Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 32, Evidence - June 3, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 3, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, met this day at 3:32 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we're going to deviate a bit from our normal procedures at the outset, because the minister is tied up with a vote in the House. So, with the agreement of officials who are here, we will open the floor to questions. When the minister arrives, we'll suspend briefly until he's prepared to give his presentation.
The officials present today are Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada; Angela Connidis, Director General, Corrections, Public Safety Canada; and Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy, Planning and Operations, Parole Board of Canada. Also available if needed for additional information is Kirsten Mattison, Acting Director, Regulatory Policy, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada.
We are dealing with Bill C-12, which is the drug-free prisons bill. This is our first meeting. Welcome all, especially to the general public who are hopefully following these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Again, we are meeting today to begin our study on Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Bill C-12 would require the Parole Board of Canada to cancel parole granted to an offender who has not yet been released who tests positive for drugs or alcohol, provided the board feels the criteria for granting the parole are no longer met. The bill also clarifies the conditions on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absences with respect to the offender's use of drugs or alcohol when that use has been identified as a risk factor in the offender's criminal behaviour.
I'm going to move to questions now. The deputy chair will begin.
Senator Baker: Thank you, witnesses, for appearing. They always provide excellent testimony to this committee concerning the legislation under consideration.
My first question is for Mr. Head. This is called a drug-free prisons bill, as the chair pointed out. Could you tell the committee: How serious a problem is it? Has the presence and the finding of controlled substances in prisons been increasing or decreasing?
Also, to what do you attribute the majority of cases? In other words, how do they originate? Do they originate from lawful substances that are brought into the prison and then converted? Could you give the committee some testimony as to how these illegal drugs are either brought in or created within our prisons?
Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada: Thanks for the question, senator. Mr. Chair and other committee members, thanks for the opportunity to talk about this important issue.
Over the last number of years, the number of seizures of illegal drugs in the institutions has increased. Now, part of that is attributed to the fact that we've received an investment over the last number of years to increase our drug-detection dog teams and our security intelligence capacity in the institutions, and to buy additional technologies, such as ion scanners like you'd see at airports and other detectors. With that investment, we have seen an increase in seizures.
Prior to that investment, we were really reliant solely on the good eyes, ears and noses of staff to find those things. I continue to be impressed with my staff and the job that they do in trying to keep drugs out of the facility.
So there's always the debate as to whether seizing more drugs means that there are more inside or that we are better at detecting them. It's an ongoing debate. I will allow you and the other committee members to draw your own conclusions.
We also look at other things such as individuals who have overdosed and how many times my staff interrupt overdoses in the institution. Just to give you an example, this last year, due to the great work of staff, they intervened in 43 cases and stopped individuals who were overdosing. That includes responses by front-line correctional officers and my nurses.
In terms of how drugs get into the institution, it's really left up to the imagination of everybody.
When I first started in corrections 37 years ago, we would just have to worry about those people whom we suspected as being mules bringing them in, and catch them at the front gate. Today, we have to worry about everything from drugs being taped to the shaft of arrows and being shot from distances beyond our fences into the exercise yard, to people using such things as potato launchers to launch tennis balls with drugs inside. We've had occasions when dead birds with drugs inside their body cavities have been launched into the exercise yard. Most recently there is the phenomenon of unmanned aerial vehicles — drones — bringing packages over the perimeter fence.
Those new approaches are challenges for us, and we try to stay on top of them. You add on top of that the other ways that drugs have traditionally been brought in, such as visitors trying to smuggle them in their clothing or body cavities. In some cases, we have had individuals who have smuggled drugs in the diapers of babies that have come into the institution. We have had contractors who have been involved outside and influenced one way or another to bring drugs in when they're doing work inside a facility. They'll bring them in through their vehicles or their tool kits.
My staff is always on the lookout for anything and everything and trying to stay on top of these new, innovative ways of bringing drugs in.
Senator Baker: Just as a final comment — and I know you want to move on to the questioners. I think we have Health Canada as our next witnesses.
When this subject was brought up before this committee, it was explained to us that you could manufacture these controlled substances from a combination of precursors or substances that are perfectly legal. So hopefully we'll understand from Health Canada just what the regulations are concerning these completely legitimate things that could be brought into the prison, like baby aspirin and things like that, together with some sort of a pill to take care of your sinuses from which they could create, for example, meth. We'll leave that for the next witnesses.
In conclusion, is there much of that, do you think? Have you ever had a case where inmates have actually created a controlled substance in the prison?
Mr. Head: No. That's a good question, senator. Pretty well all of the drugs that we capture are drugs that have been combined or formed outside on the street. We do not see much of the manufacturing of drugs inside the institution. Actually, inmates are better at manufacturing brew than they are at —
Senator Baker: If they do brew, they must do drugs.
Mr. Head: They haven't got to that point yet. One of the challenges I'll mention in the last few seconds here is that for traditional drugs like marijuana, heroin and cocaine, we have various devices and techniques and dogs that can detect them.
One of our new challenges, though, is synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl, which our dogs and our ion scanners cannot detect. These synthetic drugs are going to become a huge problem not only for us but for every other correctional jurisdiction in the world.
Senator McInnis: I have another question, but to follow up on this, as I started to do research into this bill, I was surprised at how available drugs appear to be in prison. I think most Canadians would be surprised to know this. In one location there was apparently a still. I was just blown away that this could take place in a prison, and I thought there must be something more sinister. There must be some organized group outside, maybe a criminal element or something that was supplying this stuff. Is that true?
Mr. Head: Most definitely, senator. Most of the drugs we see have some kind of organized crime connection to them on the outside, and they'll use various individuals from the outside, such as visitors of other offenders, to bring it in so that they do not get caught or their gang member inside does not get caught in terms of the initial receiving of it, when it comes through the gate.
Organized crime is behind a lot of the drug activity. One of the challenges we have is the influence they have on family members of other offenders, coercing them to bring things inside.
When every new visitor signs up to visit an offender in one of our institutions, we actually give them a spiel and go through the rules, but we also show them a video about the kinds of things that can happen in terms of being influenced to bring drugs in and if that happens who to contact, either through the police or our own security intelligence staff.
Senator McInnis: Let me get on to another part of the bill. We'll have plenty of witnesses coming in, and one of the concerns is the treatment of those that misuse drugs and alcohol.
Rebecca Jesseman, the Director of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, will be here tomorrow. She said before the House of Commons Justice Committee that 48 to 52 per cent of individuals requiring substance programs in a correctional institute receive it. But when you were before the same committee, you stated that 95 per cent of those inmates that require treatment receive it.
Can you distinguish for me who is correct? Are we talking about two different things here? How can there be such a difference?
Mr. Head: There are a couple of things at play. The early numbers that you talk about are very similar to the numbers that we hear in terms of the treatments available for provincial and territorial offenders, and the number that I've quoted reflects the numbers in federal penitentiaries. Again, those numbers will vary in any given year in terms of the needs of offenders and the availability of programs.
Currently we offer two different approaches to dealing with substance abuse programming. We have what we call the offender substance abuse program. There's also a version available for women offenders and one for Aboriginal offenders, which has elder involvement and various other cultural aspects to the delivery of the program so that it resonates with Aboriginal offenders.
Most recently, we have incorporated the learnings from the substance abuse program into what we call our Integrated Correctional Program Model because the learnings in the substance abuse program model itself are applicable to some of the other programs we offer around family violence, general violence, even to some extent sexual offences.
So now all offenders that come into the system are going to be subjected to what we call the Integrated Correctional Program Model. Within the first 40 to 50 days, we'll be starting what are called program primers, which include aspects of the substance abuse programming. As they go through that whole stream of the ICPM, we'll start to understand the issues related not only to substance abuse but their links to family violence, general violence, et cetera.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much for being here today and accommodating our committee schedule.
Mr. Head, you referred in your discussion with Senator Baker to the different types of drug drops that are possible, even down to dead birds. That was quite a revelation, but I saw from your testimony before the House of Commons Justice Committee that these types of drug drops from above into an open prison yard are becoming a problem, and certainly I have seen a lot of that in news coverage in Saskatchewan.
Can you give us more detail about how you're tackling that problem, especially as you've also referred to drones becoming more accessible.
Mr. Head: Most definitely, senator. A couple of things we have done for those outside intrusions, for lack of a better phrase, is at a few of our institutions, we've actually cut back the perimeter, the woods that were butting up against the property so there's a clearer zone of vision for our staff.
We have also been testing out in a couple of places different technologies such as infrared and night vision detection so that if people were approaching the perimeter at nighttime after the mobile patrols have passed by, we can detect them coming up.
We have done some early testing on radar to try to determine whether we can pick up these drones. The drones are becoming smaller and more capable of carrying larger packages, and we've found that the radar that we had tested is not going to work.
We continue to just sort of heighten the awareness of staff to watch for these kinds of activities. We've heightened or increased the number of patrols that occur in the exercise yards before we release the offenders into the yards. Staff will do a sweep of the yards to make sure that there are no foreign objects in the yard before the offenders are allowed in.
Senator Batters: I want to move on to a topic that has been discussed a little bit here, too but I want to get more into the meat of it. What are you doing to deal with substance abuse and its terrible effects? I'm wondering if you can give us more details about the treatment programs offenders can access while in prison. Do they differ by the level of security at the facility, and are they by group treatment or individual counselling? Do they involve the offender's families? What sorts of things are involved?
