Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 32, Evidence - June 4, 2015
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 4, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which were referred Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; and Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, met this day at 11 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good day and welcome colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Our first item of business today will be to complete our examination of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Before we begin our clause-by-clause consideration, I want to advise members that we do have officials from Justice Canada and Public Safety Canada who can be called to the table to answer any technical questions that members might have. Do you think at this stage you'll require the officials to come to the table? Not seeing any indication of the need at this point, I will forego introductions until it seems to be necessary to call them to the table.
We will move on to clause by clause. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-26?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Before we move on to the remainder, do you wish to group these clauses in tens or go through them all individually? There are 34.
Senator Baker: There are 34 clauses. Since we've dealt with each one of them individually with witness testimony, I think it's safe to group them.
The Chair: Individually?
Senator Baker: No, you can group them, because we've dealt with them individually prior to this.
The Chair: Shall clauses 2 to 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clauses 10 to 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 21 to 30 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 31 to 34 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Does the committee wish to consider attaching observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Well done. That concludes Bill C-26 for the committee.
We're continuing our study on Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. For our first panel today dealing with this issue, we have appearing by video conference from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Kim Pate, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; and from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Rebecca Jesseman, Interim Director, Information Systems and Performance Measurement.
I remind presenters that you have five minutes for your opening statements. We will begin with Ms. Pate followed by Ms. Jesseman.
Kim Pate, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
I'm very happy to join you from very sunny Treaty 6 territory and home of the Metis Nation in Saskatoon. I want to thank you for inviting the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. I'm sitting as the Ariel F. Sallows Chair of Human Rights at the University of Saskatchewan College of Law. I'll get straight to the point because I'm very interested in your questions as well.
There has been much focus of late and certainly over the past few decades on drug interdiction resources, technology and efforts to prevent the use and introduction of drugs in institutions. It's interesting that many of the interdiction techniques have increased in significance in terms of cost to Correctional Service Canada and in terms of intrusiveness to the exclusion of resources for programs and services since the tobacco ban. Many of the resources and trade appear now to be more in tobacco than in drugs or alcohol.
It's important to go back in history. Nearly three decades ago, Dr. Diane Riley and the expert committee that looked at the issue of the beginnings of the concerns around AIDS, HIV and hepatitis C in prisons predicted that the interdiction techniques and drug strategy then being proposed would create many of the problems that it has since: The increased focus on drug use and drug interdiction instead of the increased development of programs, services and supports for individuals in prisons might increase the use of drugs and, most importantly, the use of more potentially dangerous drugs, lethal drugs and drugs that can be harder to detect because they pass through the system faster. We've seen that issue and also the commodification of drugs.
Very little discussion has been had about one of the ways in which drugs enter prisons. There have been many discussions about some of the techniques being used by prisoners, but not much about how they come in through staff and contract employees; but that is an issue that I think the committee would be aware of.
The Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada have many tools available to them. The legislation proposed really doesn't change much. Right now, the Parole Board and Correctional Service of Canada can and do interfere if somebody suddenly has an issue with drugs or a positive urinalysis before their release date. Sadly, what's truer is that fewer individuals are being released, particularly in this region and particularly when we're talking about indigenous prisoners, than ever before; so we have much work to do, but not necessarily in the direction that Bill C-12 takes us.
As well, I would point out to senators, as the house of sober second thought, the more current research around addressing drug use. It relates to some of the work being done on the relevance of living conditions and of people having hope for the future. Of course, you're in Ottawa, so it's very fresh in all of our minds that many of the recommendations made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would weigh on this in terms of the likelihood that people will become either drug users or substance abusers and how they can address those issues; and issues around living conditions, education and support are all part of that.
In summary, we don't need this bill. It's likely to pass and likely will not change anything except to add another provision that is already possible within the Corrections and Conditional release Act and the regulations. I look forward to your questions.
Rebecca Jesseman, Director, Information Systems and Performance Measurement (interim), Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse: Good morning. I am Rebecca Jesseman, a director with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse or CCSA. I would like to thank the committee members for inviting us to discuss Bill C-12. Rita Notarandrea, our interim chief executive officer, sends her regrets that she was unable to attend today.
For those of you unfamiliar with CCSA, we were created by an act of Parliament over 25 years ago to bring together government, not-for-profit organizations and the private sector to find common solutions to substance abuse problems. We have a legislated mandate to provide national leadership in reducing alcohol and other drug-related harms. Promoting evidence-based advice to shape policies and programs is a core part of our mandate.
As you are aware, the majority of offenders entering Canada's federal prisons have a history of substance use problems. There is no question that keeping drugs out of the hands of offenders inside institutions is a worthy goal. Interdiction plays an important role in preventing access to contraband in prisons, and we applaud the use of evidence-based technologies and intelligence gathering. However, keeping drugs out of prisons is difficult. A 2010 survey found that 34 per cent of men and 25 per cent of women in federal prisons admitted to using drugs in the past six months of their incarceration.
Providing evidence-informed treatment that responds to the unique needs of offenders within institutions and in the community is the most effective way to reduce substance use problems among Canada's offender population. It is also an effective way to improve community safety by preventing recidivism; and we know there are programs that work.
Releasing offenders into the community with conditions to abstain from alcohol and drug use without providing them with the tools and community connections to avoid such use increases the likelihood of breaches of parole. Although we know that substance use increases the risk of recidivism, increasing the penalties associated with use is not the most effective way to address the underlying issue. Addiction is a chronic relapsing brain condition that must be treated as a health issue and not as a poor life choice. Eliminating stigma and discrimination are important barriers to addressing alcohol and drug use disorders. However, Bill C-12 promotes a punitive approach to addiction that reinforces this stigma. It encourages individuals to be secretive about their substance use, therefore preventing opportunities for intervention and increasing higher-risk patterns of use.
CSC has been recognized internationally for the quality and evidence base of its substance abuse programming. CCSA is now working with CSC and provincial corrections partners to identify and implement best practices in addressing substance use among offenders, focusing on providing supports during the transition from the institution to the community. This transitional time is a difficult period of adjustment where offenders are exposed to risks, such as stress and people or situations associated with their previous substance use and other anti-social high-risk behaviour.
Parole provides offenders with an opportunity to re-enter the community with supervision that can help them to identify and address risk factors, including those associated with substance use. Introducing conditions that make parole more difficult to obtain or easier to revoke risks taking away the opportunity to safely reintegrate as a law-abiding and productive citizen. If offenders are consistently denied parole and only released at warrant expiry, they do not have the benefit of supervision and supported access to community resources that can help to address their complex needs.
