supports agencies to increase access to drug treatment services. At Health Canada, this plan enhances treatment and support for First Nations and Inuit people and supports research on new treatment models.
Announced in April 2008, the Drug Treatment Funding Program provides funding of $125 million over five years to assist provincial and territorial governments in implementing best practices and treatment, strengthening performance measurement and evaluation, and building jurisdictional collaboration and knowledge to fill critical gaps in treatment needed among youth.
[Translation]
Health Canada is endeavouring to improve the accessibility, quality and effectiveness of drug abuse services provided to Canadian First Nation and Inuit youth and their families. Through the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program and the National Youth Solvent Abuse Program, Health Canada funds 58 treatment centres as well as alcohol and drug abuse prevention services in more than 500 Canadian First Nations communities.
In conclusion, the prevention and treatment action plans focus on the reduction of illicit drug use.
[English]
Thank you again for the opportunity to tell you about Health Canada's role in the National Anti-Drug Strategy.
[Translation]
Daniel Sansfaçon, Director, Policy, Research and Evaluation, National Crime Prevention Centre, Public Safety Canada: Madam Chair, thank you for the invitation to address you on the matter before you.
In particular, I have been asked to speak about the National Crime Prevention Centre's involvement in the National AntiDrug Strategy. In the interests of time, I will skip some parts of the presentation that you have in front of you. I will cut straight to the chase.
International and national research studies have clearly established that crimes are not randomly distributed across the population and geographical areas but rather that they are concentrated within a limited community. Therefore a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by a small group of offenders.
For example, a 2005 Carrington study in Canada showed that some 16 per cent of offenders commit around 60 per cent of offences reported to the police.
The research also shows — and this is extremely important — that these offenders tend to share characteristics, generally called criminogenic risk factors, which increase the likelihood of an individual committing a crime.
Forms of substance abuse are among the risk factors related to offending trajectories among youth. These include premature substance abuse among children, (e.g. those who use substances below the average age when they will tend to be used), addictive forms of use at adolescence and the use and dealing of drugs by youth who have been in conflict with the law or who are members of gangs.
For example, in a study of Ontario young offenders in 2008, Day found that 34 per cent showed substance abuse disorder.
[English]
Based on this knowledge and on the available evidence that well-designed preventive interventions focusing on these risk factors will contribute to reducing the likelihood of offending, the National Crime Prevention Centre, NCPC, supports community-based projects that deliver social crime prevention measures. This includes many projects that focus on problematic forms of substance use.
Under the National Anti-Drug Strategy, the NCPC initially committed to investing $20 million, as Ms. Latimer mentioned, from its A-base existing resources over five years to support the implementation of such projects that would intervene, in particular, with youth under the age of 14 who have already begun using substances, youth between the ages of 14 and 17 who are gang members or in conflict with the law, and Aboriginal youth in particular in order to reduce the use of these substances and therefore the likelihood of offending.
Over the period from 2007 to 2012, the NCPC will have provided funding to some 72 projects in communities across the country that fit the criteria of the National Anti-Drug Strategy, representing total investments of almost $39 million. These projects take place in every province and territory and reach youth between the ages of 6 to 18. Some will involve some form of external evaluation, and most also include an internal evaluation.
Many of these projects involve the implementation of promising interventions, interventions whose effectiveness has generally been well established through rigorous evaluation studies in other jurisdictions, most often in the U.S.A. In particular, it is expected that through the evaluation studies that accompany these interventions, we will contribute to building the knowledge base of what effectively prevents offending among these youth in Canada.
As one of the organizations involved in implementing the National Anti-Drug Strategy, the NCPC is preparing to report on results obtained through these and many other interventions in 2011-12. Some of the results will only be preliminary as these interventions necessarily take some time to be fully implemented and to yield maximum benefits.
In addition, NCPC fully recognizes that it may be difficult to disentangle the impact of its interventions on illicit drug use specifically, given that only too often, multiple substance use characterizes youth who are at risk of offending. Nevertheless, we are convinced that most of these projects will show positive results and will have contributed to helping numerous children, youth and their families reduce problematic forms of substance use and their related negative consequences.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you would have.
Senator Wallace: Ms. Sabiston, I direct my first question to you. In your presentation, you refer to the fact that in 2007 your portfolio received $144 million in new funding over five years, with $120 million of that being allocated to prevention and treatment. That is new funding in 2007.
What existed prior to that? What change did that make in the funding provided to your department for this important purpose?
