EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 25, 1995

.0932

[English]

The Chair: We have a quorum. Because we have a very full schedule, we're going to start. I want to remind the committee that at 11:30 a.m. we have to finish this meeting on estimates with Correctional Service. Then we move to consideration of Bill C-68. We have a witness from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. As you know, we have a meeting again this afternoon with the RCMP on the gun control bill.

I want to advise the committee that we will have a steering committee meeting on Thursday at noon. It's the only time when we could find time. That will be to consider further meetings with respect to a number of letters I've received wanting us to add meetings on gun control and add other categories of witnesses. We'll have to consider that.

I would like you to know that I'm going to speak to the President of the Treasury Board and see if I can have your pay increased - just those who work on this committee.

We're pleased to have with us this morning John Edwards, the commissioner for the Correctional Service Canada. He's with certain of his officials, whom he will introduce. We're considering, from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., the main estimates for the fiscal year 1995-96, votes 15 and 20 for the Correctional Service of Canada under the Solicitor General.

Mr. Edwards, I believe you have a short opening statement, which I presume has been distributed. It's over to you. You can introduce your officials and give us your statement. Then we'll have questioning.

Commissioner John Edwards (Correctional Service Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today are Andrew Graham, senior deputy commissioner; Jean-Claude Perron, deputy commissioner for the region of Quebec; and Dyane Dufresne, corporate adviser on human resources.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, as all of you know, it has been an eventful year for us since we last appeared before you. We've received more than our normal share of public attention and media coverage, culminating with the showing on television of parts of a videotape of an emergency response team at the Prison for Women.

Like you, I welcome the Solicitor General's announcement that Madam Justice Arbour will conduct an independent inquiry into this last-mentioned event. Once it is completed, I am confident the inquiry will provide Canadians with all the facts surrounding this incident.

At about this time next year we'll be in the throes of closing the Prison for Women, something that will be greeted with deep sighs of relief from many and expressions of hope concerning the new small regional facilities being opened.

In the past year, many of you have taken the opportunity of visiting some of our institutions. I am glad you have done so. We'll be happy to make any arrangements for you to continue this practice. These visits have, no doubt, given you much insight and first-hand knowledge of how we are managing the challenges we face.

When I appeared before you a year ago, I gave you a brief overview of federal corrections and identified some of the major problems we were facing. Today I would like to provide you with a brief update on the two major challenges I related to you last year. I would also like to describe for you some of the new initiatives we'll be pursuing in the coming year and also to share with you information on the numbers of security and criminal incidents during the year just completed.

The two major concerns facing the Correctional Service of Canada I raised with you last year were prison overcrowding and drug use.

.0935

Prison overcrowding continues to be a major preoccupation within CSC. Our incarcerated population rose by an estimated 5.5% last year. At the same time, the number of offenders under supervision in the community declined.

Currently the population exceeds our design capacity by 18%, on average, and is considerably higher in some institutions. This results in a lot of double bunking.

The projected growth in the incarcerated population over the next five years is nearly 25%. While I remain convinced that Canada should not launch a major construction program to get rid of the overcrowding, we are taking steps which would keep the over-population from rising much further.

Assuming our projections for population growth are right, we'll be increasing our capacity by a number of measures, adding to our accommodation capacity by about 3,500 over the next five years, by leasing surplus provincial facilities, such as Alberta's Grande Cache Correctional Centre; seeking to place more inmates in provincial facilities under an exchange of service agreements; taking short-term measures such as the use of dormitories and trailers, and exploring with aboriginal leaders where the communities would be willing to take more responsibility for the care and custody of aboriginal offenders.

We are also trying to minimize the adverse impact of overcrowding by transferring inmates to less crowded institutions - for example, over the past few months we made a transfer of some maximum security inmates from Ontario to Quebec - by introducing a new accommodation policy which will end double bunking in the smaller cells, discourage double bunking in segregation, and avoid double bunking for long-sentence offenders; by streamlining case management better to ensure low-risk inmates get released at full parole; by launching our drug prevention campaign; by pursuing efforts to increase inmate employment, and by increasing programming through the use of community and inmate volunteers.

In the final analysis, however, prison overcrowding will only be significantly reduced over the long term through very fundamental changes, such as a decline in the use of incarceration for non-violent offenders, or increased use of alternatives in sentencing, or progress in crime prevention strategies aimed at diverting young people especially from the criminal justice system.

However, initiatives are currently being proposed that would undoubtedly have a direct impact on the continued growth of the offender population. There are proposals for a new category of long-term offender, with a lengthy period of supervision for those who have committed violent offences and pose a serious risk to the community; proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act which call for automatic transfer to adult court of young offenders charged with serious crimes causing personal injury; firearms legislation which calls for mandatory four-year minimum sentences for those who cause serious personal injury with a firearm; and amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, involving changes to the serious harm criterion for detaining inmates beyond their statutory release date. Collectively, these legislative proposals will increase the inmate population in federal institutions.

The second major issue I raised with you last year was the serious level of drug abuse and drug trafficking. Shortly after my appearance last year we launched, as I've mentioned, a national drug strategy, which focused our efforts on more effective detection, deterrence, and treatment of drug abuse. While there is still some way to go, I'm happy to say the measures we have taken are having widespread impact. Any of you who have visited institutions in the past few months, I'm sure, would have already begun to see the difference. Staff are very clearly supportive of this initiative. They are enthusiastic and confident the problem can be brought under control. They have the tools and the resolve.

We've strengthened our screening and search procedures for visitors. We've taken cooperative action with local police and the RCMP. Sanctions such as the removal or restriction of visiting privileges are beginning to have an impact. New types of technology to screen and test for drug use are being partly tested in various institutions.

Since I last appeared before you, we've had two favourable decisions from the British Columbia appeal courts supporting the use of random urinalysis testing of inmates. On visits to institutions we have been told by a significant number of inmates themselves that they've seen a marked impact and have expressed that the threats and strong-arm methods of the prison drug culture are starting to disappear.

.0940

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave the impression that the drug problem has disappeared entirely. It has not. It is perhaps unlikely it will ever completely disappear. When you confine some of the country's biggest drug dealers and many serious drug users within the same four walls it shouldn't be too surprising that they will continue trying to ply their trade. But we've certainly made it much more difficult.

During the past year we have also experienced a sudden increase in the number of inmates in the Ontario region who test positive for tuberculosis, especially at Kingston penitentiary. While to date no confirmed active cases have been identified, we have taken all the necessary steps to bring this matter under control.