Mr. Head: The traditional offender substance abuse program that we offer has actually been around for quite a number of years. We've exported the program model to various correctional jurisdictions around the world. It's been proven, through research, to have a significant impact on reducing recidivism rates of offenders. Minimally, there's a 17 per cent reduction in recidivism just generally, but we see a 65 per cent reduction in recidivism in relation to violence involved in crime.
It's a very positive program that we have.
We differentiate the program in terms, not of the security level but of the intensity level of the programming. So, depending on whether it's a moderate or high intensity program, it can be anywhere between 8 to 12 weeks long. It's usually in a group setting. A lot of emphasis is placed on cognitive thinking to help offenders to better understand how to make good choices in their lives and not bad choices.
We do not do too much work with the families per se. We will look to try to link up with community-based services when the offender is being released on day parole or full parole or statutory release, but, while they're in the institution, we do not spend too much time working with the families.
Senator White: Thanks here to all of you for being. I have been at Warkworth Institution, and I know you have a Methadone program there, for example. You have medical staff, so inmates have access to legal drugs legally, as well as, we're hearing, legal drugs illegally.
Are they tested when they're being released now, and, if so, what numbers are we talking about that would be a concern from the testing so far, without this legislation?
Mr. Head: There are a couple of things happening with the legal drugs right now. Methadone, as you pointed out, senator, is something that we have been involved in for quite a number of years.
Senator White: Yes, very successfully.
Mr. Head: One of the challenges around Methadone is that we will occasionally get offenders who will resell their Methadone after they've ingested it. There's actually a medical term, which I became aware of when I was in Saskatchewan, called "emesis," where it's vomited up and sold to other offenders. We have processes for trying to stay on top of that, monitoring offenders 20 minutes after they've taken it and that kind of thing.
In terms of just the overall testing that we do, we test 10 per cent of the population every month. We have the ability, at any given time, for staff members who suspect, on reasonable grounds, that somebody may have ingested an intoxicant or illegal substance to ask for a urinalysis test. As well, there are certain releases where the Parole Board can grant sort of an abstinence condition, and there will be regular testing at intervals when they're out in the community.
What we've seen with the testing over the last four or five years, is that the number of positive tests has decreased. We have seen a decrease in positive tests from about 7.5 per cent down to 6 per cent, so that's positive, and we've seen a decrease in the number of refusals.
If an individual refuses to provide a urine sample for testing, we treat them, for disciplinary purposes, as if that is a positive test. So we've seen a decrease in the total number of refusals as well.
Five years ago, we saw a combination of positive tests and refusals of about 20 per cent. We're down to about 13 per cent positive tests and refusals.
Senator White: I notice this legislation talks about urinalysis testing. There are other tests that are more likely to turn up drugs. Does the legislation or the regulations in place now allow you to do extensive testing beyond urinalysis — blood work or, in the case of cocaine, hair follicle testing, for example?
Mr. Head: Right now, we're pretty well limited to urinalysis. Any of the other tests, what you would call, based on your previous history, senator, the roadside tests, would just be something that would be an indicator for us, but urinalysis is our only testing vehicle at the moment.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have read the bill and I was surprised. I thought that, as part of the monitoring we do of the criminals who have problems with drug use, we were already using the measures in the bill. So, as I see it now, we have been very lax in the past. We know that 80 per cent of sexual predators have drug use problems.
So, as I read the bill, it applies strictly to those who are on parole, correct?
[English]
Mr. Head: We have the ability to test inside.
[Translation]
But also in the community.
[English]
Senator Boisvenu: But this bill is for people who are outside, isn't it?
Mr. Head: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: So, when I read that a criminal can refuse a urine test, I know that the test tells us whether a criminal has used drugs within a certain time, for example, as the use can be detected in less than a week. So, what I gather from the current situation is that, when criminals previously objected to providing a urine sample, that was not a ground for re-incarceration. Do I understand that correctly?
[English]
Mr. Head: Yes. If we request a urinalysis test of somebody who is out in the community and they refuse, we will notify the Parole Board right away. Then there will be a determination as to whether the grounds under which we arrived at our suspicion are sufficient enough to suspend the individual's release into the community. A process would then unfold that would involve further analysis and, eventually, recommendations.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: So, with the current bill, it will be quicker?
[English]
Mr. Head: The bill, to a large extent, recognizes the current process that's in place. It really codifies what we would normally do now. I think it raises the awareness of and the seriousness for individuals out in the community who may be involved in using drugs, but, to a large extent, what's in the bill is what occurs now.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: If I understand it correctly, then, this bill is about a lot of common sense.
[English]
Mr. Head: I would like to think that every bill is a matter of common sense, senator, but it does reflect the importance of the subject matter.
It reinforces the position of Correctional Service Canada. I won't speak for the Parole Board of Canada, but I think they would agree. It just emphasizes the importance of this issue, the use of drugs by offenders, both in the institutions and specifically, in the community as well.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My question is for the Parole Board of Canada. We know that two institutions release criminals in Canada. Mr. Head, after two-thirds of the sentence, it is your responsibility to release them, or after a sixth of the sentence if the crime is economic, you can release people directly from the penitentiary. The Parole Board of Canada is responsible for all other releases.
When you are dealing with people with drug use problems who have been allowed back into society, do you follow the same criteria for checking on them, or are we talking about two different systems, meaning that criminals can slip through the net? Are you working with the same criteria as Mr. Head to check whether they are taking drugs once they have left prison?
[English]
Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy, Planning and Operations, Parole Board of Canada: For the parole criteria, the legislation is quite specific. The amendment actually refers to section 102(a) and (b), talking about the Parole Board taking into consideration whether the offender will present an undue risk and whether the release of the offender would facilitate their safe reintegration into the community as a law-abiding citizen. Those criteria remain in effect.
In terms of the day parole and full parole, the board will look at all available and relevant information as part of the case file. It is specific today in full parole. Again, a statutory release, legislated release, is non-discretionary. The board could impose conditions specific to a statutory release, but the legislative criteria that we're speaking of refers to discretionary release.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: But they are two different systems. Is that what you are saying?
[English]
Ms. Brisebois: I wouldn't necessarily describe it as that. They're different types of releases. There are a number of releases within the legislation. We work with Correctional Service Canada closely. In terms of the board and CSC working quite closely together, we receive information on these offenders to the same extent. We receive and review all relevant and available information, regardless of the type of release.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: As I see it, Mr. Chair, this is the very definition of the word "complicated."
[English]
The Chair: I have a supplementary to the questions by Senator Boisvenu. Mr. Head, you talked about someone who is in the community in that if you have a reason to suspect that they're having a problem, you can go in and require urinalysis. What kind of a former offender, if you will, are you talking about? Are these folks who are in facilities supplied by third parties, like John Howard and Salvation Army? Is that the type of individual you are talking about?
Mr. Head: Or it can be somebody on the street as well. Yes, we have the ability to make an assessment and request urinalysis.
The Chair: The third parties I just referenced — John Howard, Salvation Army and others — have contracts based on the number of beds occupied; right?
Mr. Head: For the most part, yes.
The Chair: Are they required to report breaches themselves?
Mr. Head: Yes. We have a system in place for breaches to be reported.
The Chair: Is it a system or a contractual commitment? It seems to me there could be a conflict of interest there.
Mr. Head: Yes. Good clarification, Mr. Chairman. There is a requirement for them to report breaches to the supervising parole officer; and then that parole officer will assess the case and make determinations as to what steps may be required, including suspending their release.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Head, you talked about the Integrated Correctional Program Model. My understanding is that in the last two years, CSC has been using this model in the Atlantic and Pacific regions, two of five regions. I further understand that offenders admitted in those regions have started those program primers within the first 90 days of incarceration. In other words, in the first 90 days of incarceration, an offender goes through a professional assessment. My question is, what does that assessment cover?
Mr. Head: It is a good question, senator. It covers a range of things, including their social history, issues around substance abuse, issues related to their education, their employment history. It is basically everything that we would need to look at in order to develop a correctional plan to address what we call the "criminogenic" needs of the offender.
Senator McIntyre: I understand you have a variety of programs that are offered in the penitentiaries. You've listed a few of them, for example: substance abuse programs, violence prevention programs, cognitive behavioural programs, Aboriginal substance abuse programs, programs for women offenders, educational programs, and employment skills development programs.
Could you elaborate just a little bit on those programs, especially the one related to cognitive behavioural programming?
Mr. Head: The cognitive behavioural programming has been built into pretty well all our programs now. It is one of the core programs that we implemented quite a number of years ago. Based on the research, we found that addressing offenders' thinking and problem-solving skills was key to addressing their criminal behaviour. Those elements, those core pieces, are pretty well in all our programs now, what we call the cognitive behavioural thinking piece.
The other programs build on that cognitive thinking piece. Then there are the more specialized components around, for example, sex offending, family violence issues, general violence, substance abuse. Those are built on that piece, all the time reinforcing the need to look at issues, problem solve in a different way, look at alternatives to the decisions people are about to make.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Brisebois, how many decisions does the National Parole Board render every year, and how many of those decisions include that special condition of not consuming, purchasing or possessing alcohol?
Ms. Brisebois: The board conducted over 17,000 reviews last year. When we looked at the number of conditions — and again, we're looking at multiple conditions on perhaps even the same offender, so we had over 20,000 conditions imposed. Specific to the abstained condition, I don't have that figure immediately available, but we can provide that to you in writing.
Senator McIntyre: Very well.
Senator Baker: Mr. Head, I was just thinking about Charter issues here as they relate to somebody outside the prison. Somebody's reasonable expectation of privacy in a prison, of course, is very low. You can almost do anything you wish.