Ms. Sabiston: Yes, you are correct. Just to back up a step, the National Anti-Drug Strategy investment is $232 million over five years. The health portfolio gets $144 million; prevention and treatment is $120 million — $30 million for prevention and $90 million for treatment. You are correct, that is on top of existing funds that were in the department previously. That is approximately over $500 million, for a total of about $680 million all together.
Senator Wallace: Maybe I will wind that back a bit, since there are many numbers there. The question I was getting to is how does the $120 million of new money that was directed to prevention and treatment compare to what was available to your department before the government took that initiative and provided the $120 million?
Ms. Sabiston: I believe there was about $500 million in existing funds, and the $120 million is on top of that.
Senator Wallace: Is that per year?
Ms. Sabiston: Over five years.
Senator Wallace: Thank you. Ms. Sabiston, thank you again for the information on the prevention and treatment action plans. I wonder whether, from work that has been done within Health Canada, you could perhaps give us some sense of the magnitude of the drug problem in this country, especially as it relates to health care costs?
I understand that your department has done surveys over time. I am aware of one from 2004. Perhaps there are more recent ones. I wonder what you might be able to tell us about the work you have done to determine the extent of the cost to health care in this country that is brought about by the use of illicit drugs.
That is what Bill S-10 is all about: It attempts to limit that impact on our society. What is the magnitude of the financial costs in Canada resulting from illicit drug use?
Ms. Sabiston: Thank you for the question. I am embarrassed I did not bring the CAS data with me. I do have prevalence percentage figures here regarding youth and adult use of illicit drugs. I will have to bring that back to the committee. That was an oversight on my part.
Senator Wallace: A study was done in 2002 by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, for example. You might be familiar with this report.
Ms. Sabiston: Very.
Senator Wallace: It estimated the overall cost of substance abuse in Canada to be around $39 billion, of which health care costs were almost $9 billion. This is a very significant cost. It is obviously a huge issue for our country, and there are a number of different approaches to deal with it. Regardless, I am sure you would agree it is a significant dollar amount and impact on the taxpayers.
Ms. Sabiston: Absolutely. Those figures are absolutely correct, and we have updated figures I would be happy to provide the committee.
Senator Wallace: Please do.
Ms. Latimer, you said that the demand-reduction component of the National Anti-Drug Strategy has been making great progress. Could you explain what that means? What is the demand-reduction component, and how do you come to the conclusion that you are making great progress?
Ms. Latimer: The demand-reduction components of the strategy include two of the action plans. There is the Treatment Action Plan, which is the effort to try to provide treatment for people who have substance abuse issues so that they stop using drugs. The other component is the Prevention Action Plan, which includes both the advertising campaign to alert people to the concerns and the effort to help young people and their parents make smart choices about drug use in the future as well as the community-based crime prevention initiatives.
Mr. Sansfaçon mentioned he is undertaking some of them through the National Crime Prevention Centre. There is also the Communities Initiative Fund, which is in Ms. Sabiston's shop. Both are actively taking steps to prevent and to treat. They have come up with innovative approaches that take into account cultural relevance and other areas that had not been fully addressed or explored. They take advantage of knowledge bases where things have been proven to be effective elsewhere and are applying that knowledge to Canada, hopefully with significant results. Mr. Sansfaçon can speak to that. We will find out how significant those results are when the evaluations come in. We believe there have been significant strides in moving the yardsticks forward against the objective set out by the government in the National Anti-Drug Strategy.
Senator Runciman: I am glad to hear the emphasis on trying to prevent people from becoming involved with drugs. I guess you understand that in the bill we are talking about today selling drugs to youth is a trigger to consider mandatory minimums and get some of these creeps off the street. I do not think too many Canadians will be worried if they have to be double-bunked.
I saw an American newscast a week ago I think about the rapid rise in the number of young people becoming involved with heroin. Apparently 20 years ago, the heroin sold on the streets was about 6 per cent or 7 per cent strength, and now it is 60 per cent; it is highly addictive. The pushers are offering the first or second try for free, and then the users are hooked. That is how addictive the drug is.
What is the Canadian experience? Are you seeing that occur here now? If so, how are you addressing it or preparing to address it? If it is in the United States and not here, it will be here in short order.
Ms. Latimer: You raise a very interesting point. We do monitor occurrences to see whether drug use and drug importation patterns are changing, which would suggest that the domestic consumption of drugs is changing. We have been collecting information over the summer from the government databases to assess whether drug patterns have changed.
When this initiative was put into force, the idea of having heavily addictive drugs available to young people was what concerned many parents. At that time the drug was more crystal meth, which was moving through the western part of the country. The idea of having heavily addictive drugs and ensuring that we are targeting our prevention efforts towards what is out there is part of the strategy, and we are monitoring that.