In partnership with Health Canada, CSC has recently developed a national comprehensive control and prevention agreement on tuberculosis. Under this agreement we'll be offering widespread tuberculosis testing for all staff in institutions and parole officers; offering all offenders tuberculosis testing at reception; offering both staff and inmates annual testing; providing medical treatment to any active cases and reporting any active cases to local public health authorities immediately; assessing and monitoring the physical environment within our institutions to eliminate any risk factors that may be contributing to the spread of tuberculosis.

[Translation]

I would now like to bring you up to date on another health issue - HIV and AIDS. As of December, 1994, we had 120 reported cases of HIV infection in our inmate population. You will recall in March of last year, we released the final report of the Expert Committee on HIV and AIDS in Prison.

This year, we will be implementing the recommendation of the Expert Committee that inmates have access to anonymous testing.

In effect we will be setting up in our institutions a part-time clinic for sexually-transmitted diseases run by a community public health nurse. Such an approach has been undertaken in some provincial institutions.

Also, we will probably be implementing another of the ECAP recommendations - the provision of bleach. I say probably because one of our major unions, the union of Solicitor General employees, is concerned about the risk of bleach being used as a weapon against staff.

I have agreed to document and share with them the experience in other jurisdictions where such a policy has been introduced for example in British Columbia.

We do not know with certainty just how much HIV transmission is occurring in institutions due to risk behaviours such as needle use, tattooing and unprotected sex.

Therefore, in co-operation with Health Canada, CSC will be undertaking a research program to determine the extent of inmates' continuing involvement in high-risk behaviours.

[English]

We are planning to combine this research with a more general inmate survey. Such a survey would respond to one of the recommendations of ECAP concerning an in-depth study on inmate risk-taking behaviours and what we can do to prevent them. It would also respond to one of the requirements of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, to seek input from inmates into a variety of aspects concerning their incarceration, such as program quality and availability, double bunking, relationships with staff, case management, smoking, etc. It would also create a strong database to guide policy and program development.

To our knowledge, such a survey has never been conducted in Canada. The Federal Bureau of Prisons in the United States conducts regular surveys of its inmate population and the British Prison Service has also recently begun to do the same.

Such a survey would have to be conducted by a private firm to ensure consistency in administration, anonymity of the offenders, and reliability of the results. We will likely launch the survey in the next few months.

.0945

Let me turn, very briefly, to some other issues.

For some time now, CSC has been examining the suitability of the type of weaponry used by correctional staff within the confines of an institution. This review was prompted by incidents involving the use of firearms inside an institution and the injury of inmates who may have been bystanders in instances when weapons had to be discharged.

As a result, we have decided that, later this year, we will be removing all shotguns from armed posts in maximum security institutions and replacing them with 9 mm rifles. This change is already under way. The 12-gauge shotgun may have a psychological deterrence in defusing a volatile situation, but it is considered dangerous to use within the close confines of an institution where injuries to third parties are highly likely. No major prison service in the United States or in Europe, to our knowledge, has retained the shotgun for use, as we have at the present time.

Second, the removal of nearly five hundred shotguns from major institutions will result in substantial savings in the purchase of ammunition, which costs about $500 per thousand shells. Training time and qualification on fewer types of weapons will also incur savings of about $300,000 per year. There will also be savings of approximately $100,000 every two years, associated with the maintenance, inspection and regular repair of shotguns.

Finally, since we have just passed the end of the fiscal year, I am able to share with the committee data on the overall incidents that occurred relative to the year before.

On the whole, the pattern did not change much, except in the following areas. On the negative side, robberies by offenders on conditional release continued to rise. On the positive side the number of suicides dropped sharply from the unprecedented figure of 24 in 1993-94, to 14 last year.

The most dramatic change was in the number of escapes from minimum security institutions, a drop from 202 to 98. Since we have not seen such a low figure in at least the past decade, we hope we can maintain, if not further reduce, this level.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me these brief comments. My colleagues and I are more than ready to try to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Edwards.

[Translation]

We shall begin with the Bloc Quebecois. Mr. St-Laurent, you have ten minutes.

Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Edwards, I would like to congratulate you as well as your organization on the fact that escapes have gone down. In fact, as is mentioned in the penultimate paragraph, they have gone down from 208 to 98.

In the preceding paragraph where you note that the number of suicides has dropped from 24 to 14, you also say that robberies by offenders on conditional release are on the rise. Could we have an idea of the increase in robberies, on a percentage basis for example?

[English]

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I can't give a figure for a percentage increase, but I can give you absolute figures.

The number of robberies committed by offenders during 1994 and 1995 was 113. The year before it was 102. That gives you an idea of the continuing increase that took place last year.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: On page three of the French version of the document, to which I will refer repeatedly, you mention that you intend to increase your accommodation capacity by about 3,500 over the next five years. Could you give us a breakdown by province, type of facility, that is minimum, maximum and medium-security, etc.

[English]

Commr Edwards: Yes. In terms of new facilities, the only ones we are constructing are those that have been on the books for a long period of time. One is a medium-security institution in western Ontario near Gravenhurst. Then five small institutions for females are being constructed, one in Joliette, in Truro, Kitchener, Edmonton and Maple Creek. Beyond that, it is basically expansion of existing facilities.

We have a table. I'm not sure if we have it with us, but I can certainly provide a table showing all the planned changes, province by province, for the next five years. We can certainly send that to the committee.

.0950

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: When you mention increasing capacity by 3,500, do you include double-bunking?

[English]

Senior Deputy Commissioner Andrew Graham (Correctional Service Canada): I'd like to offer some examples of the expansions.

For example, at Montée Saint-François there'd be a thirty-bed expansion of the existing minimum security institution. There are a significant number of what we refer to as ``in-builds'' - adding on to medium security institutions across the country. In particular, the emphasis in the next year or so will be in the prairie region, where the growth has been the largest in the country. For example, that would mean, I believe, an additional 80-bed expansion to the Drumheller institution. I don't have the table right in front of me.

I now have the figure of 216 beds, so that's fairly dramatic. Similarly, Bowdin institution would expand by 120.

Most of it is within current structures that we already have, not new institutions.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: There is a reference to a steady increase of approximately 5.5% last year and 25% in this document. You say ``in the next five years". Last week, I was reading a document that mentioned 50%. In the estimates, there was no mention of an equivalent staff increase. CSC has no plan to increase staff by 5.5%. There was no 5.5% staff increase last year; 5% of 2,800 were hired in Quebec and 25% is the forecast for the next five years. Do you expect to add 25% more staff to the current 10,000 or so officers, i.e. 2,500?

[English]

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, it's not 25%. Generally, with a double-bunk situation, or an overcrowded situation, we can economize a certain amount on staff. But there will certainly be more staff, without question.