Mr. Chair, the best way to promote drug-free prisons is by making sure that offenders have access to proper treatment inside institutions and in the community. This involves an evidence-based continuum of services and supports that address the complex health and social needs associated with alcohol and other drug-related disorders. It also involves breaking down the silos of institutional-versus community-based programs and supports.
We applaud the government's interest in ensuring safer institutions and communities. We are proud to contribute to this dialogue, and we look forward to assisting in any way possible with an evidence-based approach to addressing substance use in prisons and promoting successful transitions from institutions to the community. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Baker: Thank you to the two witnesses for their excellent presentations.
I would like to ask a question of Ms. Pate as it relates to the specifics within the very short bill that we have before us. Ms. Latimer appeared before the committee in the most recent hearing. She took particular offence to the first paragraph, which says ". . . the offender fails or refuses to provide a urine sample when demanded to provide one . . . ." She took offence to that and pointed out that the words "without reasonable excuse" are not included in this and that the offence is made out if one refuses or is unable to provide. She brought up the section in the Criminal Code, 254(5), that has the same words in it, but it also has "without reasonable excuse" in it.
Do you hold her same concern about the adequacy of this particular section?
Ms. Pate: I would, yes. I appreciate that you asked that, Senator Baker. We would certainly concur with the John Howard Society of Canada on that point and, in particular, Catherine Latimer.
Particularly when we're talking about women — and I would say there are probably men as well — knowing that about 91 per cent of the indigenous women and about 80 per cent or more of women overall have histories of physical or sexual abuse, issues of providing a urine sample are legion. In addition, if they're asked to provide and they're unable to do so immediately for all kinds of reasons, for example if they have a medical condition, that should be justification. I would say if it was reviewed it would not stand a legal challenge in that respect. I would share that concern.
Senator Baker: We also heard yesterday from the person in charge of our prisons, Mr. Head, who provided this information, Ms. Pate. He said that we have in our directives — I think you call them directives within the prison; I'm not sure of the direct terminology.
Ms. Pate: It's Commissioner's Directives.
Senator Baker: Commissioner's Directives are given quite frequently and are quite voluminous in nature. I have examined some of them. In case law, they are considered to be law. They are considered to be the practice that must be followed in the prison.
Mr. Head pointed out that it is within those directives that they have adequate provisions to make accommodation to persons who are in the situation of not being able to provide the urine sample on an immediate basis.
Do you think that's adequate to have it in those directives as applied to the prisons?
Ms. Pate: As the prison law students who just graduated yesterday can tell you, the policies cannot exceed the legislation. If the law becomes clear that there isn't a justifiable excuse, that is, if the previous clause that you asked me about is not included, then it would be difficult for Corrections to broaden their discretion in policy.
Personally, I think it would be a wonderful thing if they could broaden their discretion in that way. However, it's unlikely to happen. Usually, it's the opposite. If this legislation passes, my prediction would be that almost immediately there would be a rewriting of those policies and Commissioner's Directives would be issued to indicate that exercise of discretion would not be seen as legitimate, particularly right now, because both Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board are operating in incredibly risk-averse ways so that their discretion is not being questioned. Whether it's a warden or the commissioner or a regional deputy commissioner or the Parole Board members themselves, we're seeing them err on the most restrictive side rather than exercising their discretion in a less restrictive way.
Senator McInnis: Thank you both for coming here today.
Ms. Jesseman, one of your concerns is the transitioning period from prison into the community and the support services. We were told yesterday by a number of witnesses that the programming and the encouragement to the inmates to gain rehabilitation while incarcerated is second to none in the world. You likened it in the past to the situation when people have a disease — I think you used the words in the House of Commons that it's almost like diabetes. You have to treat it continuously. We also heard yesterday from the head of Corrections that the parole officers are well trained and well versed in this area and do a wonderful job.
There are a number of NGOs and a number of organizations such as yours that carry out considerable work. How do you work in conjunction with the parole officers? There's your organization, but there are numerous groups like this that are just marvelous and save all kinds of dollars and have all kinds of expertise. How do you work with these individuals?
Ms. Jesseman: That's an excellent question, and it really speaks to one of the challenges that we have in the field, which is the traditional silos across different disciplines within what is really an interconnected and complex issue of substance abuse.
Professor Pate noted the importance of looking at housing, education and employment issues. What our organization does, and what many NGOs do, is try to effectively host the tables where these different organizations can come together and identify common priorities and look at how best to work together in a way that can meet the complex needs of offenders.
We know that offenders do have more complex physical health, education and employment needs than those in many other parts of the substance abuse system. That is one way in which we work, namely, by bringing those partners together to the table. We try to provide tools with which they can work. For example, my organization has been working on our competencies for those employed in the substance abuse and related fields that can be used as training tools to build up the core skill sets and competencies that individuals working with people with substance abuse problems should have and can be used to train up their skill levels.
Senator McInnis: Are you gaining success? For example, the inmates get out. It's difficult to gain employment. Do you participate in that as well?
Ms. Jesseman: We don't offer front-line services. I'm not sure if that's the question, but one project that we're actually looking extremely forward to launching in the coming year is working with Correctional Service Canada, with the Heads of Corrections and with other partners to look more closely at that transition period to see what services are available to offenders and what are the best practices for liaising with offenders with services that are available in the community.
Senator McInnis: Ms. Pate, you say fewer inmates are being released now. I didn't understand that. Could you just elaborate on that? Did I hear you correctly?
Ms. Pate: You did hear me correctly. The rates of release by the Parole Board have decreased, and we're seeing more people being released either at statutory release time with residency requirements or at warrant expiry.
The challenge there, related to your question to Ms. Jesseman, is that we're increasingly seeing people coming into the community with higher needs — not necessarily higher risk, but higher needs in the community.
As you are undoubtedly aware, our organization does not differentiate between someone still serving a sentence or someone finished their sentence. We continue to provide those opportunities whether it's for employment, for addictions or support services, or for someone attempting to get housing, although those are increasingly difficult. We look at the entire individual, whether or not they are still under warrant or a sentence.
Those challenges are significant. Although there are many good people working in corrections, and most of them in my experience would agree with us, a lot of people aren't getting the programming and services they need because increasing the focus on interdiction and on other types of interventions means that not everybody gets access to programs in a timely way. People are being asked to wait for their parole and waive their right to parole.