Senator Runciman: Do you have any data on rehabilitation, if that is the right word, for someone who does become addicted to heroin? I was at a conference this summer where some police officials said it is very hard to break someone away from that addiction. Do you have any information related to that? The best method here is to stop them before they become users, but do you have any detailed data on that?
Ms. Latimer: I do not.
Ms. Sabiston: We are doing some additional surveillance work because reaching youth who are hard to reach is problematic. We are launching some studies with high-risk populations to try to determine why they take up drugs and what would be effective in treating them.
We are looking at street-entrenched drug users; street-involved youth; and club, rave and bar scenes. That data is not available yet, but I am hoping we will be able to have some results by 2012.
Senator Runciman: How do you assess the success of prevention?
Ms. Sabiston: It would be part of the overall evaluation framework. At this point, we have only a summative evaluation, but we are working on a final evaluation of the total strategy. It is based on the objectives that Ms. Latimer enunciated at the outset.
Senator Runciman: Are you developing a measurement tool that will be able to indicate success in the areas of reaching these conclusions and convincing children not to use drugs?
Ms. Sabiston: It is part of the not4me campaign and in particular the ``Fast Forward'' ad. Could I invite the Director General of Health Canada, Jane Hazel, to speak about the campaign? We do have good indicators.
Senator Runciman: We have limited time. Perhaps you can send us something on that.
Ms. Sabiston: Yes.
Senator Runciman: Retention rates are another element of the legislation we are talking about with respect to drug treatment. Mr. Sansfaçon, you testified last year that the retention rates in drug treatment were very low; only 15 per cent in Toronto and Vancouver completed the program. That was taken from the testimony you gave last year on a comparable bill. Has that information changed at all?
Mr. Sansfaçon: I believe that was referring in particular to retention rates of drug court treatment programs. Those two especially were the ones the National Crime Prevention Centre had initially tested. I would not go so far as to say this is the reality for all drug treatment programs. Some people at Justice Canada might be better placed than I am to comment on the current realities of the drug treatment programs. For the two we tested, yes, this was the reality.
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis might have something to add.
Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: If you mean the retention rate, I was informed this morning that it is around 19 per cent. It has gone up slightly.
Senator Runciman: How do people qualify to get into the program? We talked about this briefly yesterday. How do you determine that they quality? What test is utilized?
Ms. Latimer: Elizabeth Hendy manages the drug court program for the Department of Justice. Perhaps she can respond to the technical aspects of the program.
The Chair: We were delighted to have all the input we can. Can she come quickly to the table, please. The bells will ring soon, and I have a long list of questioners.
Senator Runciman: My concern is whether we letting the wrong people into the program. Is it not properly structured if the rate is up to 19 per cent? Most people would not consider that a success.
Elizabeth Hendy, Director, Policy Implementation Directorate, Department of Justice Canada: Recognizing the high needs cohort we are dealing with — homeless people, limited education, very high addiction to heavy drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine — 19 per cent is looking pretty good, but yes, you are correct.
When we come into the program, obviously the defence would make an application recognizing the criminal history and drug addiction of the individual. The Crown would look at the criminal history and make an application or a recommendation to the judge. The individual then would be sent to the treatment provider and given a thorough assessment to determine whether he or she does have a drug addiction. Once all those pieces are brought together, it would go to the judge of the drug treatment court, who would make the final recommendation to let the person into the program or not, recognizing that if the person committed a violent offence, used a youth in the commission of the offence or committed a residential break and enter, those would all exclude the individual from the program. We are trying to get repeat offenders who have committed petty crimes, so to speak, to supply their drug addiction into the program.
Senator Runciman: What kind of timeline would that involve?
The Chair: That is your last question, Senator Runciman.
Ms. Hendy: Normally, depending on the severity of their addiction, individuals would be in the program for 12 to 18 months. They would graduate from the program after sustaining a minimum of three months with no drug use, which is tested and verified through random drug tests during their participation in the program.
The Chair: We could go on for hours just on that, but we have questions from Senators Baker, Raine, Boisvenu, Joyal, Chaput and Lang.
Senator Baker: It is only once they have completed the program successfully that they are relieved from responsibility for the offence; is that correct?
Mr. Saint-Denis: No. Actually, in order to get into the program, they must plead guilty, so they are not relieved from the commission of the offence.