Here comes the minister. I will ask you the question in the meantime, but the minister will answer the question for us.
Hon. Steven Blaney, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: He's way better than I am.
Senator Baker: Mr. Head has many years of experience, minister, but you are exceptionally good in the position you are in, in the House of Commons. You've performed well for the Government of Canada since you have been in your position. Perhaps you could explain to the committee the importance of this legislation that we have before us.
Mr. Blaney: Absolutely. I thank you for this opening question.
I would first like to apologize to the members for being late. We are having a sequence of votes. We had one and we expect to have another one, but I'm pleased to have this time here. Obviously, you have the very knowledgeable people who are around me, such as Don Head, to whom you were addressing questions.
To answer your question, if I may; and also, if it is the will of the chair, I have some notes to present.
In a nutshell, we want to eradicate drugs from our prisons. We know it is a challenge. We know that all modern countries are faced with the same challenge. We have introduced measures in the past, but we want to move forward and provide incentives for inmates to abstain, and also reduce the flow of drugs within penitentiaries.
With that, if you allow me, Mr. Chair, I would deliver my opening remarks.
The Chair: Please proceed.
Mr. Blaney: I thank you for having me today.
As I was just saying, I would like to look at the problem of drugs and addiction in prison and put them into context. This is a reality. Illegal drugs are a serious issue in all facets of Canadian society, shockingly, including prison. Why? Because 75 per cent of criminals entering the corrections system have addiction problems. So Commissioner Head is faced with three out of four inmates arriving in his facility having addiction problems.
In the last year alone, more than 2,400 drug-related seizures took place in federal prisons. During the same year, 848 inmates were charged with a drug-related offence.
How do drugs get into our prisons? It is a constant challenge to combat the use of drugs in terms of both supply and demand. This may have been touched upon by my experts before I arrived.
[Translation]
On any given day, hundreds of people might pass in and out of an institution. These range from staff, administrators and volunteers to people in charge of services such as food, laundry and mail. Family members may also have direct contact with an inmate. The corrections staff does their best, but it is extremely difficult to catch everyone who brings drugs into prisons.
Smuggling results in additional security checks at the entrances to institutions, but this is an additional challenge, as more and people can try to bring drugs into prisons.
[English]
As we heard during the study of the bill in the other place, there are many creative efforts made to get drugs into federal prisons. These range from throwing a tennis ball full of drugs over the fence to sophisticated technology such as remote-control drones. There is a lot of creativity.
When people stop at nothing to get drugs into prison, it creates a dangerous environment for those on the inside.
[Translation]
Drugs lead to behavioural problems and violence. They feed criminal activity and undermine safety. And they threaten the success of rehabilitation programs. We see a series of problems resulting from the introduction of illegal substances into our facilities, since this runs counter to the objective of our penitentiary system, which is rehabilitation.
Of course, we have put measures in place. In 2008, our government allocated $122 million over five years in additional support for the fight against drug trafficking in prisons. As a result, we have seen a drop of 20 per cent in the number of individuals testing positive for drugs in their system. This is a step in the right direction, but we have to do more.
What have we done? We have made investments to expand the detector dog program, increase security intelligence capacity, enhance linkages between correctional services and law enforcement agencies, and enhance the perimeter security of the institutions.
[English]
That investment is built on a range of measures our government had already implemented to fight drugs in prison, including more random testing to detect the presence of illegal substances and a two-year mandatory minimum penalty for anyone convicted of trafficking drugs in a prison or on prison grounds.
Better detection and interdiction are only part of the solution. We have to reduce the demand for drugs through effective treatment programs. It is about ensuring that the correctional system actually corrects criminal behaviour. It is about rehabilitation.
Ninety-five per cent of inmates who have addiction issues as part of their correctional plan receive the treatment before their warrant expiry date.
I would like to thank the commissioner for making sure that inmates who need therapy get it in a timely manner.
[Translation]
The Correctional Service of Canada has also developed substance abuse programs to help offenders avoid criminal behaviour and cope with challenging and stressful situations without using drugs or alcohol. This is a three-pronged approach to drugs: prevention, treatment, enforcement. It is already making a difference in our institutions.
When offenders are granted day parole, for example, the Parole Board of Canada may impose on them a condition to abstain from drugs and/or alcohol. About five years ago, about five per cent of this category of offenders on day parole violated this abstinence condition. Last year, the rate had dropped to 2.8 per cent. There is an increase in the number of offenders who make a commitment to no longer use drugs when they leave the institution, and we have positive results.
[English]
Why do we need this drug-free prison act? We need it because this legislation builds on our government's approach to the problem of drugs in prison. On the one hand, it provides explicit legislative authorities to the Parole Board of Canada. On the other side, it increases offender accountability.
I noted earlier that we have increased random testing to detect the presence of drugs in inmates. We are taking that procedure a step further. There is often a period of time between when parole is granted and when the inmate is physically released from prison. During that time, the prisoner could be found to have used drugs on the eve of his or her release date.
[Translation]
The proposed amendments in this bill would encourage offenders to take more responsibility for their actions. Why? Because the Parole Board of Canada will have the explicit authority to cancel the offenders' parole if they had contact with illegal substances when detained. More specifically, through Bill C-12, the Correctional Service of Canada would be obliged to inform the Parole Board of Canada that an offender eligible for parole had taken any illegal substances.
The board would be informed that an offender who had been granted parole had failed, or refused, a urine test, prior to release from an institution.
With this bill, the Parole Board could then reconsider its decision. If, based on this new information, it is determined that the offender's release would now present an undue risk to the community, the board could cancel the offender's parole.
[English]
Knowing that drug use could jeopardize their release is a tremendous incentive for prisoners to steer clear of drug use. That's the benefit of this bill: to enable inmates to behave in such a way that they can access more easily their conditional release.
The bill would also entrench the Parole Board's ability to impose a special condition on a conditional release relating to drug or alcohol use. After studying the prisoner's history and factors that lead to criminal behaviour, the Parole Board could impose a special condition specifying that the offender must avoid the use of drugs or alcohol. If the condition is breached, the Parole Board may impose consequences on the offender, such as revoking the conditional release.
[Translation]
The idea is to help prevent offenders from falling into the bad habits that led to their incarceration in the first place. Remember that, in 75 per cent of cases, there was a problem with drug use. In this way, we can increase the odds for successful reintegration into the community. That, of course, is what we all want.
Mr. Chair, the measures before us today would create meaningful incentives for offenders to stay clean, both in the final days of their incarceration and after their conditional release. In this way, we can promote a successful reintegration into the community and help to make our streets and communities safer for everyone.
[English]
The more drugs we take out of our communities, the safer they all will become.
I have to mention here on a more political note that we don't agree with the opposition position, the New Democratic Party, which called for needle exchanges to be put into prisons. Our goal is to have our prisons free of drugs, not to encourage addictions. That is not helpful in rehabilitation and is not contributing to make our streets safer.
There is also a safety consideration. We support the prison guard union as to whether or not it is good idea to give sharp metal objects to violent criminals. We feel there's an increased risk in doing so.
Of course, we don't feel that the use of drugs is a benefit to society. We know that Mr. Trudeau is in favour of the legalization of marijuana. We disagree. We believe that Canadians deserve better. These drugs are illegal because of the harmful effects they have on users and society, especially on young Canadians. That's why we are moving in the direction of removing drugs from our facilities.
With those remarks, I would be more than happy to get back to the conversation you had before I arrived and answer your questions, with the support of people from both the department and the correctional service.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, as I should have said at the beginning of my speech, hello again.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will begin with our deputy chair, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chairman, the last time the minister was here, he will remember that he said it will be perhaps the last time he will be appearing before this committee. Are we to expect you to appear again, minister, before Parliament adjourns? Perhaps?
Mr. Blaney: I appreciate that.
Senator Baker: I can well understand why this bill is being introduced. You used the figure of 3,400 drug seizures in our federal prisons.
Mr. Blaney: Yes.
Senator Baker: That is absolutely remarkable. You mentioned that one of the political parties, or perhaps both of them in the House of Commons, objected to certain provisions in the bill or you not including things. I notice that one of them is that if you refuse to give the urine sample, then you would be convicted of the offence. I can't understand the opposition and the point being made about that because, as Mr. Head pointed out prior to you coming, this mirrors the provisions of the Criminal Code now at road side. If you refuse a sample of your breath or your blood, 254.5 of the Criminal Code, you are convicted of the offence. I can't see anybody's criticism of that proposed section of the bill. I congratulate you for the bill. I don't have any questions for you, but if you wish to make a comment on any of those my comments, go ahead. I think you have done a great job, minister.
Mr. Blaney: Thank you, Senator Baker. I would say today that we are on the same team. We have the same goal.
I want to share some data about the urinalysis. There were 16,500 tests of inmates, which is almost like —
Senator Baker: Over a period of?
Mr. Blaney: One year. There's actually more tests than there are inmates. Of this number, 1,000 tested positive, and another 1,100 refused. We got to the number 2,300, which somehow is big, but that says that it is about 13 per cent of the inmate population who has tested positive.
Senator Baker: Was that 13 per cent?
Mr. Blaney: Yes. That's still very high. That's why we need to have additional measures.
Senator McInnis: Given the deputy chair's comments, I'm almost ready to move that we adjourn.