We do in fact have an arrangement with the Treasury Board that as our inmate population rises, we get some financial relief. A good part of that financial relief is for the acquisition of staff.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Since last September, there's been a quite significant number of transfers from Ontario - and likely from other provinces also - to the province of Quebec. I have heard a number of representations on this, something that leads to obvious overcrowding in Quebec prisons.

Port-Cartier, for example, has a design capacity of 258. Last Friday, it held 351 inmates. So there was overcrowding, most excess inmates coming from Ontario. These are 80 maximum-security inmates. We're not talking about choir boys! How can this continue? I would also like to know if this goes on elsewhere. Do you transfer inmates from Saskatchewan to Alberta? How does it work?

[English]

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the basic driving force here is that the lowest level of overcrowding in any of our regions at the moment is in Quebec. I'm not sure if we have the relative figures on over-population, but I'm certain that, in all this material we brought, we have those figures. We'd be happy to share those with you. Perhaps, on the scale of the transfers that have taken place to date, I could ask my colleague, Jean-Claude Perron, if he has the magnitude of that at his fingertips.

[Translation]

Deputy Commissioner Jean-Claude Perron (Quebec Region, Correctional Service Canada): Mr. St. Laurent, I think we sent you recent figures on transfers from the Ontario region.

.0955

There have been exactly 82 transfers to Quebec, including some 40 to Port-Cartier. Other inmates were transferred to Donnacona or to other medium-security institutions. The 82 inmates from outside were not necessarily sent to Port-Cartier. Nor is it our intention to automatically transfer inmates from other provinces to Port-Cartier.

However, we also have sent 34 from Quebec to other areas. This means a net transfer of 50 inmates.

Mr. St-Laurent: For all of Quebec?

D/Commr Perron: Yes, for all of Quebec.

Mr. St-Laurent: When I talk of transfers, I use the original address of the inmate and not where he is. It does not necessarily refer to where he's been arrested for his crime because, judging by this, there are Quebecers in Saskatchewan because they committed crimes in that province.

D/Commr Perron: Or because they are not compatible with other inmates.

Mr. St-Laurent: Yes, I guess.

D/Commr Perron: Then the number is smaller...

Mr. St-Laurent: But this is the same order of magnitude.

D/Commr Perron: Yes.

Mr. St-Laurent: Very well. Let's go back to Mr. Edwards. You say you have done a lot to control drugs in prison. Urine tests finally seem to meet everybody's concern. Very well.

Now there's a serious problem the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General have to deal with. We have mentioned this to Mr. Gray and I think you were here also before the parliamentary break and I referred to the famous anti-gang act?

Yesterday, I was speaking with a young officer and she was telling me that for all practical purposes the leader of the Hell's Angels - I can't remember his name - is the real prison boss. Benches in the penitentiary are painted with Hell's Angels' colours to indicate their control over another gang, I guess. I'm referring here to the Hell's Angels but the idea is to control all gangs.

The Chair: Your time is running out so please put your question.

Mr. St-Laurent: Yes, very well. Mr. Edwards, what do you intend to do to control this? Of course you have to buy peace, but there should be a limit to this sort of thing inside prison. Have you reached your saturation point or will you go further?

The Chair: We have one minute left.

[English]

Commr Edwards: I will make a general comment, then ask my colleague to add to it.

Prison services generally have a continuing battle with the possibility of gangs dominating institutions. In many cases in the States that has happened to a very pronounced extent, where gangs have in fact started to exercise a lot of power within institutions. In our case, I know of two instances where we have some significant problems right now with gangs. Generally, we don't have too much problem. We'll move people very quickly from one institution to another and try to break any serious attempt for a gang to take over authority within an institution.

S.D/Commr Graham: I think the commissioner has covered the internal issue. We're working very closely with the RCMP to improve more information in advance, because you're absolutely right about the efforts that gangs will make to organize internally, both in terms of basic power and in terms of the drugs. If we can get more information about what their continued external behaviour is...the better. In fact, we're very close to signing a formal agreement to share that kind of information.

Commr Edwards: We also do not allow, Mr. Chairman, insignia on either cells or clothing to designate gang members. If there are some instances that have been drawn to your attention, please draw them to our attention and we'll move on that.

.1000

[Translation]

D/Commr Perron: You're right, Mr. St-Laurent. Lately, we had problems in one institution which I will not refer to by name. We transferred five inmates, two within Quebec, to weaken the influence of these gangs and reduce their power. So, we are all doing everything we can.

Moreover, we now have a pilot project in the Archambault institution which uses sniffer dogs to detect drugs being brought in by visitors, etc. A proposition is now before the Commissioner. He must decide.

We suggest an agreement with Immigration Canada, or some other department, by which dogs would be sent on loan to all institutions needing them, in Quebec or elsewhere.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose): I was looking at an article which we did analysis on and I wonder, Mr. Edwards, if you could comment on it. It's a report from the United States on prison situations in each state, and they made some comparisons. It clearly shows the national average per state prison inmate, including health costs, is about half what our estimate indicates.

The Chair: Are you citing a newspaper?

Mr. Thompson: U.S.A. Today, Friday, March 17, 1995.

With everything on an equal basis, the average cost per inmate throughout the United States, coming from a high of $21,816 in California to a low of approximately $11,000 in Ohio, is $14,456. When we look at the average cost per inmate that we continually hear in this country, there is a huge difference. What is it that's so different? It's not the exchange. There is no exchange rate problem here, because all expenses are inside Canada. Why does it cost so much more here? What is it that we're doing that is so much more expensive than what they are doing down there?

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, that could lead to a very lengthy response. Let me try to keep it brief and focus on the most essential things.

First, we're comparing apples and oranges insofar as we're comparing our population, which could be generally described as the most serious criminals with rapid turnaround jails for common assault offenders, and what have you. You'd have to compare our maximums against maximums, mediums against mediums, and what have you.

Another thing that is important is that we have much higher staff costs here, in large measure because we use more staff. We have higher staff-inmate ratios than in the States and I believe as a result we have better care and custody north of the border.

Also, many of the American facilities have close to zero programming. We have probably as high a level of programming as is to be found in the western world. If we were to compare our costs against those of Europe, you would find our costs would be quite similar.

There are a number of other factors that should be mentioned. I will mention one, and that is the size of institutions. We follow the European trend of having relatively small institutions. Most of our institutions are designed for about 350 people. In the States there are institutions into the thousands. There are undoubtedly economies of scale there, particularly if you're not doing much programming. What happens is you have very strong perimeter security and a very large population inside.

I could go on about health costs or a variety of other costs. We may be able to put together something that would be more thoughtful than the immediate response I'm giving you now, something we could share with you through the committee.

.1005

Mr. Thompson: I think that would be a good idea, Mr. Chairman, because there's such an enormous difference, and it should be explained.