Senator Baker: I understand that, but maybe I put it incorrectly. In other words, there is no prejudice to anyone if he or she does not complete the program. Is that what you are saying? I think this is what Senator Runciman was getting at. If you successfully get into the program, then you relieve yourself from having to serve a prison sentence but not complete the program.
Mr. Saint-Denis: You do not necessarily, but usually you are not likely to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. You may get a term of probation or a suspended sentence.
Senator Baker: If you do not complete the program?
Mr. Saint-Denis: If you do not complete the program, then essentially all bets are off.
Senator Baker: Exactly, and this is what Senator Runciman was talking about.
Mr. Saint-Denis: Then the court may impose a minimum penalty.
Senator Baker: Exactly. If you do not finish the program, you get the prison term or whatever penalty is there.
The Chair: You must finish your sentence one way or another, in other words.
Senator Baker: Senator Runciman has a habit of getting me off topic. My main question centres around two things about which I will ask your opinion. I will put the question.
One of the most successful programs for prevention of cigarette smoking was physically showing pictures of lungs in a classroom. We often see students who recount that experience, and it leads them away from smoking.
What are the ramifications of the act that we are trying to prevent? Section 19 of the Criminal Code says that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ms. Sabiston mentioned the word ``rave'' a moment ago. When you look at the activities of young people as they relate to the very popular drug ecstasy, you find that each year in all of the raves at Halloween, police forces go in and charge persons with possession and trafficking of ecstasy. The case law is filled with it. I have recited some of it in previous proceedings. One pill given to an officer is trafficking in ecstasy. Ecstasy was a Schedule III drug until this bill. The department did not tell us what all these chemical names are, but number 8 is ecstasy. It is a chemical meaning of ecstasy. It is now brought up to Schedule I.
Possession now of that drug ecstasy, that one pill, Schedule I, would mean seven years in jail, and if you pass it to someone, life imprisonment is the possible result of that action, and because it is in Schedule I, after the passage of this bill, other ramifications will follow. You will be put on condition for 10 years for various things and not be allowed to own a firearm and not be able to apply for a pardon for 17 years.
My question is very important: Should we not be having an advertising campaign and saying to young people, ``Look, here are the ramifications of this. This is the new law in Canada.'' If I were a young person considering using a pill of ecstasy, and if I knew it was a life imprisonment offence and here are the ramifications, then I would not go close to it.
Do you anticipate that now, with the passage of this bill, one thing you will be doing in advertising to youth will be saying, ``Here are the penalties?'' Do you consider that sort of thing?
Ms. Latimer: You raise some interesting points. Regarding the prevention advertising campaign and the effect of showing young people the damage that can occur to their lungs, I believe the Department of Health has done a number of tests with focus groups to decide what would have the biggest impact on young people. I have not seen their youth campaign, but I understand it does have a lot of the projection of what would happen to you physically if you were on certain types of drugs. To your first point, yes, we do look at that, and I think that will be part of the ad campaign. Jane Hazel would be in a better position to respond to that.
The second point is how we communicate the impact of changes in the law to the general public. The Department of Justice normally uses public legal education rather than advertising campaigns. We have done that with various levels of effect. I do not know whether Health Canada has considered looking at the penalty structure as part of an ad campaign, but certainly the Department of Justice has in the past looked at public legal education mechanisms to get information about certain things out there. Newfoundland has an excellent public legal education network for getting information out. Vehicles are available.
This bill has not yet been passed, so we have not done much to determine how best to communicate the implication of the bill.
Senator Baker: You are not allowing me another question, Madam Chair?
The Chair: No, I think I am not, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: I did not think you were. I thought you were just enticing me to be cut off.
The Chair: I would never entice you anywhere, Senator Baker. It would be too risky to life and limb.
Senator Raine: I am finding this very interesting, and I appreciate your being here.
I know from what I have read that many problems with crime come from low socio-economic standing. Many people are in touch with agencies early on because of this, whether for social assistance, public health, school assistance or other things. We seem to attack these problems after they have already started.
My question is directed to the people from Health Canada. How are you targeting young mothers to teach them about the nutritional and physical activity needs of their children? That does not necessarily cost a lot of money — porridge is cheaper than sugar pops. Are we looking at poor diet, too much sugar, too many soft drinks creating unruly, fidgety children who are prescribed Ritalin? You start down a slippery slope of thinking if you consider it normal to take a pill. Is there a focus in your programs to deal with early childhood prevention of future drug addiction?
Kathy Langlois, Director General, Community Programs Directorate, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada: On the question about early childhood development and early intervention, both the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada have programs on that. The Public Health Agency of Canada has the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program and the Community Action Program for Children.