Minister, this is a good bill. There's no question about it. However, there are those who will appear before us that believe that we're focused too much or almost solely on the reduction by bringing in sniffer dogs, perimeter security and random urinalysis. They will say that we ignore the mental illness part of this associated with substance abuse and that the programming is not there and, if it is there, it is not well funded. What do you say to that?
You appear to be going at it in a two-pronged approach. You appear to be implementing the programming from what we're hearing and from what we heard prior to your arrival. You are moving with respect to reduction to the extent possible. It is an awful challenge. What do you say to these people? Who is correct here when people say that the programs are simply not there and we're not dealing with the abuse in prison to the extent that we should.
Mr. Blaney: I thank you for your comment. I would say up front that drug addiction is an aggravating mental health issue. As we are seeking to deal with the mental health issue in penitentiaries, although we feel those who have mental health issues should be dealt with in the appropriate medical facility, the reduction of the presence of drugs in prisons is certainly a factor that is helping those with mental health issues.
In terms of investment, and Commissioner Head can go further at length, roughly $10 million have been invested in our penitentiaries for drug abuse programs. It is part of a broader envelope of $100 million in terms of therapy that is offered to inmates.
I want to reassure you, as I indicated in my presentation, that 95 per cent of inmates who have been identified with the presence of drugs are being provided with therapy. This is based on a range of internationally accredited substance abuse programs for offenders whose dependence on substances is related to their criminal behaviour. The program is working successfully. The national substance abuse program has given great results. When compared to people who have not taken it, they are 4.5 times more likely to be granted conditional release and up to 63 per cent less likely to return with a new violent offence. We have seen the relationship between drug addiction and how it leads to criminal activity to basically buy drug substances.
I agree with you. We have to reduce the presence of drugs, but for those who have drug addiction-related issues, we have those programs in place.
Senator McInnis: I'm trying to imagine the atmosphere in a prison with respect to safety — safety of the correctional officers and safety of the inmates who want to turn their lives around and get out of prison and get a meaningful job. What is the atmosphere like? That's the import of what you are trying to do here to eliminate the drugs. What is it like? What is the challenge here?
Mr. Blaney: This is an excellent question for Commissioner Head.
Mr. Head: One of the things that I can say quite confidently about my staff is that they are professionals looking to do two things: change the lives of offenders and protect Canadians. They come to work every day looking to make sure that we stop drugs from coming in, and at the same time looking for ways to help offenders to turn their lives around.
I have some of the most committed staff involved in the delivery of programs. My correctional officers are there to support them from a security perspective but also to support the offenders with the learning that they gain in the classrooms with the program delivery officers and the teachers. There's no question that there are some places with some individuals at some times that are more challenging than others, but it is that two-pronged approach that the minister talked about and that you have recognized that keeps the peace in the institution. Stopping the drugs from coming in and addressing the needs of the offenders gives us the balance that is needed in the environment in the correctional institutions.
Senator White: Will this measure include those who are identified for statutory release as well? Is there no venue or opportunity for us to stop their release; not just parole, but statutory release?
Mr. Blaney: I will turn this one over to my expert here.
Angela Connidis, Director General, Corrections, Public Safety Canada: Statutory release is statutory release, but if an offender presents significant risk, then Correctional Service Canada can identify that and ask for a detention hearing where the Parole Board will then assess the risk of the offender and decide whether to detain him till the end of the sentence.
Mr. Head: I will just add to that, senator, that 80 per cent of the offenders that go out on statutory release have an abstinence clause for alcohol and/or drugs. That is based on their history. With the abstinence clause, if we suspect on reasonable grounds that drugs or alcohol might be involved, we have the ability to request a urine sample from them. If they happen to be involved in a program where that's a requirement, we can get that sample, as well.
Almost all our statutory release offenders have this as a condition of their release. Our staff, then, will monitor that. If there are breaches, we go through the process that we normally do with the Parole Board.
Senator White: Thank you, commissioner, but my understanding is that, when you're identified for statutory release, you typically know a long time before it happens. I'm told that if you're identified for statutory release, the time frame is 30 days or 60 days. If we test them and find them to have a positive test before they leave the facility, this legislation would not impact them, would it?
Mr. Head: Not the way this bill is written, no.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to go back to the 2012 report. There was a report that indicated some improvements in the whole problem of addiction in prisons. I said earlier, when you were not here, that 80 per cent of criminals who are convicted for crimes of a sexual nature, such as sexual assault, rape, pedophilia — mostly sexual assault, let me leave the pedophiles aside — have substance abuse problems. Certainly, managing drug addiction starts within the walls and continues outside them.
Mr. Blaney: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: When I look at the budget for combatting substance abuse — there are all kinds of other programs in prison, like spirituality and macramé — I see that only 2 per cent is going to substance abuse treatment programs, even though 80 per cent of the people committing crimes of a sexual nature have substance abuse problems. I find that our system is not very solid.
Earlier, I asked whether the correction system deals with people refusing alcohol tests in the same way as the parole board. We still have two systems that are not working in the same way.
Mr. Minister, do you agree that there is a lot of common sense in this bill and that it represents the minimum that we have to achieve? Especially since we know that people getting out of prison are still suffering from drug addiction and that the risk is great that they will be going back. It is like a revolving door, as Yves Thériault says in his book on prisons in Quebec.
Could this bill not have gone further in monitoring drug addiction, both inside and outside the walls? It seems to me that the basic problem underlying a lot of crime is drug addiction.
Mr. Blaney: I would point to the efforts that we have made since 2008: we have invested $122 million and we have seen a reduction of positive tests in our penitentiaries to 20 per cent. That means that 20 per cent of the inmates have not had a positive drug test.
We were talking about mental health issues; you mentioned the behavioural issues of sexual predators. Each dollar invested in the fight against drug use slows the growth of other problems associated with it. However, I do want to go back to one statistic: the Correctional Service devotes from 2 per cent to 5 per cent of their total operating budget to the main correctional programs, specifically for drug addiction.
Earlier, I mentioned $10 million but the total envelope is approximately $100 million. That is still a considerable portion spent on drug addiction issues. Each dollar invested in the fight against drug addiction gives favourable results, results that also enhance the reputation of Correctional Services. I will certainly take note of your comments that we can increase educational efforts through prevention programs. We know that inmates have access to the programs, but we must reduce the availability of drugs. That is our objective today. We have looked at what is being done elsewhere, and all Western countries are tackling similar drug addiction problems. So we want to keep a defined position in this area.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for being here with us, Mr. Blaney. Your bill proposes two amendments designed to provide additional legislative tools to the Parole Board of Canada.
I also understand that those legislative tools are in addition to other major legislative measures that have already been taken by your department in order to make offenders more accountable. Could you be more specific about those measures?
Mr. Blaney: Yes, and thank you for your question, senator. The bill is very simple. It will allow us to increase the number of random tests on inmates. It will allow us to test all the inmates in our institutions for drugs in the same year. In addition, it gives us a tool with which to tackle inmate behaviour, to give them encouragement, to allow them to gain control of their drug use problems and to give them a sense of responsibility in anticipation of the day when they will leave the institutions.
I must thank you for the support you are showing for this bill, because it will make inmates more responsible. The message of this bill is that those who test positive for drugs will stay in jail. That is a powerful message, because we are now giving the Parole Board of Canada the authority to suspend parole if drugs or illicit substances have been identified in urine tests.
That is a powerful incentive and I think that, with it, we will continue to reduce the availability of drugs by tackling the demand. We have seen it with the measures we have put in place since 2008. I have had the opportunity to visit institutions in Ontario that use detector dogs that are able to detect very small quantities of drugs. I have seen the equipment that has been installed in order to detect people who might try to bring in illicit substances in their body cavities.
People seem to be creative with all those methods, and they use every means possible. But the Correctional Service had the resources they needed to deal with the threat. As Senator Baker said earlier, there are still too many illicit drug seizures in our institutions. That is why we must continue to make an effort in that regard.
One never knows, I may be back to put proposals for other measures before you.
[English]
Senator Batters: Welcome back, minister. I have a couple of short questions for you.
First of all, will the amendments in this bill apply to offenders already sentenced before this measure comes into force and, if so, why is that important?
Mr. Blaney: I will just check.
Ms. Connidis: Yes, it does.
Senator Batters: And why is that an important part of that happening?
Mr. Blaney: We want to send a strong signal that we are moving forward to reduce the demand and offer of drugs. The broader we can go the better, as long as we respect the rights of inmates, is the reason we moved in that direction.
Senator Batters: What kinds of drugs are you seeing as a result of drug testing in prisons, and are there any new trends in terms of substances coming in?
Mr. Blaney: That is a good question, senator. I will turn to Commissioner Head to answer this excellent question.
Mr. Head: Thank you, minister. Thank you, senator. We see the traditional drugs, as I mentioned earlier — THC, marijuana, cocaine, heroin. Amphetamines are an issue and a concern. As I mentioned earlier, the newest or latest concern is the synthetic drugs, which are, at this point in time, almost impossible for us to detect with the current technology, things such as fentanyl. We just recently had a series of overdoses out West. We are working very closely with the police services there to try to determine the source of that drug so that it can be stopped because not only is it posing a risk in our institutions, it is posing a significant risk in the community for youth.
Senator Batters: I think one of your officials alluded earlier to the link between drugs in prison and organized crime — gangs, maybe. Could you please tell us a little bit more about that link and why a measure like this is a good measure to try to destroy that link as much as we can?
Mr. Blaney: First, the trade of drugs is illegal in this country, so, as soon as you talk about it, you get into organized crime. This is the type of behaviour you want to correct in a penitentiary.