I was just in two of the prisons in the last month, and when I was visiting with women in those institutions, many of them had been advised and encouraged to waive their parole. Now, on paper that looks voluntary, a decision that the individual prisoner has taken. In practice, it is something that basically your parole officer or case management team comes to you and says, "Well, we can't recommend you because you haven't gone into these programs yet. It's not going to be offered until next year or next month or next week, but you're further down on the list than someone who more urgently requires it, so we can't recommend you for parole right now, so we recommend you waive it. If you go forward without our recommendation, the Parole Board is unlikely to support your release."
Those are very real issues and concerns for individuals in the system. The longer someone stays in the system, the more difficult it is we know for them to integrate ultimately. It's not impossible, and it happens all the time, but there are unnecessary human, social, and financial costs to all of us because of those practices.
Senator McInnis: Is that because the parole officer will come to them and say, "You're not ready?" Is that because they have a substance abuse problem and they haven't gotten a program?
Ms. Pate: Yes, sometimes it is that. One of the things we're doing increasingly in training with staff as well as with judges and of course law students and future lawyers is ensuring that they understand that what goes into the correctional treatment plan becomes essentially the bible for what will be determinative of whether they will be recommended for parole and likely what the Parole Board will look at in terms of whether they release them.
Whatever comes in, which could be police reports, which of course is the case at its highest against someone, or it could be information that's never been proved, but whatever gets into your correctional treatment plan identifies your risk factors and what you have to meet. Virtually every prisoner who comes in has substance issues listed as a risk factor. I'm not suggesting that's not appropriate in many cases. In some cases, it may not be. So most people have to go through those programs.
The challenge is with increasing numbers, particularly for women, increasing numbers means that not everybody can take the program at the same time, and so people are waiting to take the program. They may be waiting months, sometimes years, depending on how long their sentence is and how many people are put in priority ahead of them.
Yes. It means they likely have an issue. Whether or not the program that they're being required to take will address that issue is a whole other matter. Particularly with women, again we're talking about people who have been self-medicating because they've never had the support after being victimized sexually as children, or residential schools particularly for indigenous women, so they've learned to self-medicate. Sometimes it's people with mental health issues and people who have been put on medication in the community so they are lawful medications, and then if they're taken off them either in prison or —
The Chair: Very fulsome response, but we're going to have to move on.
Senator Batters: Hello to both of you. It's nice to see you from Saskatchewan again.
Ms. Pate: Yes.
Senator Batters: I'm glad to hear it's sunny. I look forward to returning to that later tonight. Senator Plett from Manitoba says it's always sunny in Saskatchewan.
I wanted to ask you, Ms. Pate, how do women's experiences with drug and treatment programs in prison compare to those of their male counterparts?
Ms. Pate: Although I've been going into the prisons here, the prisons for men, my experience, as you are no doubt aware, is about 25 years old from the time I was working exclusively with men and young people, but my experience is that certainly for women, many of them are medicated with prescription medications both while they're in prison and before they come to prison. Drug use is often used to address or mask mental health issues. It's often used to address or anesthetize to issues of violence that they've experienced in their past and victimization.
Certainly the rates of women using prescription medication is often, and I believe is still unless there is something very brand new within the last couple of weeks, much higher for women within the prison system.
Now, in terms of illegal drugs, as I mentioned, the most significant illegal substance right now within the prisons by all accounts, correctional officers as well as wardens as well as our regional advocates who go in, is tobacco. Tobacco is the biggest commodity. So a lot of the drug interdiction techniques that you are hearing about from the commissioner and from others within corrections are really focusing on and have been introduced since the tobacco ban. I'm not suggesting there aren't drugs coming in that shouldn't be, and our concern is that the focus on interdiction, not to the exclusion but certainly far more than the treatment component, has meant that we're seeing harder drugs coming in when they do come in as well as tobacco.
There is significant concern about that. I certainly know women who didn't use any kind of medication before they went to prison and, not a big surprise, prison is not a fun place to be, so they may seek out medication to cope with being in prison, so we do know people, women in particular, who have developed drug addiction issues in prison and not in the community.
In the community, oftentimes women will describe having different living conditions, having access to their family, having supports, if they are able to get a job, having those opportunities or that whole array of needs being addressed as the single largest factor that contributes to them not using drugs or alcohol when they're in the community, and all the current research is showing that as well.
Senator Batters: Ms. Jesseman, is your organization in favour of instituting needle exchanges programs in prisons?
Ms. Jesseman: That's a question we haven't looked into for some time. It is an issue that we addressed at some time in the past. We would, of course, have to go back to the evidence —
Senator Batters: What was your position in the past?
Ms. Jesseman: Our position in the past was that the evidence did support that needle exchange programs in prison could be part of an evidence-based continuum to substance abuse programming.
Senator Batters: What was your organization's position on Bill C-2, I believe it was, that we just recently dealt with at this committee dealing with protection of communities and safe injection sites?
Ms. Jesseman: Certainly. I had the pleasure of speaking to the committee on that bill, actually.
Our position on the bill was that we support the need for evidence-based standards against which applications for proposed supervised consumption sites should be measured, but we did note that there were areas of the bill that would benefit from increased clarity in terms of, if I remember the terminology correctly, the burden in terms of the application process and also just the weighting that some of the different considerations and clauses would be given in the consideration process.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, both, for your presentations. Ms. Jesseman, as I understand, your organization was created over a quarter of a century ago, and over the years it worked collectively with both private and public partners. For example, it has been working with Canada's addiction strategy, and this strategy was developed, I believe, in 2005 by a wide range of committed organizations and individuals across the country. I further understand it lists 13 priority areas or actions, one of which is on responding to the unique needs of offenders. Could you briefly elaborate on those priorities, please?
Ms. Jesseman: Certainly. I believe you are referring to the National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs and Substances in Canada, and I can only imagine why you didn't have that name at the tip of your tongue.
Offenders is indeed one of those 13 priorities. Currently, because we are one organization, we are focusing on three priority areas right now. Those are cannabis, alcohol and prescription drug misuse. However, we have done some work on offenders in the past, notably a survey in conjunction with the Heads of Corrections to look at what substance abuse services were available for offenders in facilities and transitioning into the communities. Our focus at that time was at the provincial and territorial level, and the results of that study were certainly that there are many gaps in terms of access to programs at the provincial and territorial level within institutions and also that are accessible to offenders on transition to the community, which comes back to Senator Baker's question with regard to the availability of treatment services on release, which is often very dependent on the context in which you're released and the geographic area in Canada in which you're released. If you have the benefit of being released to an urban centre and if you're in the care of John Howard or Elizabeth Fry, those are services that are good at coordinating the available supports. However, if you're released without that type support into, for example, a more rural area of the country, the availability of treatment services tends to be limited.