I'd like to talk about the HIV testing and the problem they had in Kingston with tuberculosis. You will recall, Mr. Edwards, that you joined me in Edmonton with a couple...at the University of Alberta research centre. That meeting strongly indicated that if we took certain measures involving mandatory testing, not just for HIV but also hepatitis-B and hepatitis-C, and if we didn't start doing that, there would be further outbreaks. Two or three years ago, they predicted that some time in the future an outbreak such as tuberculosis would occur.

You heard that message, yet I do not hear any follow-up on that from your department and I'd like to know why. I think that kind of information is valuable and could help us in curbing those kinds of things from happening in Kingston. It seems obious to me it could.

I wonder why you're not anxious to pursue that and why you haven't done so. I certainly will be doing so in the future myself, and I hope this committee will be able to hear what we heard that day.

I'd like your response to that.

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I suspect a lot of time will be spent on this issue when I appear before the AIDS subcommittee of the health committee of the House, which I believe is in about two weeks or ten days.

After that fascinating session that you and I and Art Hanger had in Edmonton, I came back and spoke with our top experts and with Dr. Norbert Gilmore, who chaired the expert committee on AIDS and prisons. The general view is that the line being taken by Dr. Pagliaro is very much a minority view. The dominant view at the present time is to continue along the lines that we're doing now, with universal precautions, access to voluntary testing, etc.

We are watching the situation carefully. We were somewhat caught by surprise on TB; but then almost every doctor in the country was caught by surprise. TB, a few years ago, had essentially disappeared from our lexicon, and now it is back again in strong force.

I suspect we're going to be debating these issues for quite some time. At the moment the predominant views are in accord with the actions we are taking.

Mr. Thompson: I would remind you I don't think Dr. Pagliaro and his wife were caught by surprise. If you'll recall, this was predicted two or three years ago. I think that in itself should spark interest in what research is coming out of their work. We shouldn't let it lie dormant because in somebody's view they hold a minority opinion. Anyone who's capable of doing that could provide some valuable stuff. Why isn't there some follow-up on those crucial points? I'd encourage you to get on that. I think it's worth doing.

Commr Edwards: I take that in good faith. One of the measures I mentioned is this inmate survey. We may find quite a bit of information out of that as to what is happening, at least with those infectious diseases that are passed other than by air. Those passed by air, for instance TB, are a rather different type of situation.

Mr. Thompson: I'm also aware of certain institutions in our country that are applying for, and desperately trying to get, more work done in the drug area. Some of them are doing an excellent job. But there seems to be a reluctance in the upper echelons to provide such things as drug dogs. I'm getting these complaints from various levels of prisons. They would like to do more but there seems to be resistance at the upper level. Can you respond to that?

S.D/Commr Graham: There's no resistance in terms of drug dogs or new technology. The concern becomes how we can make it work and get results. For example, on the drug dogs, there is the pilot project at Archambault. There's the drug dog project in British Columbia, which we now have a full-time person working on at all the institutions. The Edmonton institution is also using it, especially for visiting. We're encouraging it.

.1010

What we're concerned about with the drug dogs is that we find the ways in which they're most effective, and we're trying to learn from them because we've had a history where they were not used that effectively and we didn't get a lot of results. The experiments that are going on right now are showing us better ways to use them and better ways to have them trained.

There are also a number of experiments going on with new technology beyond the dogs. At Collins Bay institution we're testing something called an ion scanner, which does non-contact drug testing. In several places we're also testing and have just decided last week to make available to all of the regions a CO2-type tester which helps us get brews inside. We've tested that out at Millhaven Institution and it has proven to be very successful.

We have a committee of people looking for all of these ideas from across the country. This time we want to make sure the framework is completely legal and effective and at the end of the day we get some results. The incentives really are there to get ahead.

Mr. Thompson: It seems these processes take forever. I can understand the frustration level of our people who work in these prisons. Why is it that it takes sixteen months, for example, to get something as simple as a drug dog where they know that it's going to have a positive effect? They're quite convinced of it. They're the guys who are on the ground floor doing the work. The time thing in so many ways, in so many areas...it just blows my mind that we cannot resolve things without months and months and months of study; study, study, study, instead of taking some action. What's the problem?

S.D/Commr Graham: Basically, we're operating in a very tight legal framework here. Believe me, it's unique in the world. When we talk to colleagues outside the country.... The story of urinalysis and getting the random testing established in the courts as an acceptable tool I think is an object lesson. We want to do it right, and in doing so, if people have local initiatives that can fit within what we legally can do.... If we do it right we can push the envelope, as we found with urinalysis we've been able to do.

Frankly, with respect to the dogs, several of the initiatives were perfectly good local initiatives that people began, and we're encouraging them. So there are no brakes on; but it has to be within the legal framework.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Mr. Edwards, concerning the whole question that was raised by Mr. Thompson about mandatory testing, you are now requiring urinalysis probably for the purpose of detecting drug use. If an inmate uses drugs it doesn't affect the other inmates, and yet we have no mandatory testing for tuberculosis, which is such that if one person has it the other person will get it. We have people with HIV, which another person may get under certain circumstances, and you do not have mandatory testing. I find it rather ironic that for drug testing you're pursuing it with urinalysis and going through the courts and yet nothing is being done for mandatory testing for diseases that can be easily transmitted to other inmates, who, I would suggest, have a right to be protected by the prison system from such diseases.

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments. We do in fact have policies requiring mandatory testing, but we won't use physical force if the person refuses. We will not hold someone down and take blood out of their body, any more than we will in regard to urinalysis. If someone refuses to give us a sample they will be punished, but we will not use surgical tools to extract it.

In any case, where we believe there is a danger we will do what we can to neutralize it, and we will certainly impress on people to have testing, as in the area of tuberculosis.

.1015

In fact, I believe my colleague Madame Dufresne will have some figures on the very high level of voluntary testing that's taking place now in Ontario.

Ms Dyane Dufresne (Corporate Adviser, Human Resources, Correctional Service Canada): Yes. We have almost completed the testing in Ontario for inmates and staff. We're doing it in very close cooperation with the union, staff and inmates. To give you an example, two inmates have refused the testing.

S.D/Commr Graham: Out of 3,500.

Ms Dufresne: Yes. Therefore, in this case these inmates are referred for medical review or we're providing them alternatives. There are different ways of detecting TB. It could be a skin test or it could be an X-ray. So we're dealing with those two cases. Overall, the results are very positive.

Mr. Bodnar: We have two inmates who refused. Two inmates can probably infect a good part of a population. Is anything being done with such inmates who refuse testing by putting them into isolation and keeping them away from the rest of the prison population?

Commr Edwards: Exactly.

Mr. Bodnar: That's being done to protect the rest of the population?