So, from A to Z, the presence of drugs is going against the goal of our system, which is rehabilitation. Maybe Commissioner Head would like to go further on that.
Mr. Head: No, I think that, just as the minister is suggesting and as I pointed out earlier, from our perspective, all the drug trade has links back to organized crime, and any measures to combat drugs coming into prisons are efforts to combat organized crime's involvement in drug distribution.
The Chair: I have a couple of quick questions for Mr. Head. This bill is going to require you to inform the Parole Board if an individual has been granted parole but, prior to release, fails or refuses a drug test. Will anyone granted parole have to go through that process? How will that work?
Mr. Head: What will happen is that there will not be automatic testing of offenders before they've been released if they've been granted a release. If they subsequently come up positive in a random test before they go out, we will notify the board. We will also notify the board, and they would have been notified, of any other random test results prior to the grant of day parole or full parole release.
The Chair: So they would have been aware of that prior to granting parole? Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Head: If there were a test and the results of that test, whether positive, negative or a refusal.
The Chair: You talked earlier, in a question before the minister arrived, about individuals in the community and said that you have the ability, if there's a suspicion, to require a urinalysis. If an individual in a community setting, on parole, fails the test or refuses the test, you're not, under this act, under any obligation to inform the Parole Board, I gather. That isn't covered. I'm just wondering what your practice is in those instances.
Mr. Head: Until now, senator, there's been the professional judgment that the parole officers could exercise. Going forward, it's clear that the intent of this bill is to make sure that the Parole Board is made aware of those results, and that's what we will be implementing in terms of our procedures.
The Chair: Good to hear.
Thank you, minister. We know you have to get back to the House. I understand officials at the table can remain and will be joined by other officials to continue our conversation.
Mr. Blaney: Thank you very much for your flexibility during my in-and-out appearance, if I can put it that way. I wish you well, and I know I leave you in very good hands. Please feel free to ask about all of the details, and any recommendations will be considered. Thank you.
The Chair: I'm sure we'll see you again soon.
Officials at the table are joined now by Kirsten Mattison, Acting Director, Regulatory Policy, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada; and Michel Laprade, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Correctional Service Canada. Welcome.
We will go back to questions, beginning again with the deputy chair, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Thank you and I welcome the new witnesses from Health Canada. I must say you do a great job for Canada in the position you're in. I know from looking at case law and so on that you're very active in your field.
So that you understand the question that concerns me, we had testimony before this committee a couple of years ago from the union representing the prison guards. Following that, we had testimony from someone else who spoke about the same thing; namely, the use of precursors in the making of drugs. Am I correct, first of all, in saying that the controlled substances in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are those in schedules 1 to 5?
Kirsten Mattison, Acting Director, Regulatory Policy, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada: Yes, that's correct.
Senator Baker: And those drugs in Schedule 6 are actually made up of precursors?
Ms. Mattison: Yes, that's correct.
Senator Baker: And then you have your regulations concerning the use of precursors.
Ms. Mattison: Yes.
Senator Baker: And those precursors would be found in everyday household items that you might find in a refrigerator, in the closet where you're cleaning compounds are or in the cake you're baking or the icing. Am I correct in that some of those precursors that are unlawful to have in certain other legal amounts are found in perfectly normal household things?
Ms. Mattison: Right. There was a little point of clarification about being legal to possess. So the possession of precursors is separated from the production, sale, import or export of precursors. The act doesn't prohibit what we would call simple possession of precursors.
Senator Baker: No.
Ms. Mattison: The prohibition of possession of precursors is linked to intent — intent to export, intent to produce a controlled substance or anything. Whether or not it's on that Schedule 6 list, it's prohibited to possess that for the purpose of making, specifically, methamphetamine or ecstasy, which is called MDMA.
Senator Baker: In all regulations when you look at them, there's an exception.
Ms. Mattison: Right.
Senator Baker: There is an exception section. What is your section called that would include the exceptions? What section would that be?
Ms. Mattison: So section 5 offers some general exceptions, but those don't apply to possession.
Senator Baker: That's okay. So those are the section 5 substances. Would there be in that, then, a percentage that would be legal to have as a precursor to the substance you have, what you sell, whatever? Is that correct?
As I understand it, that's where the accusation is made that normal, legal things you can buy off the shelf are the substances that are referred to as precursors in the regulations — not as controlled substances because that's in the other sections. Regardless, precursors are used with other things. For example, the committee was told that baby aspirin was used to make methamphetamine.
Can you explain to the committee how in section 5 you protect Canadians against that eventuality of using the exceptions, and does section 5 exempt the substance from all of the other sections of the regulations — yes or no?
Ms. Mattison: I apologize. I'll back up for a minute, because it sounds like you're also referring to mixtures. Those are in sections 3 and 4. There are some listings of some very particular types of mixtures —
Senator Baker: Sections 3 and 4 of the regulations, yes.
Ms. Mattison: — that Health Canada assessed. For example, one of the precursors is used in flavourings, in scents, in food and cosmetic products. So there is a specific list comprising those mixtures that are allowed for sale and distribution in Canada. That's from a scientific assessment that determined that, in that quantity and mixture, not only do they present a low risk in and of themselves but they're difficult to extract. It's chemically difficult to do anything with those.
So the listings of the mixtures have been each individually assessed as being difficult to use for an illicit —
Senator Baker: In grams, say.
Ms. Mattison: Right. And it depends on the specific line item as to how it's worded.
Getting back to section 5, which is the more general exemption that you're particularly concerned with. That section exempts sale and provision, and it's linked to the way the schedule for the regulation is set out — so as long as the sale is not in a uniquely chemical company, as long as the sale is at retail, and as long as it respects the maximum limits that are set out in the schedule.
Again, if we go back to the possession that wasn't allowed, that exemption is for retail sales. So this is to allow, for example, your hardware store or pharmacy to sell some common reagents that couldn't ever be diverted to a large-scale illicit production facility. That does not exempt anyone from those general prohibitions: the prohibition of possession for the purpose of making a controlled substance or the prohibition for the purpose of making methamphetamines or making ecstasy. You can't possess anything in any quantity.
Senator Baker: Section 5 excludes you from everything else in the regulations, if it's in those amounts.
Ms. Mattison: It does.
Senator Baker: Is there a response from the legal expert?
Michel Laprade, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Correctional Service Canada: I will defer to Health Canada on that aspect.
Senator Baker: Excellent.
Ms. Mattison: But you're not allowed to possess those.
Senator Baker: Yes.
Senator McInnis: I want to come back to the other part of the discussion we had previously. I've read — I forget the percentage — but upwards of 80 per cent of individuals who are incarcerated have had substance abuse of one form or another. I've also read that a great number of those individuals have made some very bad choices, of course, but they have skill sets that may be able to be developed, or perhaps they've abandoned them because of the reliance on drugs and alcohol.
The correctional officers are the front-line people; they are the individuals dealing with these inmates. How are they trained to actually discuss, in many instances one-on-one, with the inmate where they want to go?
I realize they're challenged by the number of people who are in prison, but I think this is an invaluable way to try to help. Are they properly trained in social work and counselling and that type of thing?
Mr. Head: That's a good question, senator. Those kinds of engagements are actually with the institutional parole officers, who receive extensive training in terms of counselling and motivational interviews. They're the ones that will define the correctional plan for the offender and monitor their progress in terms of involvement in programs, education, employment skills and development. They will talk to the front-line correctional officers and other staff members the offender may interact with and do the ongoing assessments. Then when they go out into the community parole officers would supervise them.
Our institutional parole officers receive ongoing training in relation to their skills for engaging offenders. The parole officers have to go through mandatory parole officer induction training which includes some of these skill developments. Then every year there is what we call the parole officer continuous development training, so refresher training every year where they're brought up to speed on new techniques for engaging offenders or new ways of assessing their needs or progress. There is initial and ongoing training for the parole officers.
Senator McInnis: What is the success rate?
Mr. Head: The success rate is reflected in how the offenders move through the system.
Senator McInnis: Or come back in.
Mr. Head: Or come back in. At the end of the day we still enjoy relatively good recidivism rates as compared to the vast majority of correctional services around the world. During the period of supervision, when they're in the community, less than 3 to 4 per cent come back inside. Two years after their warrant expiry, less than 10 per cent — 9.6, 9.7 per cent — recidivate and come back to federal custody, and after five years it is about 18 to 19 per cent who come back.
Those who come back have long histories of problems. What we know is that unless there's the right supports and services with program continuation beyond the expiration of their warrant of committal, they may fall into trouble.
Those rates of recidivism are some of the best in the world. Other jurisdictions continue to come to us to see how we engage offenders, program them and provide them with the supports they need.
Senator McInnis: You're relatively pleased.
Mr. Head: Yes.
Senator McInnis: You will never be satisfied.
Mr. Head: No, exactly. There's always room for improvement. My staff continues to look at new opportunities, new research, working with the public safety research group, looking at the new trends to continue to reduce those numbers.
Ideally we strive for drug-free prisons; we also strive for zero recidivism. Is it possible? Maybe. Is it going to be achieved in the next couple of years? Absolutely not. We're not going to give up. We will continue to strive for perfection.
Senator McIntyre: In dealing with offenders in public safety, I understand there are two approaches: The first approach is taken by the National Parole Board and the second is taken by Correctional Service Canada. The approach taken by the National Parole Board is the risk assessment approach; am I correct in saying that?
Ms. Brisebois: Yes, you are. But we work very closely together. The board is an independent administrative tribunal so we're responsible for initial release decisions.