Senator McIntyre: In January of this year, your organization hosted over 50 partners from across Canada during the first National Summit on Addiction Recovery. If I'm not mistaken, the summit was held here in Ottawa for approximately two days.
Ms. Jesseman: It was.
Senator McIntyre: It was also attended by the Minister of Health.
Was there agreement amongst your participants on the issue of substance use disorders?
Ms. Jesseman: There was agreement that addiction is a disease and that recovery from the disease of addiction is a real, attainable and sustainable goal. We also produced a national commitment to recovery in Canada that is available. I would be happy to make it available to the members of the committee through the clerk.
Senator Plett: A week or two ago we had Michael Spratt here, and I asked a question that he said was too simplistic. I have a tendency of asking simplistic questions. I'm going to try one here today, but I'm going to read clause 4 in the bill, subsection 133(3), which says:
(3) The releasing authority may impose any conditions on the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender that it considers reasonable and necessary —
And this is important:
— in order to protect society and to facilitate the offender's successful reintegration into society.
So again we're concerned about the offender and wanting him or her to integrate into society successfully. The clause continues:
For greater certainty, the conditions may include any condition regarding the offender's use of drugs or alcohol —
I'm assuming that means generally when we talk of drugs these are illegal drugs. It continues:
— including in cases when that use has been identified as a risk factor in the offender's criminal behaviour.
I appreciate that both of you feel that we should have programs to help these people. I support that, but I'm trying to get my mind around how you justify allowing them to continue with illegal activity in the meantime. We want to support illegal activity while we are running the programs. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but that's what I'm reading into what you're saying. I would like a comment from each of you on that.
Ms. Pate: Would you like me to go first?
Senator Plett: Sure. Go ahead, Ms. Pate.
Ms. Pate: Thank you very much for clarifying, because if I said anything that left you with that impression, that was incorrect. I certainly would not in any way want to see people suffer any more with addiction issues.
The reality is, however, I was speaking to the nature of the bill. This authority ultimately rests with the Parole Board to take these sorts of actions. Correctional Service Canada already, without Bill C-12, will notify the Parole Board of Canada if there are issues that arrive between a hearing and a decision and a release. The power already exists. That's one point.
To be clear, the reason for not feeling this legislation is necessary is because it duplicates what already exists with unnecessary costs of administration and this sort or process instead of developing more services and programs to support individuals to not be in situations.
As well, just to underscore, when I'm talking about supporting programs and services, I'm not just talking about addiction issues. Research shows that if people have housing, have supportive communities, whether that is family or community of choice, when they have meaningful activities, whether that's education and employment or a mixture of both, they are far less likely either to succumb to addictions or to return to addictions. They're more likely to want to live and enjoy their lives without any dulling of their senses by alcohol or drugs. That's what I was suggesting, just to be clear.
Certainly there are drug interdiction techniques in the prisons already. I was also stressing that we know that not all drugs come in in the ways that have been described or that this legislation presumes. We certainly haven't talked about introduction of drugs by staff, which everybody knows happens, including Corrections, although they can't publicly say they know that it is correct. Anything that takes a more punitive response develops more evasive actions rather than addressing the fundamental issues. That is what I was trying to stress.
Senator Plett: Would you also reply, Ms. Jesseman?
Ms. Jesseman: I agree with Ms. Pate in that CCSA is not in favour of continuing substance use within the prisons. I certainly do apologize if anything I have said has given that impression.
The concern we have is that the impression that the bill gives of essentially automatic revocation could, in fact, lead to more risky drug use because we know, for example, that substances such as opiates and stimulants stay in the bloodstream and are detectible for a longer period of time than, for example, cannabis.
We are concerned that, knowing that transition is a high-risk period for relapse, offenders may be less likely to self-identify. If they recognize that they are experiencing, for example, increased tendencies to use or are experiencing some of those risk factors, they would be more likely to hide that rather than come forward and seek support and services.
Senator Plett: Of course, the bill does not say automatic revocation. The bill clearly says the releasing authority "may," not "will."
I gather from your comments, Ms. Pate, that you don't find anything that offensive in the bill. You just say that we have laws already that do exactly what we're doing, so it's not necessary as opposed to there's any problems with it.
Ms. Pate: No. Thank you for allowing me to clarify that. No, I do see problems with it. I think the essence of what the bill is aimed at — or at least, as stated, the essence in terms of the purposes of the bill — can already be obtained. I think the creation of more stringent conditions of the nature outlined in the bill and that Senator Baker spoke of are problematic. Unlike the statement you just made, that it says "may" instead of "will," whenever these provisions are passed, immediately directions go through Correctional Service Canada and things tighten up. That's exactly why fewer people are being released. That's exactly why we're seeing the tightening up of releasing options, not necessarily the provision of more supports to allow people to exit or not use substances. In fact, quite the opposite is true. It results in more tightening up, more punitive approaches and potentially more problems. Certainly, we're seeing that in terms of the issues for women, in particular, Aboriginal women and women with mental health issues most especially.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: First, I would like to congratulate our two witnesses on their work. It is not easy work.
I would like to talk about resources, and I will tell you a short story. When I was a police officer with the Sûreté du Québec, there was a small municipality of 3,000 people where there was a halfway house for women.
We constantly received calls because the women did not really respect the conditions; they did not go back to the halfway house, or breached the house rules, or there were issues with drugs. I am sure you will understand that we could not monopolize police vehicles for that house. Of course, the people in that small community of 3,000 residents wanted to see that halfway house gone, because they said that it was a bad influence on the community. I should add that resources in that transition house were insufficient. I do not know if the same thing happens everywhere, but that is the experience I had, over several years.
Would it not be simpler to just keep people in jail longer, because there they have the services and resources? The fact is that in the case of that halfway house, even if its purpose was to help the inmates rejoin society, there were constant problems there, and at a certain point, the community residents asked for the house to be closed.
I would like to hear your comments. I think there was a problem because of the lack of resources.
[English]
Ms. Pate: I don't know which community that was to be able to comment specifically. I know that our halfway houses that the Elizabeth Fry Societies operate across the country are in communities. I don't know if it was one of those. It does not sound like it. But certainly there are many supports available to individuals. It wasn't an Elizabeth Fry, Okay.
Usually, most of our Elizabeth Fry Society halfway houses are well connected to addiction services, to second-stage housing, as well as to other support services. Yes, the law must be followed, so if there are breaches of conditions, certainly the police are notified and they are involved. This is because individuals who are staying at many halfway houses are still completing their sentence, but in the community.