The First Nations and Inuit Health Branch has programs with which I am more familiar and for which I am responsible. We have the National First Nations and Inuit Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program. We have the Aboriginal Head Start program and, for example, our Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative. Diabetes sounds like it is a disease-specific thing, but we are actually getting communities engaged in healthy eating and physical activity. With the renewal of the program, we are increasingly focusing on food security to ensure that communities are accessing nutritious foods. It is all done in a culturally relevant manner as we are trying to ensure that First Nations and Inuit are able to access their traditional sources of foods.
We are taking action and paying attention to parents' mental health so that they can be good parents to their children. All of these programs set the foundation for children and families to have healthy behaviours and to begin to change the patterns of behaviours in communities.
Senator Raine: Are these relatively new programs?
Ms. Langlois: The Aboriginal Diabetes Initiative was renewed in Budget 2010. The program has been around for about 10 years, and we have just received a five-year renewal of it. Prenatal nutrition and the Community Action Program for Children have been around for over 10 years as well.
Senator Raine: Are we seeing results from them?
Ms. Langlois: Our evaluations of the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program are showing increased rates of breastfeeding, for example, as well as activity within community kitchens where communities come together and focus on healthy, nutritious foods. Yes, we have evaluations of these programs that show results.
Senator Raine: I have been involved in trying to promote more fitness and physical education in our schools. We now have statistics that show that 6 per cent of children under the age of five are already obese, which sets them up for failure in school because they sit out. I encourage you to tackle this as much as possible.
We will never have enough money for these initiatives. We have to have some restraint in our current economy. Should we not be putting disincentives on harmful products in the same way as we did with cigarettes? A one-cent-an- ounce tax on soft drinks and sugar drinks would go a long way toward helping to fund more physical activity for children. Does that make sense? Is that something that public health can deal with, or do we need a broad strategy for that?
Ms. Sabiston: The federal government has the Healthy Living Strategy, which encourages physical activity and healthy eating. I am also the director general responsible for tobacco control. Clearly, when multiple levers of the federal government are focused on one area, it has been proven a success, so your comment is valid.
Senator Raine: I know this is off topic, but I do think it is a foundational reason that some people begin to fail and turn to crime.
The Chair: It is not that the point is not valid, it is that we are pressed for time.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much for the information you have provided us. It is very useful.
I would like to deal with an issue that I feel is crucial in tackling drug abuse among youth. Research on drug abuse indicates that drug use starts very early, even in children as young as six years old. This has long-term impacts.
The three most recent murders in Québec were committed by 14 and 15-year-old minors with substance abuse issues. One might think that a 14-year-old smoking a joint is no big deal but it can potentially lead to major problems.
These young people are treated in youth centres but will undoubtedly continue to use drugs and eventually end up in a provincial prison and then a federal penitentiary. However, the approach lacks continuity and is delivered in silos. It is almost as if the same one individual were treated as one particular person at 16 to 18 years old and then as a totally different person at 20 to 24 and 30 to 40. Millions are spent in this area. However, I think until there is continuity between youth centre, federal prison and federal penitentiary programs, it is money down the drain.
Young people between the ages of 15 and 16 for example are provided a short one to two-year period of treatment. I believe that we should extend that to five or ten years. Substance addiction is a long-term problem and cannot be fixed in the space of one or two years.
Are you developing a vision in your day-to-day work to ensure that the various stakeholders provide a continuum of care for youth from 14 right through to 40? It appears to me that the various organizations work in silos and then we wonder how a substance abuser who commits a murder fell through the cracks.
What is your view on this?
[English]
Ms. Latimer: You raise the interesting point that there is certainly a correlation between young people who have drug problems and criminality. You find more young people who have co-morbidities — mental health problems and drug problems, for example — in the youth justice correctional facilities than elsewhere.
Part of the strategy includes resources to test innovative approaches for dealing with young people who have addiction issues and who are involved in the youth justice system. We have been looking at some innovative approaches for dealing with young people.
The treatment of young people is very different from the treatment of adults. Young people have a different mindset. Many of the people who are successful through the drug treatment court have bottomed out. Young people have not bottomed out; they still think they are invincible, and you need a different strategy for dealing with their addiction issues.
You mentioned the higher-end offences, the murder offences in Quebec. We have a targeted federal sentence for the most serious offences. It is called our intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision sentence. If a young person has committed one of those serious offences and has an underlying mental health problem, there can be quite a targeted, focused plan to try to reduce the violence, which can include trying to reduce drug use, targeted for that young person. The federal government contributes roughly $100,000 per year for those high-end offenders in an effort to ensure that the violence is reduced upon their release and that some of those underlying conditions that encouraged or prompted the violence have been addressed. It is a significant issue, and we are trying to tackle it as best we can.