Commr Edwards: That is correct. They're both in segregation.

Mr. Bodnar: HIV as well?

Commr Edwards: That's anonymous testing.

Mr. Bodnar: Again, you're dealing with anonymous testing for a deadly disease while you're dealing in a different way with a disease that may not be deadly and can be cured. Do you not find that a bit, for lack of a better word, hypocritical?

Commr Edwards: As so often in the public sector, Mr. Chairman, we're bouncing conflicting objectives. Certainly the advice that we're getting and certainly the advice that came out of the Expert Committee on AIDS in Prisons - they were fundamentally concerned about the public health aspects of the inmate population. They argued against mandatory testing but to make it instead as available as possible and encourage inmates through education programs to get tested and to take precautions of one kind or another to limit their risk.

Mr. Bodnar: Moving to another topic, you indicate on page 8 of your report that there will be certain items removed, such as shotguns, from the penitentiaries or at least from armed posts in maximum security institutions. You are probably aware of an incident a few years ago in the Prince Albert Penitentiary and the shooting of two inmates with shotguns in a hostage-taking incident.

Commr Edwards: Yes.

Mr. Bodnar: Are you saying now that could not occur? Or would that still be possible?

Commr Edwards: It would still be possible. We're taking them out of the fixed posts inside the institution, but the emergency response teams would still have access to the full arsenal. It was an emergency response team that went in and put down that problem.

Mr. Bodnar: You further indicate a 12-gauge shotgun may have a psychological deterrence in defusing a volatile situation, which I assume is a positive for you. Then you state that it is considered dangerous to use within the close confines of an institution. Has that happened?

Commr Edwards: Yes. We've had injuries.

Mr. Bodnar: Have there been injuries in such circumstances?

Commr Edwards: From ricochets, yes.

Mr. Bodnar: Is that why it's being removed?

Commr Edwards: That is correct. I might add, Mr. Chairman, in more detail, that the Federal Bureau removed its shotguns some years ago. California doesn't have shotguns. New York doesn't have shotguns. There's not a European, at least not western European, prison service that has shotguns inside the perimeter, other than for emergency situations that we just described.

Mr. Bodnar: Generally in Canada, has the crime rate been decreasing over the last few years or constant?

Commr Edwards: It's been pretty stable in the last few years, yes.

Mr. Bodnar: But the prison population is going up by about 5% per year.

Commr Edwards: That is correct.

Mr. Bodnar: That doesn't seem to be good news, especially when you're projecting an increase of about 25% over the next few years.

Commr Edwards: It is not good news, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bodnar: The increase is due primarily to what? Why will it increase when we have a steady rate of crime? Crime is not increasing, but the prison population is increasing.

Commr Edwards: There are many factors, Mr. Chairman. There is a certain increase in the flow of people coming to our institutions through the intervention of the court system. Some of them are coming in with longer sentences, which again adds to the population more than someone coming in for a short sentence, obviously.

It's coming about as a result of the public mood, depressing the speed with which people are released on parole. The same public mood has some impact on the likelihood that we'll revoke or suspend a parole when some condition is breached.

.1020

It's coming about in part through legislative changes of one kind or another. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, for instance, said you could not provide a day parole unless the person was six months within the timeframe of a full parole. That limited the number of day paroles.

So a large number of factors are at play here, and they do not necessarily link back to the crime rate.

Mr. Bodnar: The prison population is going up. There's increased incarceration with a constant crime rate. Is there anything to show that the increased incarceration is resulting in a decreased crime rate or not?

Commr Edwards: No. I don't think there is any evidence of that in the world. If you look south of the border, for instance, you would get the ultimate reductio ad absurdum, where you have a massively increasing population inside and also a rising crime rate.

Mr. Bodnar: Then it's probably crucial to institute some of the long-term fundamental changes of keeping non-violent offenders to a minimum period of incarceration, increased use of alternatives in sentencing, and again changing other areas such as the progress in crime prevention strategies aimed at diverting young people from the criminal justice system to reduce the crime rate.

Commr Edwards: With the ultimate importance on the third one. You can see our case files one after another, and you'll see some new inmate who got into alcohol around the age of nine, drugs at eleven, car thefts at twelve, small break-and-enters at fourteen, and then into the heavier stuff farther down the road. If we could have done something farther back, we might have diverted that person from a life of crime. Bear in mind that a lot of people who come into our institutions may well learn the crime business rather than learn how to avoid crime.

Mr. Bodnar: You indicate as well this survey or suggestion of a survey in dealing with certain aspects. You refer to this at the bottom of page 7 and the top of page 8. Again, I find surveys rather interesting sometimes, because to reduce the incidence of HIV in jails and to reduce such matters...it's obvious. If you have mandatory testing, if you isolate HIV-positive individuals, and if you can reduce the use of drugs, there's no use for a survey; just start working in those particular areas. Is the call for a survey not just a delay and a useless expenditure of moneys?

Commr Edwards: I don't think so. That's only one aspect of the survey, to begin with. I'd still be pushing for a survey even if we weren't looking at high-risk behaviours from the point of view of infection.

There was a strong feeling by the Expert Committee on AIDS in Prison that we're doing a lot by guesswork. We really don't know very much about behaviours inside institutions. I'm certain that if each of us around this table were to put down on a piece of paper the proportion we believe use needles inside prison, we'd probably have a range from 3% to 30%. I would suspect it's closer to the first than the second, but I don't know where it is. I would like to know.

We pilot-tested a draft survey with inmates and found we could get meaningful information. They were prepared to take it seriously. So I think we may end up with a lot of very interesting information.

The Chair: Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): On page 8, paragraph 2, you say that we don't know exactly how much HIV is transmitted because of high-risk behaviour: tattooing, unprotected sexual relations, needle use and so on. You talked about unprotected sex, non-desired sex, statutory rape, which seems to be very widespread in North America and maybe beyond the continent. Do you have any figures or impressions about prisoners who, because of the law of silence, are forced into sexual relations with other prisoners because of all sorts of threats of reprisals or physical coercion? What steps do you take in such cases?

.1025

Commr Edwards: Let me pick up the last part, about what steps we take.

We monitor as closely as we can what is happening. Generally, this kind of thing will not necessarily come to our attention unless there is a complaint. Again, we should learn more about this phenomenon if the survey is well done. What we do know is that the amount of forcible sex is probably quite low.

I draw the attention of the committee to a report done in April 1992, called Victimization behind the walls: social control in male federal prisons, by a professor from the University of Manitoba. In there, a minor survey was done, and sexual assault was very, very low. For instance, assaults were 188 per 1,000 prisoners, and sexual assaults were 8 per 1,000, which turns out to be an observation of one victim.