I would say that the presumption that there are more supports and services available in prison is not accurate. I'm not suggesting that we have sufficient services in the community. There are not. There need to be more services. But the drain of more resources from the community into prisons is not assisting that.
Right now, the focus on more punitive approaches, putting more people in prison for longer periods of time, is draining those resources. So we see increased need, but the response would not be to keep people in prison longer because we're not seeing them accessing services. In fact, the numbers are going up of women going to prison, which means that fewer women are having access to services in a timely manner.
Ms. Jesseman: We know that maintaining offenders in the institution is more costly than in the community, so in terms of return on investment, it is a wiser investment to look at developing more community resources. There are also ways that we can ensure the quality of the facilities to which the offenders are being released through accreditation, for example, to make sure they have access to the resources they need.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My question is addressed to Ms. Pate. I will ask you the same question I asked Ms. Latimer yesterday: the statistics indicate that 85 per cent of criminals convicted of sexual assault have very severe, very acute substance abuse problems and that 95 per cent of those who receive a sentence of over two years in a federal prison — because as you know there are very few services in provincial prisons — and who ask to be admitted into a detox program are admitted into such a program in the penitentiary.
When these individuals who had substance abuse problems are released and when we know that because of this problem they will reoffend, and that there will be more innocent victims, do you not think that the monitoring mechanisms for that clientele have to be irreproachable, and as strict as possible? We know that it is their drug consumption that leads them to commit crimes.
[English]
Ms. Pate: I think your presumption that use leads to criminal activity is not necessarily accurate. I think it is accurate that oftentimes people are using, whether alcohol or drugs, at the time that they are charged with criminal offences, though certainly not when they're convicted. Some police would tell us that that is because that's when they are the easiest to catch. It certainly isn't the case that people only commit sexual offences when they are addicted. We know most sexual offences actually occur in people's own homes. Particularly when we're talking about women, the majority of the women have been victimized, so there is not a high rate — in fact there is a negligible rate — of women as sex offenders. Certainly the men who get picked up tend to be those who are again the easiest to catch.
If we want to address the rates of sexual offending and misogynist violence in this country, then we need to be looking at some of the other ways to make it safer for women, generally, and safer for children. That is by providing more universal approaches, whether it's through universal child care, more accessible supports for people who are facing victimization, more supports in schools, supports for women who are trying to flee abuse, financial supports — those are all the ways in which we know that we can prevent victimization.
Once someone has been victimized, of course we want to try to prevent anybody from recidivating or being revictimized, but all of these individuals, unless they die in prison, will likely be returning to the community. We need to be ensuring that supports are available, if it's someone living in a halfway house or released at warrant expiry, which is happening increasingly for people serving time for sexual offences.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I was not looking for a criminology course. I simply wanted a simple answer to my question. My question, and I will repeat it — and I understand that you know this area very well — is the following: when criminals have drug abuse issues and have been convicted, but have not solved their problem in jail, is it normal for a society to have stricter controls in place for them when they are released, in order to prevent them from reoffending? Because it is when they take drugs that they commit offences. They do not commit crimes in order to be able to consume drugs; they consume drugs and then they commit crimes. Is it not normal for a society to place stricter controls on those people, rather than strictly incentive measures or good behaviour programs? Is it normal for a society to protect itself with stricter controls? I would like a yes or no answer.
[English]
Ms. Pate: I would be happy to provide you with a yes or no answer. The answer would essentially be no.
What you're suggesting is an approach that would require a change in what is already happening. Right now, those individuals who are seen as the highest-risk offenders tend to be released into the community without conditions because they are kept until warrant expiry. You would then be requiring some new mechanisms. There are mechanisms, such as section 810 orders for individuals who are still considered a risk. So we already have those provisions in law.
I'm trying to stress that if you want to address this issue, then you have to address the components of it. Your presumption that the minute everyone who has ever offended drinks they're likely to reoffend is not necessarily borne out.
It certainly is an issue and needs to be addressed.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Did you hear yesterday's testimony from the representatives of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada? They told us that the criteria for after-sentence conditions regarding the consumption of alcohol were not the same if the inmate is released under the Parole Board criteria, or if he or she benefits from statutory release after having served two-thirds of their sentence. The monitoring criteria are not the same.
This bill aims to put in place the same type of monitoring mechanisms for offenders, whether they are released by the penitentiary system or through the Parole Board of Canada. We were told yesterday that these inmates are not monitored according to the same system after their release.
[English]
Ms. Pate: I apologize. I was not in a position to listen to the testimony yesterday.
Certainly the rules are available, and the monitoring is available. People are released in the community in a context where the parole releases them, and increasingly it is more stringent, only if the risk is deemed to be manageable in the community. Otherwise, increasingly, people are being held to warrant expiry, at which point they're released without conditions.
I'm not sure what else was said, other than that. But if something else was being said, I would be happy to receive information about that. I will go back and review, so thank you for alerting me to that information.
Senator McInnis: Ms. Pate, 80 per cent of inmates, prior to entering the prison, have had a substance abuse — we're told at least 80 per cent. They committed a crime, so they will have to do the requisite time, depending on what crime they committed.
This bill is about drug-free prisons and reducing it to the extent possible. Part of what the prison system is doing — and we were told yesterday and on a number of occasions that they're doing an excellent job — is that before someone gets parole, they had a urinalysis and they didn't test positive or they didn't refuse.
That's what we're talking about in this bill. Yes, that test was being done now, apparently. This puts it in law that it's to be done. In order for us to put people back into the community, to participate, to be good, law-abiding citizens, one of the prerequisites — there may be others that you've talked about, such as housing, education, all that type of thing — what this bill talks about is that, to the extent possible, we want them to be free of drugs and rehabilitated. That's what the bill is about. For the life of me, I don't think you disagree with that, do you?
Ms. Pate: I don't disagree. I'm trying to stress that those provisions already exist. If someone suddenly had been recommended for parole, the Parole Board had issued an order or made a decision that they could be released, if suddenly they were found to be using drugs, I cannot imagine a circumstance where there wouldn't be an intervention. I also can't think of any examples of where it has even happened. It seems to be an answer waiting for a hypothetical.
Senator McInnis: What you're saying to me is that you agree with this bill?