Senator Joyal: Welcome. I am very puzzled listening to you this morning. None of you refer to the evaluation report that was published by the Department of Justice Canada from your section, Ms. Latimer and Mr. Saint-Denis, in January 2010, and especially the money spent on the various pillars, as found at page 31. Do you have that evaluation?
The Chair: For the record, I believe Senator Joyal that you are referring to the National Anti-Drug Strategy Implementation Evaluation: Final Report, dated January 2010.
Ms. Latimer: I am familiar with it.
The Chair: I am saying this so that the record shows what we are talking about. It is from the Evaluation Division, Office of Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement at the Department of Justice Canada.
Senator Joyal: One example might answer in part the question that Senator Boisvenu raised. At page 31 are the three pillars — prevention, treatment and enforcement. Let us take treatment and the overall budget for Native people. Many witnesses have praised the fact that we have a strategy for Native people — no problem, they have been taken care of. The budget amount is $8.3 million, and money spent after three years is $500,000. That means 94 per cent of the budget has not been used in respect of Native people. Just think of the native problem Senator Boisvenu has addressed. Let us look at the Youth Justice Fund: Drug Treatment under the National Anti-Drug Strategy or at the Drug Treatment Court Funding Program, which Senator Baker and Senator Runciman referred to. We seem to put a lot of emphasis on that because it is part of the bill. Of the overall $7.5 million, only $2 million has been used. That means 73 per cent of the budget has not been used.
All the other details indicate that there is a lot of good intention on your part, which I do not question and to which everyone around this table subscribes. You have a resource program, as shown on page 41 of the report. Based on informed opinion, the Department of Justice may be under-resourced to carry out its role as the lead department for the strategy.
Regarding the coordination to which Senator Boisvenu referred, turn to page 23 of the report, which says there is a problem with gaining acceptance from stakeholders, such as the provinces and territories and community-based organizations. That is the very point you raised.
This morning I would have appreciated it if, over and above the presentation, you had told us frankly that there are problems and that those problems need to be addressed. All of you painted a very rosy picture, but your report prepared by your department does not paint such a rosy picture, given your statistics.
The report has three recommendations. Your recommendations are pretty short on the basis of the problems you have identified. Could you tell us what kind of emergency actions you have taken to be able to meet the objectives of the overall strategy of the government, which is good, while the enforcement will use 86 per cent of its spending? On the enforcement side we are okay, but for the other two pillars, we are still very far behind the objectives of the plan.
Ms. Latimer: You raise a very good point. The Department of Justice is responsible for supporting our minister, who reports to Parliament on this horizontal strategy. Certainly we have looked at the three recommendations. We have had several meetings with our partner departments in addressing those recommendations. At the last directors general meeting, it was reported that all of the recommendations that were made in this report have been acted upon. We have taken them seriously and done some mid-course corrections.
You raise a very interesting point about the elapsed resources that were not expended within the time frames of their allocation. It is always a difficult challenge for the lead department to look at that. When we ask quite specifically why certain resources were not used, there is often a good explanation. One issue we would like to consider in the future is whether, if you plan to have a horizontal initiative with a lead department, you should give the lead department some capacity to reallocate resources if they will not be expended in one department so that they can move to support the policy objective if another department is able to carry them out. Currently, that flexibility does not exist in the horizontal initiatives. You are reliant on the department that received the allocation to use it in the way it was allocated. It is a structural problem with many of these horizontal initiatives. We are certainly looking at that.
Senator Joyal: With regard to our Aboriginal people, we are so far behind in terms of what we should expect on the basis of the statement made by Mr. Sansfaçon. We know the problem is that they need to concentrate on the vulnerable population of the Aboriginal people because they represent the bulk of the inmates, in particular youth inmates.
Ms. Langlois: At page 31 there is a line for the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program under the Treatment Action Plan. That line indicates that 94 per cent of the money has been spent. That is shown on the chart. The only unspent amount is the $500,000. We have spent $7.8 million against the $8.3 million.
Senator Joyal: What kind of partnership did you develop with the provinces and with Aboriginal communities to meet that objective?
Ms. Langlois: An existing program has been in place for a number of years. The National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program, NNADAP, recently celebrated it is twenty-fifth anniversary. As of today it has 58 treatment centres in operation. There are more than 500 community-based prevention programs in the NNADAP. The National Anti- Drug Strategy has allowed us to begin a modernization process of this program to ensure that it is more effective in addressing the needs of youth and their families, specifically as they concern illicit drugs. That is the basis on which we say that we feel we have been successful not only moving in the money out the door but also in doing important modernization work.