By the looks of it, it's a very low percentage. But this was not a very large survey. Again, this other survey should throw more light on that.

It's comparatively hard to assault sexually, given the lack of privacy in institutions. It probably would be easier in a minimum-security institution. But in a maximum-security institution there's a lot of supervision. People are not often alone with other people, and certainly not beyond a voice carrying to others who are around. There are a lot of people around even when inmates are in their cells, let alone elsewhere.

My suspicion is that sexual assault is quite low, but it's still there. It's an inherent risk inside prisons that forceful homosexual activity will take place. We fear it. We don't think it's widespread, but we're not certain. We are certain it probably does occur from time to time.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: According to these April 1992 figures, there is a rate of 8 per 1,000. If I understand you correctly, people are more protected against sexual harassment in penitentiaries that in public life in general. Perhaps the same measures should be made elsewhere.

On the other hand, because of the con rule, the harassment victims do not necessarily complain to the officer in charge. Occasionally, some may even ignore acts that are not covered by legislation but are governed by human behaviour. So, when you get new figures and a new perception of the situation, I urge you to keep us informed. Thank you.

[English]

Commr Edwards: Let me just add that in this report of 1992, one of the other primary findings is that what was called the old ``con code'' - the code of silence amongst inmates vis-à-vis speaking to staff - had fallen apart quite badly. There's been a decline in that code. You can see it in a variety of areas.

I was down at one of our major medium institutions not so long ago. I met with the inmate committee and discovered that the president of the committee was a sex offender. Ten years ago that would never have happened. Again, in accordance with the ``con code'', these were the people at the bottom of the pecking order, whilst in that institution that person had been elected as chair of the inmate committee.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): First of all, I wanted to thank you for sending the follow-up information you did. The accommodation policies and standards were particularly interesting.

I think I addressed it with you last time. I will leave it on the table. I don't really want a lot of comment on it. Since concerns were raised in the Kingston Prison for Women video, and since there were questions about whether or not sanitary napkins and tampons and underwear were available, I asked you if you could not reissue a directive to all your people in that institution, specifically stating that this is our practice, much as you have done with this document, making sure that in the interim, until that's decided, we do not ever have another incident where women are denied basic hygiene materials. Whether or not they were or weren't denied is not really the issue. The issue is making sure it doesn't ever happen again.

.1030

There is an issue I really wanted to raise with you today. It's something I think I also raised last time you came before us, a long time ago, and that is the question of what happens to our inmates when they are released.

I talk in our community about how we have to do a better job of reintegrating people, and how we have to hire them and everything else. I hear from both my Halton regional people who organize social assistance and now from a food bank in our community that inmates are coming to them with absolutely no money, needing emergency cash, and with no job prospects. I have a letter here that describes someone who doesn't even have a social insurance number or an OHIP number, was released with $20 and the clothing on his back - no heavy coat in winter - and who is undergoing cancer treatment.

I want to know how these things continue to occur. If we don't do a better job of reintegrating people, of course we're going to have a higher robbery recidivism rate. They have no choice.

We had letters from an inmate in New Brunswick who asked us about this very issue, saying they get $50, a bus ticket and a new pair of running shoes. I'm not sure what any of us here would do if we were left with so few skills, with no training program, and with nothing to walk into. I know the Salvation Army, the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society are doing some terrific work.

I want to know what our follow-up plan is from the Correctional Service for these inmates to make sure we're not forcing them into a situation they really can't cope with. I'm sure a lot of us couldn't cope with it.

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I invite my colleagues to add to what I'm going to say.

Our basic tool is a release plan. We have a plan shared with the National Parole Board before someone goes out on a conditional release of some kind. It indicates where they're going to live, what community and family support is there, what access to relapse prevention programming is there, and what the probability is of their getting employment or a promise of employment or something of this kind.

Also, they have access to the normal social benefits available in the province in which they live. I believe we provide what assistance we can through parole officers to lead them to those officials who can activate the flow of funds.

It is true we don't provide them with much money when they leave. Bear in mind that most inmates in federal institutions have been in there for some time. They will, in all likelihood, have had inmate pay during that time. They have trust funds they can build up. Aside from the clothes on their backs, I think we give them...how much, is it about $100?

S.D/Commr Graham: Yes, we give them $100.

Commr Edwards: And we make certain they get to their destination. I assume they can access social benefits very quickly.

Increasingly now, over the last year or so, we also provide access to community chaplaincy operations, where there are essentially drop-in centres run by groups of faiths or individual faiths, where they will not be judged, and where there is a warm place and some kind of support for them.

I don't pretend to say that the bottom line isn't that coming out of prison without strong family support and the other attributes you mentioned, such as employment and what have you - particularly after many years - makes for a lonely place out there. I'm certain that some people do come back in again simply because they can't cut it outside.

Ms Torsney: Commissioner, you have a release plan. You know exactly where the person's going. Before that person leaves your institution, why don't they already have all the documentation from my region or any other region in this country?

Why are all these people coming in under an emergency funds basis? In my community, that still takes a lot of time. It doesn't make sense to me that we would destroy whatever self-esteem these people have - if they have any - by forcing them into this drastic situation.

[Translation]

D/Commr Perron: The commissioner said it a moment ago: we also pay their travel expenses from the institution to their place of residence.

Then they have a minimum of $80 and maybe more, if they manage to save some money while they were inside.

The most important point to my mind, is that we have community correctional centres and residential centres. People who are destitute and are homeless are sent to our half-way houses where they're fed and sheltered. In the case of a community correctional centre belonging to the Correctional Service, they get a meal allowance. On top of that, our parole officers are allowed to lend money to these parolees.

[English]

Ms Torsney: How much?

.1035

[Translation]

People often think that prisoners do not work. Yet, 66% of people under probation work or study. I think that is an excellent result for people who have a criminal record and who haven't had much luck in life, especially when you compare their unemployment rate with the general population's. Don't forget that you are talking about a minority.

[English]

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to have an opportunity to pose some questions.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that my questions are going to deal with dangerous offenders and the parole supervision they have or do not have. I'm going to use the specific example of Fernand Auger.

When Melanie Carpenter was killed on January 6, they very quickly had a picture from a bank machine of an individual, and it was nationally broadcast on January 7. It wasn't until January 9 that the parole violation was reported and there was an all-points bulletin. I hear from my community, which was involved in the search, from the RCMP community, that they weren't aware this individual was on the hit list or they had him roaming their streets.

Why did it take five or six days before Fernand Auger was identified? Why the delay in time? Do you feel the correctional service handled that as quickly as they could have and should have?

S.D/Commr Graham: What date...?