Ms. Pate: I'm saying that you already have the power. I don't agree with continually putting forth bills where there already exists the authority. I consider it, unfortunately, a bad investment of your time, my time and taxpayer money to recreate something that already exists and to address an issue that really isn't there. It seems to be an attempt to create an impression that a problem exists when in fact these problems don't necessarily exist, and we already have law and policy to address if they did arise.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Pate and Ms. Jesseman, for taking the time to be with us today and giving us your views on Bill C-12. We very much appreciate it.
For our second panel today, I am pleased to welcome by video conference from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Gerry Verrier, Board Member, Drug Prevention Network of Canada.
Mr. Verrier, welcome. We will begin with your five-minute opening statement, sir.
Gerry Verrier, Board Member, Drug Prevention Network of Canada: Good day, and thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to your committee regarding Bill C-12. It is truly an honour. My name is Gerry Verrier, and I am here on behalf of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. I am the newest director appointed to the board. Our executive director, David Berner, recently provided testimony to a parliamentary committee regarding the same bill.
The Drug Prevention Network of Canada supports this bill, and I support this bill. I am employed by the Behavioural Health Foundation located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I am currently in my twenty-eighth year of employment with this organization, with 17 years as director. I am also a former opiate addict having undergone residential treatment myself in 1986.
The Behavioural Health Foundation is an accredited, private, not-for-profit organization that has been providing abstinence-based addiction treatment services to Manitobans for 42 years. BHF provides long-term residential services to up to 136 adults and 32 youth. Our client population is predominantly Aboriginal. Approximately 20 to 25 per cent of our population is involved with the justice system. We believe that addiction is part of a lifestyle and part of a culture. We also see criminality as being part of that lifestyle and culture.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the BHF had on average 15 federal parolees in its programs. Now having even one or two parolees is rare. Meanwhile, local halfway houses are filled with parolees at a higher cost to the system than if they were in a residential treatment program, and, for the most part, they are able to leave the facility at 7 a.m. and are not expected to return until 11 p.m. They are not expected to work in most cases. There is little accountability, and, as reported by clients, they are often inebriated when they do return, and halfway house staff sometimes turn a blind eye as they want to keep their beds filled.
In a residential treatment program, they would be expected to establish a routine, take programs, upgrade their education, volunteer and, eventually, join the work force. They would be accountable 24 hours a day.
We are told by Correctional Service Canada that if an inmate takes programming in the institution, funds are not available for treatment in the community. That makes no sense if CSC is paying for inmates to reside in halfway houses at a cost higher than if placed in our organization, for example.
Herein lays the crux of my presentation. If addiction treatment is to be effective, it must be done in an environment that supports change and supports the work necessary to have someone go from being an addicted criminal to someone who is gainfully employed and contributing to the larger community. This process does not happen overnight, and I can almost guarantee that prison culture does not support active rehabilitation within the prison setting.
The significant barrier to rehabilitation for many people is the stigma attached to sobriety. When I became sober, I was proud of myself, and it felt like I was doing the right thing. For three years after I became sober, whenever I was offered an alcoholic beverage, my response would typically be, "No thanks, I don't drink." The other party would inevitably respond with one of two questions: "What's wrong with you?" or, "So you think you're better than us." Several former friends felt inclined to test my sobriety by constantly offering alcohol and drugs, as if it was some sort of challenge.
Alcohol is a tie that binds many in all sorts of circles and at many events. It is a very socially acceptable thing to do, almost an expectation. Not consuming alcohol puts one in a very small minority.
In my many years of working with young people and adults, it is a significant consideration for the population we serve. The very idea of being shunned by families and communities is very real for those people. I currently work with youth who say no to drugs being offered while they are on home visits and who are overwhelmed with the idea of being offered drugs every single day once they leave the treatment program.
Dr. Adrian Hynes, a leading psychiatrist in our province, once said that long-term treatment is the most effective tool in assisting people who lack the intrinsic ability to self-actualize to make sustainable changes in their lives. They need an external brain while they work towards a pro-social and productive life. I believe a good number of inmates in the federal and provincial systems fit that bill.
I would suggest that it behooves the federal government and Correctional Service Canada to see inmates through the process of reintegration and not create barriers to an effective reintegration. I am not advocating that inmates who commit crimes while on the street be given a free pass. I'm simply suggesting that inmates who have taken programming in the institution will still be at risk of relapse, and, should they relapse, then community services should be engaged as opposed to parole revocation and a return to an institution should be avoided as that will more than likely detract the inmate from an effective reintegration.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will begin with Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Thank you, Mr. Verrier, for your very excellent presentation. You said at the beginning of your presentation that you supported the bill. But in the last two sentences of your presentation, it appeared to me that you didn't support the bill. Could you clear up that misunderstanding that I have?
Mr. Verrier: I support the idea that we should have high expectations of all Canadians to lead productive lives, stay out of jail and contribute to the community. I worry that the system would want to use black-and-white language when assessing whether an inmate should be returned to an institution because of a relapse.
I'm not suggesting that if crimes are committed that shouldn't be the case, but it would appear as though in this day and age there is no leeway for an inmate to be in the community, to have potentially relapsed and then to the opportunity for them to seek treatment in the community be available to them. We are being told by CSC that's not the case.
Senator Baker: In other words, you support the principle of the bill, and you would recommend we pass the bill. At the same time, you're saying there is something seriously wrong with the system that needs to be corrected. You've pointed out in your presentation how you believe that can take place.
In making your presentations to provincial or federal authorities, do you find that your suggestions, similar to the ones you've made here to us today, have been received favourably, and do you anticipate down the road that some provincial or federal authority will accept your recommendation and apply it across the board so that people can receive the treatment they need?
Mr. Verrier: We are certainly listened to by Correctional Service Canada, but we're not seeing any results that are any different. I'm going to suggest that the decline started approximately 10 years ago, and it has not improved despite our efforts, despite the fact that we continue to meet standards as per the service purchase agreement with Correctional Service Canada and so on.
Senator Baker: Does it surprise you that the minister, in introducing the bill, pointed out to us that there were over 3,000 reported cases of illegal drugs being found in federal prisons in Canada in one year?
Mr. Verrier: Not in the least bit.
Senator Baker: Why is that? Is there one particular reason why unlawful drugs can be found within our prisons? What's your opinion on that?
Mr. Verrier: The inmate population and the culture they live in within the prison system is often very similar to the culture that they lived in within the community. If you have a drug-using, criminal-thinking population that is breaking the law, being apprehended, being sentenced and going into prison, they will look for ways to engage in the same type of culture within the prison setting. In fact, it's more condensed and intense. People cannot escape other people, so gang culture is very much alive. There is a lot of money to be made in the system even by selling cigarettes, never mind other illicit drugs or alcohol. Even cigarettes carry tremendous value in a prison setting.