Senator Joyal: What kind of impact studies do you do to ensure that your programs are effective in meeting their objectives? From one year to the next we have the impression that the number of Aboriginal inmates is increasing, not decreasing. The programs will have to be measured for their respective impact. The statistics we receive on the numbers of Aboriginal people in prisons are staggering.
[Translation]
Mr. Sansfaçon: I mentioned in my presentation that the implementation of all initiatives funded under the National Crime Prevention Strategy is internally evaluated.
In addition, approximately a dozen of the major initiatives funded by us also undergo much tougher impact assessment. The goal is twofold. Firstly, to determine how many and in what way the youth targeted by our interventions reduce their substance abuse. Secondly, and more importantly, how many of them end up on a proven offending trajectory. At least we can be sure that we will have rigorous data on the impact of specific promising programs.
[English]
Ms. Langlois: Regarding First Nations and Inuit programming, the National Anti-Drug Strategy is allowing us to implement a management information system, so we will begin to have that data. It is a long-term legacy program that has not had a good information system to be able to track what is happening after people have gone through the program.
However, we do have some bright spots. For example, our youth solvent abuse centres, which are newer to our system, have implemented measures. For one centre, 84 per cent of the youth who go through it are no longer sniffing solvents six month after they have been out; 25 per cent to 30 per cent are back in school and no longer involved in crime. Such statistics are available for a small number of our more modern treatment centres, and we will have that kind of data hopefully as we move forward with implementing our information systems.
Senator Joyal: It seems from the evaluation's conclusion that you still have problems with your partners at the provincial, territorial and community-based levels. Could you comment on how you tackle that challenge?
Ms. Sabiston: Of the other two grants and contributions programs at Health Canada, we completely re-engineered the one that was facing the challenges so that we could work more directly with provinces and territories in order to address systems issues across the treatment spectrum. In ramping up that program, we had to collaborate with provincial and territorial governments. They are different orders of government, so it takes much more time to implement. That being said, the monies have been re-profiled. The monies are not lost. We still have an opportunity, and we have engaged at the federal, provincial and territorial level to have serious conversations about how to work more closely together. There is a work plan to address the findings of the evaluation.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My question is along the same lines as those asked by Senator Joyal. The report published in January 2010 mentions the need to refocus programs and to bring partners, provinces, territories and community groups on side with the change of thrust. What exactly are the changes that need to be made to the programs? What is the reason for the challenges with the provinces, territories and community groups? Could you give me some tangible examples?
[English]
Ms. Sabiston: With the chair's permission, I would like Debbie Beresford-Green to come up. She is familiar with and manages these programs.
Debbie Beresford-Green, Director General, Programs Directorate, Regions and Programs Branch, Health Canada: I am responsible for the Drug Treatment Funding Program, which is specifically the program that works with provinces and territories. As Ms. Sabiston mentioned, the challenge really was that this was a new program that required considerable work with the provinces and territories on the design of the program at the beginning in order to be able to put in the right criteria and the right mechanisms to allow funding to be provided for both systems enhancements and treatment services.
At the time of the evaluation, we were still in the process of trying to reorient our approach to making sure this would happen. To make progress on that program specifically, as Ms. Sabiston said, first we re-profiled money so that we are able to align that better with the ramping up of the program. We have been working closely with each of the provinces and territories on looking at solutions specific to their situation, whether that requires providing them with more information or ideas on how to get projects up and running, or whether it requires looking at best practices for those provinces and territories that have been able to get things moving a little bit faster. Since that evaluation, we have been having those sorts of conversations quite successfully.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Am I right in saying that the main difficulty stemmed from the focus and implementation process at the provincial level?
Ms. Beresfort-Green: At the outset, it was mainly due to the difference in the way federal and provincial or territorial systems operated. The issue now however, is more one of improving initiative implementation and sharing best practices.
Senator Chaput: If individual provinces wished to implement drug prevention programs directly targeting community groups, schools and parents, would they be governed by the new focus you wish to give the strategy?
[English]
Ms. Beresford-Green: In fact, the Drug Treatment Funding Program is under the Treatment Action Plan. The Drug Strategy Community Initiatives Fund is the fund we have that refers to the prevention side of the house, and that is the program where we work directly with community groups, and they submit proposals. Often they are in partnership with a range of community groups — school groups, be First Nation groups on- and off-reserve — and they submit their project proposals through that particular program.