Ms Meredith: She was killed on January 6. On January 7 the bank machine picture was broadcast nationally. On January 9 a warrant was issued and on January 12 he was identified. Considering everybody across Canada had a picture of this individual the day after, why did it take five or six days before the Correctional Service was able to identify him?

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I don't have an answer, unless one of my colleagues does. We can get an answer as to what was happening that caused the delay.

Ms Meredith: I would appreciate that.

The other thing that causes me concern is that on November 23, 1993, Mr. Auger was denied parole because he was considered a dangerous offender. Yet on August 29, which is not that many months later, he was granted statutory release. He was conditioned to close monitoring, which was reporting in once a week. Do you feel a weekly meeting is considered close monitoring?

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe Mr. Auger was ever considered, if you mean the term in the technical sense, a dangerous offender. He was in our prisons for an offence of robbery. He was considered at an earlier stage not eligible for some kind of parole, but he was issued under statutory release on the grounds that the judgment was that he would not be dangerous enough to commit a violent offence. Obviously that judgment proved to be wrong, from the facts as we understand them right now.

There is an investigation under way that will be reporting, I believe, very soon. It began on January 23. As soon as we have the report, as is our practice, we'll make it accessible to those who wish to see it, subject to the severance we have to do for access to information.

Ms Meredith: I would appreciate that. I'd also like a comment from you on comments made by one of your managers in discussing how it was possible that an individual who brutally raped and sodomized two very young prostitutes would not be considered dangerous, and that if that information was available to you, it wouldn't be part of creating a picture of who this individual was. The comments from your manager, publicly, were that because they were prostitutes some degree of consent was involved and that lessened the degree of seriousness.

Do you agree with his comments? Is that how you perceive things: you look at the event only?

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on two aspects of the question, the lead-in and then the question itself.

.1040

Whether we would consider someone dangerous would depend on judgments about them at the time when we make the judgment. At the time, we would have looked at the whole story, which included the fact that there were serious sexual offences back ten years earlier. He was in with us for robbery. There had been no repetition of sex offences.

I don't know enough about the case - and until the investigation is done, I won't - that led to the original sentence in a provincial institution, but on the surface it sounds very strange that he would be given less than two years for what were, as you say, brutal rapes. So maybe there were some circumstances in there that influenced the judge. Whether they were appropriate influences on the judge, I don't know.

That leads me to the second part. I in no way agree that the lifestyle of victims should be a factor in how we treat the offender - none whatsoever.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): Welcome.

First of all, I'm very pleased to hear that anonymous testing is available now. On the Expert Committee on HIV and AIDS in Prison, I'd like to know, other than needle exchanges, what recommendations in that report have not yet been implemented.

Commr Edwards: I mentioned in my opening comments that we are looking at bleach, but there is concern on the part of our staff that liquid bleach in small containers could be used as a weapon against staff.

Mrs. Barnes: Don't you already have bleach in small containers in some of the prisons?

Commr Edwards: No. We have bleach on many floors of many buildings that is used for washing clothing and what have you. What we're talking about now is providing bleach that can be taken back to cells and this kind of thing.

Right now we have a demonstration going on in Matsqui Institution using these small bottles, but having heard that a number of other jurisdictions have had some experience now with bleach, we don't see the need to go through demonstrations and would like to move, so long as we can reassure our staff that there isn't a serious danger.

My staff have just drawn to my attention that there was another recommendation that we have not actioned and will not action, at least in the foreseeable future - I would almost add during my time as commissioner, I suspect; by my choice, anyhow - and that is to allow consensual sex in cells. The reason for it comes back to the comments the hon. member was making earlier. It's very hard to draw a line between consensual and forced sex within the manipulative environment of an institution. So we will not allow that.

Mrs. Barnes: Your report today said the design capacity in prisons is exceeded by about 18%, on average. What institution suffers from the highest degree of overcrowding, and by how much? What is being done at that particular institution to alleviate it?

Commr Edwards: I can get that information for you. Many of our medium-security institutions are way above 18%, but I don't have the figures on that.

The Chair: What's the norm? It used to be about 450 in places such as Joyceville and Warkworth.

Commr Edwards: I would imagine they are close to 25% higher than that now.

The Chair: Is the norm about 450 for those institutions?

S.D/Commr Graham: That was what they were built for, sir.

The Chair: Yes, that's what they were built for.

S.D/Commr Graham: For example, at Warkworth, with the expansions, the capacity is now about 550, but its population is close to 700.

The Chair: What's the most crowded one?

Mrs. Barnes: What's the most crowded one? Don't you know that?

Commr Edwards: How to respond is difficult. For instance, in an institution that has an intake of new inmates, we routinely double bunk inmates who are coming in for testing for their first eight weeks or so before they go off to another institution. So that would tend to bias a result for, say, Edmonton Institution, which would show very high, in part, because of that.

Mrs. Barnes: If you can tell me that the average is 18%, you should be able to tell me what the highest level is to obtain the average.

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, within an hour after leaving this meeting you can have a photocopy of every single figure for every institution in the country.

Mrs. Barnes: Okay, that's fine. That's what I'd like to have. Thank you.

Commr Edwards: You're more than welcome. We have it, I can assure you, and we do monitor it.

The Chair: That should be sent to the clerk of this committee.

Commr Edwards: Any correspondence on anything arising today or in other sessions will come back through the chair or the clerk.

.1045

Mrs. Barnes: There's little value in telling you again how opposed I am to double bunking, but I'll just put it on the record. You know my reasons.

Commr Edwards: Yes.

Mrs. Barnes: I understand there's a policy decision to put male front-line workers in the Kingston Prison for Women and in the regional prisons. I have concerns about this. We had a Supreme Court case in 1993 - I think it's Weatherall - affirming that it's a good idea to have women front-line workers. Though it's not unconstitutional, Canada has signed international treaties in the past saying that front-line workers should be women. I'd like to know what your reasoning is for putting men as front-line workers again.

Commr Edwards: First of all, let me clarify something. We have no plans to put front-line workers into P4W. P4W will stay that way until it closes.

Mrs. Barnes: What about the five new institutions?

Commr Edwards: About the five new institutions, we did a partial survey of FSW inmates to seek their views, which were not particularly negative. There were some concerns, but not by any means an awful lot of opposition to the notion. There is a feeling that we do not wish to isolate female offenders who are going to be away from society for a long period of time from some contact with men. We believe we can select male officers who are going to be very sensitive to the particular problems and sensitivities of female offenders. I suspect the bottom line is that there are going to be very few male officers who have any desire to work there or who we would desire to work there.

Mrs. Barnes: I can only stress that 80% of federally sentenced women have histories of physical or sexual abuse. I really don't understand a policy directive coming from you that would be anything but having front-line female workers, and I certainly hope you would take that in a constructive manner and work against what I think is bad policy.