Senator Baker: Do you find it remarkable that there were over 3,000 cases of finding illegal drugs in federal prisons in Canada last year and that we have a system that doesn't prevent that from taking place? A reasonable person in Canada would find it very alarming that we have a prison system that cannot prevent such drugs from being brought into the prison or from being manufactured within the confines of the prison.
This is wrong. This shouldn't be. Is there anything that comes to your mind that could be done to prevent the drugs from actually being present in our prisons?
Mr. Verrier: Without knowing the system better and the way it works, I truly can't offer a sincere opinion. I do agree that it is alarming and disturbing that settings that are so controlled, so locked down, are permeated with the presence of drugs and alcohol.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for appearing before the committee.
It's hard to believe, but a cache of $200,000 worth of drugs was found in a storeroom. I was quite taken aback when I found out they discovered a still in the prison. It's hard to comprehend this. This Legal Committee is an eye-opener in many respects regarding what takes place behind the prison walls.
I was struck by the comments that David Berner, your executive director, made, when he said that the reality is that 80 per cent of inmates are "goofy people who had made really bad choices" and that they have skills they haven't developed or have abandoned because they are "driven by an addiction."
I thought that was a compelling statement. Basically, what he was saying — and I asked this question yesterday of Mr. Head, the head of CSC — is that correctional officers are not trained well enough to engage in conversation with inmates to find out where they really want to go in life, what they have to do to correct their ways, but I was assured yesterday that, yes, they are trained.
I think what Mr. Berner was suggesting and what you were saying is that it's all right to pay towards a halfway house, but if you don't have the system in place over and above that to help continue the rehabilitation, there's a problem. Will you comment on that?
Mr. Verrier: Addiction can be overwhelming to someone who lacks the ability to self-manage. Many inmates in Canada are Aboriginal. As we know, many Aboriginal people have been traumatized in a number of different ways.
When we're working with someone who has trauma in their background, they lack capacity. They lack an ability to be strong. They lack an ability to stick to their goals. They're easily persuaded, often by family, extended family and friends. Because they're coming from that culture of using drug and drinking alcohol, it's very easy for them to fall back into it. When there's little hope, little dignity and little support, they will go to people who are supportive, and that happens to be other people who drink and do drugs.
It's an overwhelming reality to deal with, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make efforts to see other Canadians through that process. There is hope, and we can have high expectations of Canadians, and we can expect them to return to the workforce and contribute. It just takes time.
Senator White: Thank you very much for appearing today.
We hear evidence, and a lot of us know that a large number of people in our federal prison system are there because of addictions. Just prior to releasing them, we're going to test them to ensure they're not using what brought them there in the first place, and if they are, we're not the going to let them go.
It seems simple to me that that makes sense. Am I missing something in its simplicity? For me, letting them go, we're setting them up to fail, I would argue.
Mr. Verrier: All I'm suggesting is that having inmates go through programming in the institution can only be partially effective because of prison culture. Prison culture does not tolerate sobriety or people moving in a different direction. Gangs will often attempt to keep members in line with plans to do this and that for them when they get to the outside. Drugs are sold to inmates. They use the expression "fronted" or "cuffed." In other words, they provide you with drugs without you having to pay for them immediately. There are a lot of things to keep them bound to that lifestyle while they're in the institution.
I am not suggesting that they should be released. I'm simply suggesting that some consideration be given to the difficulty of an inmate who is an addict maintaining sobriety of their own volition within the prison setting.
Senator White: I've been to a number of the institutions in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Would it assist if we had some institutions where inmates would designate themselves as drug free, be tested continuously and kept from that population? Would that assist?
Mr. Verrier: That would be of tremendous help. I'll point to the Nanaimo Correctional Centre in Nanaimo, B.C., and to the Winding River program in Headingley jail in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where entire ranges are given to inmates living together 24 hours a day and undergoing programming under the therapeutic community model.
It isolates them from the general population. It provides for greater control in terms of correctional staff monitoring, supervising. It allows them to engage in programming in an honest way. It's one thing to engage in programming and have the best of intentions and to simply go back to an environment where your buddies and gang members and thugs and hoodlums are wanting you to behave in the way that they behave. Having ranges where people can engage in treatment 24 hours a day would be significantly helpful.
Senator White: A last point if I may, Mr. Chair, just a follow-up on Senator Baker's comments: Really, what you're trying to do is say it's one thing to support the legislation; it's tempered by the fact that we also need to see a shift in the manner in which Correctional Service Canada provides services to ensure that those who are non-using have the ability to actually maintain that lifestyle. Am I correct?
Mr. Verrier: Correct, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Verrier, for your presentation.
There are drugs inside jails, and even in halfway houses. Unfortunately, outside of penitentiaries the necessary services to ensure transition and rehabilitation of inmates are not always present.
And so I will repeat my question: would you agree that inmates who remain in jail a little longer can benefit from better services and increased monitoring, which may contribute to reducing their dependency on drugs? Afterwards, when inmates are freed, they are then in a better position to successfully reintegrate society. A longer period of incarceration allows for better rehabilitation because the services are already there, and monitoring measures are stricter. Unfortunately, that is not always the case in transition houses. What do you think?
[English]
Mr. Verrier: I would agree with that statement. If it meant that it took a little while longer for an inmate to be in a better place prior to exiting the institution, then that should be the process that's undertaken.
My comments about treatment in the community had to do more with looking at parole revocation once a person is in the community.
I absolutely agree, and it's in everyone's best interest that we see that process through, that we look for the most effective way of reintegrating inmates into our community, with structure that promotes that continuing growth and that continuing movement away from that criminal lifestyle.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Verrier, I want to congratulate you on the work you do. I know it is hard to work with that clientele.
In your opinion, what is the proportion of criminals who are released, and had substance abuse problems either before or during their sentence — I believe you work in a halfway house — and who manage to abstain from consumption during a long period of time after they are released from jail, and after having been followed by your services?
[English]
Mr. Verrier: I don't have any exact statistics. We do random urinalysis on a regular basis. We observe for behaviours that would suggest addictive tendencies, but we probably see anywhere from 350 to 400 adults a year in our facilities. Average length of stay is anywhere between 100 and 120 days, although folks can stay for up to two years. We're actually discharging very few people for using illicit substances while they're in our programs. We do a follow-up study six months after people leave our treatment programs. Obviously, the rates start to drop a little bit, but what we're finding is that residents who have stayed with us for at least 90 days and have become gainfully employed prior to exiting the program are remaining employed at a rate of about 70 per cent six months post-release. Drug use is down significantly, and about 17 per cent of those folks are experiencing some kind of criminal involvement post-release.