Senator McIntyre: You are an independent tribunal.
Ms. Brisebois: That's right. We are responsible for conditional release decisions, whereas Correctional Service Canada is responsible for the management of the offender throughout their sentence in terms of the programs, incarceration and supervision. We're two organizations that work for the same mandate.
Senator McIntyre: The approach taken by CSC is the risk-based supervision approach when an inmate is released into the community. My question is this: Would you say it is a combination of those two approaches that provides public safety results?
Mr. Head: Most definitely, senator. Our assessments are based on the same research that the Parole Board uses in terms of their decision-making. We look at and assess the risk of the offender.
The combination of the work that we do in developing their plans, having them participate in interventions, programs, education, et cetera, leads to the recommendations that we then present in front of the board. The board uses their risk-based, decision-making tools and processes to assess the progress of the offender and the likelihood of the offender going out and not posing a risk to the community.
The combination of the work we do and the decision-making, are very much married together. Just as a quick example, some of my staff attended the recent meeting of parole board members in Moncton, I think it was, and again just going over the advancements in approaches and understanding around the risk-based tools that are used for assessing offenders and making decisions in relation to their release.
Senator McIntyre: I understand CSC offers intensity levels in their programs; you touched upon that a while ago. Could you elaborate on the high-intensity level program as opposed to the moderate intensity-level program, and also on the community maintenance program?
Mr. Head: The difference between a moderate-intensity program and a risk-intensity program is a couple things. First it relates to the number of sessions they participate in.
Senator McIntyre: How many weeks?
Mr. Head: A moderate-intensity program, normally about 8 to 10 weeks. A high-intensity program can be 12 to 16 weeks, depending on the nature of the program. As well, there is the follow-up engagement that occurs in between the sessions with the program delivery officers and the program officers.
The maintenance programs are specifically targeted to individuals who are just about to go into the community to build and support the learning the offender has gained while they were in the institutional programs.
Senator Batters: Ms. Mattison, I am concerned about the link between mental health and substance addiction. Of course, on many occasions, people suffering with mental health issues are self-medicating with alcohol and drugs. What's your evaluation of how those two things are linked and how that is addressed in prison treatment programs?
Ms. Mattison: I'm sorry, but that is really outside of my area of expertise, which is the regulatory framework under our act.
Senator Batters: Mr. Head, can you respond?
Mr. Head: I can address that. There is no question that many of the individuals we have with mental health problems have multiple problems, including substance abuse. There are various things we have to address.
Those who do not have the more severe, acute mental health problems, we will look to have them participate in our normal mainstream substance abuse programs. For those with other acute problems, the substance abuse piece becomes part of their mental health treatment, but it isn't necessarily the primary issue that gets addressed.
As you have noted, senator, most offenders with mental health problems come to us with lifelong multiple problems and we have to prioritize what ones we're going to deal with during the short period we have them.
Senator Batters: Mr. Head, the John Howard Society previously raised that some offenders might not be able medically to provide a urinalysis — for example, renal failure and prostate problems — is there any way to address that issue?
Mr. Head: Yes. Those cases are few and far between. We have different approaches. For example, it is not necessarily easy for an individual to produce a sample right away. We have processes built in in terms of a time frame and having them intake fluids to move that process along.
In cases where there are significant medical conditions, those are taken into account and known well in advance. We will look at other ways of assessing whether an individual may or may not have concerns, mostly through observation.
The Chair: This is based on watching television movies, but do you have any problems with fake tests, people selling their urine, for example, and using it for testing purposes?
Mr. Head: In the early days, we did. That led to us putting in place some very strict procedures in terms of the rooms, who is collecting it, the amount of time that they had and searching people before they go into the room.
Sometimes some of the things you see in the movies are correct. Most of the time they're not. In the early days, that was one of our problems. It is not one we have encountered over the last decade plus.
Senator Baker: Just so I'm clear, Ms. Mattison, what we have in place are regulations that control these precursors you find in everyday use. The possession of those precursors, unless it is in such a small quantity, would be illegal, and it wouldn't be for sale for retail purposes if it didn't meet the requirements in the exemption section which you say is section 5. If it didn't meet the required amounts or less than that, it would become illegal to retail or sell.
One thing confused me. You said there's a mixture below a certain amount, and then you keep saying it is illegal to possess it. Do you mean to tell me it is illegal to possess the mixture that's in the grocery store?
Ms. Mattison: Only if you possess it for the intent of producing a controlled substance or producing methamphetamine or ecstasy or for export.
Senator Baker: What you have said is the Government of Canada has laid down firm restrictions on the amount in mixtures that are, as I understand it, more strict than in the United States. I'm not talking about state levels. I'm talking about the federal level. Unless you have what you are processing or selling down to that number, then it is illegal, but if you do have it down to that very tiny number, then you come within the exceptions to the regulations, section 5.
Ms. Mattison: Right, senator. The Precursor Control Regulations are very long.
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Mattison: What that allows for is if, for a legitimate purpose, someone requires any of those substances to possess, sell, produce or manufacture, they can apply to Health Canada for a licence.
Senator Baker: That is if they're not in the exception.
Ms. Mattison: Exactly. The exception puts people outside of the control of the Health Canada system.
Senator Baker: The entire regulation.
Ms. Mattison: Beyond that there's a licencing and permitting system.
Senator Baker: It puts them outside of the regulations. If the product comes within that reduced amount in the mixture and the quantity that you have there, it is really illegal for people to be selling it beyond those restrictions in section 5.
Ms. Mattison: To be selling or distributing it, yes.
Senator Baker: Yes. It excludes you from all of the regulations. Now we know we have this under strict control. There are a lot of illegal things going on, Mr. Chairman, but the Government of Canada has it in their regulations.
You and your department do a great job, Ms. Mattison, and we congratulate you.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for being here and contributing to our deliberations. We appreciate it.
Before I introduce our next witness, I just want to make members aware that I would like to have a brief in camera session following hearing from our final witness to discuss next week's schedule. There are some complications there. If you can remain, it would be very much appreciated.
Our next witness is Catherine Latimer, who is the Executive Director of the John Howard Society of Canada. Ms. Latimer, you have, as you know, five minutes for an opening statement. If you have one, please proceed.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: It's good to be with you again. As you know, John Howard Society is a charity committed to effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. There are more than 60 John Howard offices in communities across this country offering services that promote community safety.
Many of our clients are battling addictions and mental health, and often both. We agree that substance abuse is a difficult problem and look forward to working with others on this particular challenge. We have a five-point plan where we have identified some priorities for making improvements to corrections, and certainly drug issues is on that plan.
Bill C-12, as you know, purports to contribute to the elimination of drugs in federal prisons by requiring the Parole Board to consider revoking a conditional release that may have been granted if a person tests positive for drugs or refuses or is unable to provide a urine sample for testing prior to actual release. The drug user is eligible for possible parole revocation.
My brief opening remarks will deal with two elements. One is the bill per se and the other is strategies for addressing the complex substance abuse issues we find in prisons.
Bill C-12 is consistent with existing parole authorities. I think most people who are familiar with the legislation would say that there is nothing in Bill C-12 that couldn't be done now under existing authorities.
When I was presenting on Bill C-12 at the House of Commons, I was seated with one of the union representatives, and he indicated that there may be some really serious problems in operationalizing this because the window is very tight and oftentimes the results of urine tests take three weeks. It can be shorter than that. At that point, the people who would have been eligible for parole would already be on the street. It would be an after-the-fact type of thing.
Bill C-12 may also pose a risk to public safety if it results in more prisoners battling addictions remaining in prisons until the end of their sentences without the benefit of supervision and support in the community as part of a graduated release plan.
Bill C-12 considers an inability to provide urine as equivalent to a positive result. As Senator Batters mentioned, we have some concerns. There are medical conditions which actually preclude the ability to be able to provide a urine sample in a timely manner, if at all.
We would also point out that there are drug strategies that are actually effective in reducing drug use in prisons, and we don't think this bill will actually deliver drug-free problems. With federal prisons becoming more crowded, with fewer work and rehabilitative programs, we suspect the demand for drugs behind bars is actually increasing.
The approach to drugs in Canadian federal prisons has really focused on supply reduction through interdiction and penalties. All new money that was directed to CSC through the national antidrug strategy was for interdiction — sniffer dogs and enhanced security, et cetera. Any effective drug strategy, including those in prisons, needs demand reductions components as well as supply reductions. That includes prevention and treatment as well as harm reduction.
We know from a recent correctional investigator's report that resources available for substance abuse programs are actually declining in CSC. They have introduced these integrated programs that target a myriad of problems, including drug addiction, but they haven't really been evaluated. We don't know if they will be as successful as the programs that have been evaluated. That raises some concerns.
We do know that there are some programs that work very well. B.C. correctional services and John Howard Society in Nanaimo are seeing remarkable success in their program at Guthrie House, which is a therapeutic community for people with addictions as they're leaving prisons.
While we applaud the goal of drug-free prisons, we recognize that this is unlikely to be achieved by this bill, despite its ambitious name. The John Howard Society believes that there are more effective ways of keeping our communities safe and reducing substance abuse than by doubling down on supply reduction within our prisons.
The Supreme Court and the medical profession see addiction as a disease, and we need to ensure access to treatment for all Canadians, including those who are behind bars. Most of those in prisons will be returning to communities. It will not promote community safety to keep addicts behind bars for as long as possible and release them back into the communities without treatment and support, and perhaps suffering from hep C and other diseases contracted in prisons.