Senator Joyal: I have a supplementary question. I want to point out that only 33 per cent of the actual planned money of $47.5 million was proposed to be spent in relation to that program. You stated that you are convinced that you will be in a better position to reach the objective of reaching out to the provinces and territories. However, in your opinion, that figure has not moved a lot from what it was in January.
Ms. Beresford-Green: In point of fact that covers the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, so since then there has been a change. I unfortunately do not have the actual percentage with me at the moment, but there has been progress certainly since that time period.
The Chair: Could you provide that information for us, please?
Ms. Beresford-Green: Certainly.
[Translation]
Mr. Sansfaçon: I simply wanted to mention that we have also faced most of the same issues and challenges my colleagues have identified. For example, the first year of the strategy we failed to spend our initial funding allocation even though it was provided from our base budget. There was no new funding. However, we have since spent twice our initial budget. It does indeed take some time to jointly development a new approach. However, with the help of knowledge-based models and time permitting, we will get there.
[English]
Senator Lang: The bill calls for mandatory minimum sentencing, and one of the principles behind the bill is that those who would think about going into this type of criminality will bear some consequences. I want to know if there is a plan or if you are putting something together as part of your communication strategies so that people are aware of what the consequences will be for trafficking, so that the consequences are clearly brought home to them, which hopefully would help dissuade them from going into this type of business. I am sure Senator Baker would back me on this.
Senator Baker: We finally agree on a point.
Ms. Latimer: You raise a very interesting point. Senator Baker asked a question somewhat similar to that, so I apologize if I sound redundant.
Usually after a bill is passed the Department of Justice has the capacity to do public legal education, which is to get information out to communities, especially communities that might be particularly affected by the changes, to alert them to what the changes in the law are. We have not embarked on that yet, but if it gets closer to the passage of this bill, I am sure we will take a look at what our priorities are for public legal education funding, and we will certainly pursue that.
Senator Lang: I want to follow that up so that we are assured that there would be ongoing communication and that it is not just a one-time memo sent out to communities but an ongoing campaign so that young people are aware of the consequences.
Ms. Latimer: The public advertising campaign falls more into the auspices of my colleagues at Health Canada. Ms. Sabiston may want to comment.
Ms. Sabiston: The current campaign is starting at the beginning, which is awareness of the harms of illicit drug use. At the moment, that is where the campaign is focused. The new ad is about to come out, and I think people will find it impactful. In terms of this bill and the results of it, I think the next phase after it gets passed is that there needs to be discussion about that.
The Chair: I think you would find bipartisan support for that concept.
I have three quick questions. The first is just for clarification in my own mind: For the drug treatment courts, in 2007-08 and 2008-09, we had total planned spending of $7.5 million — $5.5 million spent and $2 million unspent. Is that right?
Ms. Latimer: The program director behind you is shaking her head in the negative, so I would assume that is not correct. Would you like her to provide that in writing?
The Chair: If she could clarify that in writing for me I would be appreciative, because I am a little confused by, among other things, all the initialisms in this very interesting table.
If this bill becomes law, as seems likely, even more people will be going through the criminal justice system than are now, presumably, and therefore there will be an increase in the number of people captured by the system who need treatment. Will you have enough spots for them?
Ms. Latimer: Do you mean drug treatment courts?
The Chair: Drug treatment courts or alternative diversions to community programs, which are acceptable alternatives.
Ms. Latimer: The elements of the bill were not known to us when this strategy was put into place. We have started to look at not necessarily just the drug treatment courts but the other provision that if the Attorney General approves certain programs, they can also count. The drug treatment courts are mostly in urban centres, and they have easy access to the facilities.
The Chair: Not in the East, though.
Ms. Latimer: No, not in the East.
We can look at that to see whether there are opportunities there to look at treatment programs that might be available under that particular section. We have not done that yet. We have started a preliminary conversation about it, but we need to look at that.
The Chair: This last question is on behalf of Senator Watt, who was called away. He asked if I could ask you this question. Going back to the implementation evaluation report, who sits on the Aboriginal Issues Committee, which is referred to on page iv, and what has that group been doing? You can respond to that in writing, too, since you will be writing to us.
Colleagues, we seem to have beaten the bells by about 30 seconds. I thank you all. Our next meeting will be next week at 4:15 in this room. We will hear from three panels of witnesses, so we should plan to sit until 7 p.m. or 7:15.
To the witnesses, thank you all very much. You were very helpful and instructive. We are very grateful.
(The committee adjourned.)