I'm going to suggest that folks who go through our programs are better set up to leave that environment and to go off into the community to do their own work because they're leaving us gainfully employed, typically, or at least they've upgraded their education. They have experienced a period of true sobriety, and once a person has three or six months of sobriety under their belt, it makes it that much easier to maintain.
It also gives them some hope and some dignity, and that will carry them forward. Part of what we offer is the idea of being busy. Part of what we offer is becoming part of a different group or culture, such as being employed. We show them the value of that lifestyle. We show them the value of their newfound pride. We show them the value of how the community reacts to them, how the community accepts them, how a lot of people are quite willing to work with folks who are still struggling, even employers. We are able to set up people in some good situations so that that is sustained.
On the other side of the token, we only follow them for six months, so, longer-term, I'm not really sure. We are working with, for example, kids in my program right now, who are the grandchildren of people that we had in our adult and family services 25 or 30 years ago. So this isn't ending on its own. It's not simply going away, and the efforts that we are making as Canadians, I sincerely believe, are not as successful as they could be. I have hope for these people.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Among inmates who were in a detox program in jail, what percentage are provided follow-up after their release?
[English]
Mr. Verrier: It would be effective if you could get people to engage in it honestly, and that's the piece about prison culture that I referred to earlier.
As soon as an inmate even approaches a guard to talk to a guard, there are other inmates who see that, who will perceive that as potentially this person being a rat, providing information about what's happening in the environment. So the whole idea of people engaging with correctional staff in an honest way is difficult to manage because of that prison culture.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Verrier, thank you for your fine presentation. I'm very impressed with you. I'm very impressed with your presentation. As a matter of fact, in the document that you gave us, you have openly admitted that you are a former opiate addict, having undergone residential treatment yourself in 1986.
My question is, how did you get out of it, Gerry?
Mr. Verrier: A lot of different reasons. Fear of going to prison for a long time, the fact that I had shamed my family name, the fact that I had hurt a lot of people, but, more importantly, the fact that the program that I entered gave me a chance to be someone who wasn't, in that moment, an addict, that I could become somebody that I wanted to be, that I could rekindle the relationships with my family that I had destroyed through my drug addiction. It took a lot of hard work. It took dedication. At one point, I fathered a child, and it was very important to me that I be the right kind of role model for my son.
I have no shame for who I was. I got into a bad place in life, and over a period of a number of years it graduated from experimenting with substances, of not being happy in life, to one day waking up addicted to opiates and looking at either a lengthy prison sentence or doing something significantly different to change my life.
Senator McIntyre: We've talked a lot about drugs. How important is physical activity in our penitentiaries? For example, are inmates interested in doing any form of exercise? Are there programs in place to encourage and support any form of physical activity?
Mr. Verrier: I would imagine that there are lots of opportunities, but, again, even the areas where inmates are able to work out, the gyms, the weight pits, are dominated by gangs and thugs. Most guys are going in there to be physically active in order to gain muscle, to become bigger, to perpetuate the lifestyle they're in.
The idea of physical activity for people with addictions is, in fact, part of our programming. It actually helps people sleep better at night. It promotes health, mental health and a healthy way of seeing life. A lot of what we do is simply keeping people busy and working towards something better. Boredom is the number one reason for relapse in the community. People who are bored will use substances.
Senator McIntyre: Is anyone running in the courtyard?
Mr. Verrier: I haven't had that experience personally. I can only comment that it's interesting. In the penitentiaries in Indonesia, physical activity is a significant part of an inmate's day; and yet in Canada, what I hear from clients who are in the system is that they can choose to sit in their cells all day. They are not required to work. If they want to earn a few extra dollars, they can work. For the most part, there's a lot of resistance to everyone's attempts at getting these folks back on the right track.
The Chair: Mr. Verrier, I have a few questions for you. Yesterday I raised this issue with Don Head, Commissioner of Correction Service Canada, and with Catherine Latimer, Executive Director of John Howard Society. It's based on stories I've heard over the years. You're making reference to similar situations in your submission when you talk about what you describe as halfway houses about people not returning until suppertime, no need to return until 11, not expected to work, little accountability, and that the staff turn a blind eye to some of the goings-on because they want to keep the beds filled. I raised that issue with both those witnesses yesterday because it seemed there was a potential conflict of interest given that they're paid on the basis of beds occupied. I was assured by Mr. Head that these third-party organizations are contractually obligated to report to CSC or the Parole Board. Ms. Latimer said the same thing. I'm curious to know what your experience has been with respect to this.
Also, tell us about cost comparisons between a 10- or 15- or 20-bed third-party facility versus a comparably sized facility that your organization operates. What would be the differences in costs be?
Mr. Verrier: I don't know exactly what the differences are between our fees and those of a halfway house. We operate on about $95 a day to house an adult resident in our programs. My understanding of halfway houses is that it's anywhere from 20 per cent to 30 per cent more than that, but I don't have exact figures.
We know that because we are part of a halfway house association in Western Canada, and our executive director, more than anyone else, has those conversations at their halfway houses.
I have never been an inmate in a halfway house. I am simply passing on what we are hearing from our clients. As well, it's been in the media over the years that inmates who have been released on parole are committing robberies and engaging in substance abuse and that it's not being monitored. The reality is that when we work with people, there is an expectation in that population that the rest of the world is behaving in a very honest and forthright way. We don't have the right to ask them to do the same if we're not doing it. They look for hypocrisy within the system, so they have no qualms about reporting when they see that hypocrisy — for example, returning drunk to a halfway house at 11 o'clock at night and the night staff turning a blind eye and simply saying, "Go to bed."
When they come to us, we are exceptionally rigid and have exceptionally high expectations of our residents. They look to us to temper those expectations down because of their experiences in other institutions. We simply will not do that. Our reputation with the courts in Manitoba is based on our ways of operating. We do family reunification work in our environment with child protection agencies. They count on us to maintain a sober environment for the safety of those children and so on and so forth.
The crux of my information is being reported by clients.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Verrier. We've reached a conclusion, but I think we've all been impressed with the way you've turned your life around with your contribution to society today and your testimony before us.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: It's much appreciated. All the best.
Mr. Verrier: You're welcome. It's been a pleasure. Thank you.
The Chair: Members, a reminder that tentatively next Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. we will meet. We will confirm that at some point after we see what happens in the chamber today. Meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)