The John Howard Society urges a more comprehensive strategy for addressing drugs in prisons and promoting community safety. We note that, for example, the United Kingdom's Centre for Social Justice has just recently released a report, in March 2015, which looks at a more comprehensive approach to drugs in prisons. We would encourage that. Thank you very much.
Senator Baker: Thank you to the witness, who has consistently provided the committee over the years with the necessary testimony to balance our consideration of legislation, and I want to put on the record our thanks for that.
As far as demanding urine samples, it is not unusual, as a condition of release, that a person can be, upon leaving prison, with their judicial interim release or conditions that are placed on them, to be interrupted any time day or night. Mr. Head mentioned where there were reasonable grounds, and the chair mentioned where there was a suspicion, but to my recollection, you don't even need that. As a condition of release, you could be subjected at any time day or night to a urinalysis. I see you are nodding your head, so you agree that that is the case. There is nothing unusual about this.
The point you make, though, concerning the wording of the legislation I think is perhaps legitimate. You say somebody may not be able to provide a sample, and refusal is considered a conviction. In other words, in the substantive way. That's not unusual in that, 254.5 of the Criminal Code, at roadside, if you are asked for a breath sample or a blood sample or a urine sample, if you refuse to give your breath sample, then you are convicted under 254.5. To my recollection, the words there are "without reasonable excuse." With breath samples, somebody who is asthmatic, if they can prove that they use a puffer, for example, has a legitimate excuse or a reasonable excuse. That's not in this legislation.
This legislation says and the words are "refuses to provide a urine sample when demanded to provide one under section 54." The words "without reasonable excuse" aren't there. I guess that's your point, isn't it? To be consistent with existing legislation under the Criminal Code on similar facts on other matters, you should put "without reasonable excuse" in there. Is that correct?
Ms. Latimer: That is correct. Commissioner Head talked about some of the latitude that they had used up till now when someone had a medical issue, but this legislation says "shall," so the discretion that Commissioner Head appropriately uses where there are some medical issues or inabilities I don't think would be necessarily available under this legislation. It raises some particular concerns around that.
Senator Baker: You have to admit, though, that when you look at the running of our prisons, there's more in the regulations than in the actual acts of Parliament.
The regulations change from time to time. "Directions," they're called. They change sometimes week to week, month to month, but they're voluminous in nature.
Ms. Latimer: Yes.
Senator Baker: What he was quoting was, I imagine, what's in the directions. Would you agree?
Ms. Latimer: Either in the directions or the policies that have been developed over time, probably on the advice of the medical people in the prisons.
Senator McInnis: We are getting to know you quite well, and that's good. We applaud you for what you do because it is challenging being on the front lines on a daily basis. We always respect your point of view. We may not agree with it, but we certainly do respect it.
I know that you're concerned about mental health issues and other matters with respect to programming, and you're not critical of trying to reduce the supply.
Ms. Latimer: No, not at all.
Senator McInnis: I think you were there when Mr. Head said that we have some of the best programming for treatment and access to treatment in the world, I think he said.
So you agree that it's a two-pronged approach. You can comment on that, but you also just said that there are other elaborate drug strategies available. I'd like to hear what they are.
Do you agree with that? Do you agree with the fact that they're doing fairly well, they're reasonably satisfied?
Ms. Latimer: The recidivism rates in Canada are lower than they are in some other countries. We, at the John Howard Society, are worried that, because of the funding reductions and other things, there has been a significant amount of program cutbacks, which I think hampers CSC's ability to maintain the same level of world-recognized sophistication of the programs that they have been delivering.
We are concerned that what had been recognized as a very successful drug program is now being rolled into this integrated program. I don't know if he talked to you about that, but he's taking three or four programs and rolling them into a single program and making it available earlier in the course of an inmate's time in prison. But they're not as long, and they may not necessarily be appropriate for each individual.
A person who may have a substance abuse issue may not have an anger management problem or a domestic violence problem, but they are now all going to get the same course for a whole suite of problems. That hasn't been evaluated. We're very interested in seeing how that unfolds as well.
In terms of your second question as to whether or not there are effective mechanisms for trying to reduce drug use, there's no question that addiction is a very serious problem in the Canadian prison system and for prisoners reintegrating into the communities. It is one of the things that really throws people off — the capacity to maintain crime-free lives. We need to work very hard at working on those addiction issues. They can be treated, and there are some good examples.
The Guthrie House example, as I mentioned before, in Nanaimo, which is a B.C. provincial corrections program with a John Howard facility, has been quite successful in its peer support. As you know, B.C. has some significant drug problems.
There are some really good examples of programs that could be pursued, which would be quite successful, and CSC is really open to doing that. The question is whether they have the resources and the capability to do that.
Senator McInnis: They didn't mention that they were challenged with resources. I got the impression that they were reasonably pleased with what the government is doing.
Ms. Latimer: I think it's important to take a look at the Auditor General's recent report that looks at CSC's capability for preparing people for release — the extent to which they've made progress on their correctional plan or against their correctional plan before they're released back into the community. That is very worrying. Not enough progress is being made on really good correctional programming before they're released into the community, and then it becomes a policing issue or policing problem if we haven't had a chance to really work on the rehabilitation and support while they are in the prisons or on parole.
Most people now are being released really late into their sentences, through statutory release and not through a discretionary mechanism like the Parole Board. More than half of the people are now coming out under stat release, rather than through parole, and that's not helpful because the flexibility isn't there to support and supervise.
Senator McInnis: I think you mentioned the word disease. Perhaps it wasn't you, but are you satisfied with the treatment that the inmate gets upon release and that is being followed through by the parole officers?
Ms. Latimer: Yes, and, certainly, organizations like ours, the John Howard Society of Canada, are trying to link people who have addiction issues with the supports in the community. Whether it's Narcotics Anonymous or other treatment programs, we're trying to get them into those programs to help to stabilize them as they're coming out of corrections so that they have a fighting chance of overcoming, which is a really difficult challenge for them, and leading crime-free lives when they're out in the community. So, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much. I echo Senator McInnis' remarks about the remarkable job you are doing. That has to be said. My concern is about the cases of recidivism. All criminals have the right to another chance. But when they reoffend for a second, third or fourth time, it's a different matter, especially when there are drug addiction problems, because the difficulty lies first and foremost with the will to stop using them. With certain kinds of crimes, most specifically those of a sexual nature, 85 per cent of those convicted have drug addiction problems.
The minister told us that 95 per cent of the people in jail who ask to get into detox programs are able to do so. That figure is very high. But the recidivism rate is highest for sex offenders.
Is it normal to treat these people in the same way as an ordinary citizen who has been stopped by the police because they are not sure about the way he was driving his car and want to test his alcohol level? When it is known that someone has drug addiction problems, when he has already committed a crime and his addiction is driving him to reoffend, isn't it normal that, if that individual should refuse to cooperate with a request for a blood test, he should be found guilty of an offence and taken back to prison on those grounds?
If we compare them to ordinary citizens who are committing a crime when they refuse to submit to an alcohol test, can we do the same thing for a criminal with substance abuse problems?
[English]
Ms. Latimer: I think there is a difference between refusing and being unable to produce a urine sample, and that's where —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: The bill talks about refusing: if someone refuses, not if it is impossible for them to comply. I understand that, if it is impossible to collect a sample, it is difficult to recognize that as a refusal. But the bill stipulates that, if the offender refuses a blood test, it is an offence.
[English]
Ms. Latimer: I'm happy to review that. I'm also happy to send you some recidivism rates for sex offenders, which —
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: That is not my question. My question is: is it not normal to consider that an ordinary citizen who is stopped by the police and who refuses to submit to an alcohol test is committing an offence under the law? So a criminal who has been released — we know that he has committed a crime — who has substance abuse problems and who refuses to provide a blood sample must likewise be considered to have committed an offence. It is not right to use the same criteria for an ordinary citizen who is stopped for impaired driving and a criminal, whose criminality is known to be triggered by alcohol, but, if the criminal refuses to provide a blood sample, the refusal is not recognized as an offence.
[English]
Ms. Latimer: There is no question that a straight-up refusal should be taken very seriously, as it is in a breathalyzer. My concern is whether there's latitude to look at conditions where this may not be possible. I get a lot of complaints from inmates who say that their inability to produce a urine sample is treated as a breach, as though they had tested positive in the drug sampling.
Senator Batters: Ms. Latimer, a little earlier you stated that this bill doesn't give Correctional Service Canada discretion if someone is unable to provide a sample, but in front of the House of Commons committee you talked about how this particular bill is consistent with existing Parole Board ability to assess individual offender circumstances. I quote from the record of January 29, 2015. You stated:
Because Bill C-12 seems to be consistent with existing Parole Board authorities, including the flexibility to assess the impact on an individual's correctional plan and risk factors of breaching the rules by consuming contraband, we have little problem with it. But we would point out that not all alcohol and drug consumption indicates a problem of addiction requiring treatment, or enhances the risk of offending. So we particularly like the fact that there is some discretion on the part of the Parole Board in this bill to take a look at individual circumstances and what that particular infraction means.
Can you expand on that, please?
Ms. Latimer: I think we like that it gives the discretion to the Parole Board to consider whether a positive test is consistent with the rationale and the reasons why they were given parole in the first place. If, for example, someone was celebrating their release from parole and having some jailhouse hooch or whatever concoction they produce that has an alcohol content, if consumption of alcohol isn't a trigger factor for a risk of recidivism or doesn't put them into a high-risk category, then certainly the Parole Board would have discretion. It would be mandatory for Correctional Services to report the urine test to the Parole Board but the Parole Board could decide that in the circumstances it wasn't worth denying the person their parole given the benefits of having the supervised and supported re-entry into the community. That latitude we like.
Senator Batters: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Does your organization provide any addiction treatment programs for offenders who have been released and, if so, can you tell us about them?
Ms. Latimer: We do link our clients to addiction services in the communities, and some of our John Howard affiliates do provide addiction services. The one that I mentioned was the peer support therapeutic community in B.C. mainly because it has been recognized and received awards from the Lieutenant Governor for being innovative in its success. We really very keen on this peer-supported model, which seems to be working very well.
There are very positive successful ways of dealing with these drug issues, and we want to see more programs that go to the therapeutic components. Overcoming an addiction is challenging, particularly for people who are going to be marginalized for other reasons as well. It is a real challenge.
Senator Batters: Absolutely, and in that respect do you agree that there is a link between addiction and criminal behaviour in general?
Ms. Latimer: If you're talking about people who are being released back into the community on parole, generally their offences would have had a drug-related component to them. They may have been on drugs or alcohol when they committed the offence, or they may have been committing property offences in order to be able to afford their drug habit. It's a circular problem and it's a challenging one, yes. The link is not to be underestimated.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Ms. Latimer, for being with us today. I echo Senator McInnis's remark in that we respect your opinion.
Ms. Latimer: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: I simply wish to raise a couple of points that have already been raised in your report. For example, the Guthrie House, which is a therapeutic community for people with addictions leaving prisons. Was this house created on the grounds of the prison?
Ms. Latimer: Yes, it was.
Senator McIntyre: Could you tell us briefly about that?
Ms. Latimer: I've had a presentation on it so I will give you my best recollection. It is a peer-supported group and it's a sort of a house that is on the grounds. I think it's on one of the provincial facilities in B.C. People are screened into it. Generally it works on a peer-driven basis, so everybody in there has got some drug issues and they support each other.
Senator McIntyre: This is in Nanaimo.
Ms. Latimer: Yes, Nanaimo. The support continues after they actually leave the prison and go back into the community. So there continues to be that peer support for people who are struggling with addictions and overcoming them after a correctional experience.
Senator McIntyre: What about hepatitis C or other diseases contracted in prison? How bad is the situation according to the John Howard Society of Canada?
Ms. Latimer: Again, I can get you some numbers on that. The last thing I remember is an increase of 25 per cent of contracting. The numbers go up considerably of people leaving the facility having contracted hepatitis C than going in with it, and that's often because they're reusing injectable stuff. It is a contagious disease, blood borne, and it is communicable through drug practices behind bars.
Senator McIntyre: Do you visit inmates in some of our penitentiaries?
Ms. Latimer: I do, yes.
Senator McIntyre: Is that on a regular basis?
Ms. Latimer: Not as regularly as I would like but yes, I do visit them.
Senator McIntyre: I understand that the John Howard Society of Canada has offices in more than 60 communities across the country offering services to promote community safety. Is there a consensus amongst the offices with respect to combating community safety or is there a lot of disagreement, for example?
Ms. Latimer: I wouldn't say there's a lot of disagreement but there are a lot of different approaches. We regularly have staff conferences where we bring together the most promising approaches and share what may be working in Moose Jaw but may not be working in Moncton. We share what various communities have decided or discovered are actually beneficial. So housing first, for example, is something that we're looking at that is working really well in some communities that needs to be shared.
There are all kinds of different answers that respond to community-based problems. It's kind of a ground-up organization, and it looks at what's available in the communities and what the problems are in those communities and tries to sort it out there. But there are common themes. We have common sets of values and common sets of goals and objectives, but really different application on the ground.
Senator White: Thanks for being here. Good to see you.
John Howard's goal really is to have the greatest potential for success with the people you deal with I'm sure. I've been to a lot of John Howard facilities across the country. I think you would agree that the vast majority of re-offending comes as a result of what brought people to offending in the first place. If you talk about addiction as an example in this city, anyway, you see a lot of that, either by committing crimes to use or committing crimes as a result of using.
I'm trying to figure out why you wouldn't be asking for legislation like this. This would probably improve the chances of success for offenders being released and partially at least under your care.
Ms. Latimer: It's interesting that you would say that. What this legislation does is it keeps people who have active addictions or are active users in jail or in correctional facilities likely until the end of their sentences. You could even go right up to warrant expiry and then be released without any supervision and support in the community.
What we find is generally people are pretty highly motivated when they're leaving the prison to not go back and to lead crime-free lives, but it's when the rubber hits the road and they're back in their communities and facing challenges and facing perhaps access to drugs and alcohol where they really need some guidance and support.
From our perspective, it is the higher risk people who need the most support and supervision in the community. If you keep them right until the end of the sentence, then they become a policing problem.
Senator White: I'm a big supporter of parole, but highly motivated is the state in which you want them to decide to abstain, for example. I know they're highly motivated before they go before the Parole Board when abstinence is necessary for them to be able to exit, so I would argue that this measure would entice them to try to abstain, at least, rather than the opposite.
On my second point I'll ask if you agree. I don't think you will, but that's okay. I've been corrected by drug addicts, who will tell me, when I say that they commit four to eight crimes per day to satisfy their addiction, that they were committing 20 to 30 crimes a day.
I have to say that I cannot support releasing somebody who has committed crimes, on early release, knowing full well that what brought them there is going to bring them back. I think we're setting them up to fail instead of to succeed. Again, I don't expect you to agree, but I would appreciate your comments.
Ms. Latimer: This bill has an extremely narrow application and as I mentioned, most people are not going out on parole. The majority of people now are leaving prisons on statutory release. So this bill wouldn't apply to them because they wouldn't —
Senator White: Understood. It's a weakness of the bill, actually.
Ms. Latimer: Yeah, it's a problem. Many people who know they wouldn't pass drug tests, are waiving their parole hearings and they're waiting for their stat release date, or they know they're not ready.
Senator White: You don't have to agree with me.
Ms. Latimer: I wouldn't say it is an incentive for them to stay clean. But I would that there is an interesting collaboration in the communities that involves the police, corrections and the organizations like John Howard because we're all committed to wanting these people to lead crime-free lives. So there is a lot of collaboration. We want them to respect their conditions of parole. We don't want them to be using. If they have conditions that they shouldn't be using, then we think that they should be held accountable for breaching conditions.
We would like to stay with them and help, even if they go back to prison for a while, before they're coming out again. We want to stay with them and really try and push them towards crime-free lives, so that they may learn something by the fact that they've been held accountable in those ways.
Senator White: Have you looked at the reports — I think it's from Norway, it could be Sweden — that look at the forced abstinence for release? If you commit a crime, then you have two options: immediate in-house residential counselling, 90 days plus versus jail and the forced abstinence for release. They would argue that forced abstinence does have successes. In fact, they argue against that in saying that if you're not ready for it, then you will never get ready. They would argue that we have to make you ready for it. We need to start looking outside of what hasn't worked because, to be fair, it hasn't worked.
Ms. Latimer: I agree with that. I would be very interested in looking at that study —
Senator White: I'll send you some stuff.
Ms. Latimer: — and particularly at the front end. There have been successes with the drug courts and things like that. If we can do things at the front end, where you will have them motivated to keep out of the prison by following certain steps; I think it's a good idea.
The Chair: You mentioned that most of the people leaving prison are not leaving it on parole, but rather on mandatory release.
Ms. Latimer: Right.
The Chair: John Howard operates a number of residential facilities?
Ms. Latimer: They do.
The Chair: Do they solely house just parolee?
Ms. Latimer: Many of them do, yes. We offer other types of residences as well. We have some for people with addiction and mental health issues. We have one for young women and one for young men. It depends.
The Chair: I'm focusing on parolees, since that's the topic of this bill. It seems to me that even under this legislation, since it's random testing, some people are not going to be caught, if you will, in the process. If you were here when I was asking Mr. Head about the contractual agreements with third parties like John Howard, he indicated there was a contractual obligation if you believe someone is breaching and is having a problem again.
I find that, a bit, in conflict with your position on your concerns about the approach. So I'm just wondering what happens in these facilities? Do you have any sort of an overview with respect to how often you recognize a problem and report it to Correctional Services? He's indicated that even though they don't have an obligation to report to the Parole Board, but that is going to be a standard practice.
Ms. Latimer: There are contractual provisions with CSC and those are definitely respected. I'll just tell you some incidents that I'm aware of. I think it was a sister who called one of our halfway house operators. She was concerned because she thought that her brother was looking for money in a way that was a bit aggressive. They did a search of his room and they found a crack pipe and they immediately called CSC.
We want them to be crime-free and to respect the conditions. We respect our contractual obligations with CSC. Our objective is community safety and working with these people in a way to try to promote community safety.
Senator Baker: Just to correct the record, Ms. Latimer: In the roadside test for urine, breath, or blood, the wording is at 254(5):
. . . without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand . . .
Now, in this in this bill, we have:
. . . fails or refuses to provide a urine sample. . .
They're both the same, except as you point out, "without reasonable excuse" is in the Criminal Code section of roadside, but it's not in this bill. So you've made a good point.
Ms. Latimer: Thank you.
Senator White: If I may point out: one results in a criminal charge and the other does not.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Latimer, for your many appearances, but we appreciate you appearing on this legislation.
Members, I remind you, I'd like to have a motion to move in camera. It is moved by Senator Batters. Are all agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)