Commr Edwards: Yes.

Mrs. Barnes: I want to talk about sexual abuse programs and the percentage of federally incarcerated inmates who have undergone treatment and how many are left untreated, or wanting treatment, and what percentage of the population needing treatment gets released without having any treatment. If you can't get me those figures today - and I know that's a lot - please forward them.

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could throw some light on it and then get more precision for you.

We have seen a rapid rise in sex offenders in our institutions. If we try to enumerate those who are inside either for sex offences directly or for other offences of a more serious kind - such as murder - where sex was involved.... We probably have something in the order of 4,900 people in our institutions. Our capacity to treat inside the institutions has risen dramatically from 200 a few years back to about 1,100 now, and a further 600 out in the community.

Not all sex offenders necessarily need treatment. There is an enormous variation within that population. Some require intensive treatment, some moderate, some light, and some may be in for a sexual offence and really do not require treatment as such.

Some of the treatment can be done just as well outside as inside. In fact, the general view is that whatever is done inside probably does need some relapse or interim component once the people come outside into the community.

Clearly, there are some who are refusing treatment. We pick up the odd well-known public case on that. There are some who want the treatment but who are delayed in their treatment because the limited space goes to those who have the first date for release and this kind of thing. There are others who undoubtedly may not get the kind of treatment they're looking for, but that might not be the right kind of treatment either.

We are building our capacity as fast as we can. We've had a huge conference on sex offender treatment recently and we're trying to get our act together as to what kinds of treatment work with what kinds of our patients. It's not a magical thing where there is one template that fits all, and we need only crank up to 4,900 and we've done it.

.1050

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Concerning the trailers or units in the prison yards or adjacent to the institutions used for visits, do you know that in some institutions, the prison authorities have all control because units have literally been requisitioned by groups of inmates who demand a lot of money from those who want to use them?

[English]

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I would love to have precision on that. I do not know, and I don't think the deputy commissioner responsible for Quebec knows, but if there are facts on that, we would move very, very quickly. It's a very important part of our programming to keep families together, and we certainly do not want that kind of manipulation taking place.

I'm not sure how easily it could even take place, insofar as the rationing is done by staff, and generally, in accordance with a rotation, it's your turn every three months or whatever it is.

But if you have precision, please give it to us - I mean that most sincerely - and we'll stamp on it. But I'm a little sceptical as to whether that is a rumour that's been drawn to your attention or there really are some facts behind it. If there are, please do share that with us.

[Translation]

D/Commr Perron: I would also be interested to know whether it is taking place in the Quebec region. I would be surprised if it were the case, but I would like to know where this is happening.

Mr. Langlois: I suggest you check with the Leclerc Institution to find out how inmates can have access to these units.

D/Commr Perron: I know what is taking place at Leclerc. I have met long-term inmates, lifers. I meet them once a year and I know that the institute follows the report of the working group on long-term sentences, which I chaired.

Those long-term inmates must be allowed to have more family visits than the others because they cannot leave the institutions while other inmates are granted temporary leaves and enjoy some of the same benefits that when they lived in the community.

However, it does not mean that the system works as you described. There is a certain amount of rationality on all this: long-term inmates can enjoy family visits, because it's most important for them to remain in touch with their families.

Mr. Langlois: Do you know that the same institution has procedures that allow the inmates to make money by producing pottery, for example.

D/Commr Perron: No, I didn't know.

Mr. Langlois: If you visit Leclerc, you can keep my question in mind. Thank you.

[English]

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I'd like to know a little more about the women's facilities that are going to be opened, and I have a question about the first dangerous female offender we have. Will these prisons be able to hold anybody like that, or does she have to stay by herself in an all-male prison? How is that going to work?

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, each of these small female penitentiaries will have a secure block, and if we have to look after some dangerous offenders, they will be so looked after. They are as secure as any of our more secure institutions, so it should not be a problem.

Ms Phinney: Exactly when are you opening each of the other centres? Do you know?

Commr Edwards: Yes, I do. Let me try to pick that up: Truro, first of all, July 1995. Will Joliette be July of this year?

D/Commr Perron: It will be 1996.

Commr Edwards: In 1996. That's better.

Ms Phinney: It will be 1996 for which one?

Commr Edwards: Truro is July 1995. Joliette is about a year later. My figures say spring of 1996, but my colleague is saying it's delayed. Kitchener will be spring of 1996; Edmonton should be considerably earlier, the fall of 1995; and the healing lodge will be opened in August of this year.

.1055

Ms Phinney: I have another question. On page 4 you're talking about how you're going to try to minimize the adverse impact of overcrowding, and one of the things you're going to be doing is pursuing efforts to increase inmate employment. It has just taken the last year, because of cuts, to cut down all the inmate employment, which is sort of a sad effect that happens when corporations and government get these bright ideas that they're going to cut all this out to save money and at the end of five years you realize it's a bad idea.

You don't have any more money. One of the main complaints when we were touring the prisons - and it's logical; anybody can see it - was that if they're not occupied, if they're not doing something, it's going to be hard for them to leave with any higher esteem than when they went in there. How are you going to arrange this? Are you going to get companies that will pay for it? Is there a way you can get companies to say they will set up a business in there and let the employees work? Of course, you're still doing the security, etc., but how are you planning to do this with no more money?

Commr Edwards: Madam Chairman, any way we can. You're right, some of our primary product lines have declined sharply. Furniture and furnishings for the public service, needless to say, with major downsizing are not a high demand area. Perhaps we can get the private sector, such as at Springhill, to come in. Scott Paper has a plant right on the premises there, which has worked very well for a long period of time.

In fact, the biggest area of hope for us is to go back to a tradition that was unfortunately dropped years ago, and that is to get inmates involved in construction. As indicated in the notes here, we are still doing a lot of construction. We believe we can probably get inmates to handle up to about $35 million worth of construction activity. We started last year, we're now into the millions of dollars, and I think we'll see it rapidly expand.

There really is no reason for smaller units such as private family visiting units or the landscaping in institutions, a lot of the small-unit approaches to the modern prison, not to be done by inmates. They're learning good skills. Aside from good work habits, they're learning skills that probably can be used on the outside, at least when the construction industry is relatively healthy. That is our greatest hope right now.

Ms Phinney: Do you have facilities inside that are now empty and that previously were used for industries that came in? I think we saw one place where they were building some kind of mailboxes or something. I'm not sure what they were constructing. Do you have facilities now? If you could find some kind of industry that could come in, is there any place that's empty right now?

Commr Edwards: I don't think there's a lot empty. There are a lot of areas that are not being as well used as they could be. Contrast, for instance, Stony Mountain Institution, where we have two shifts. At the moment the workload is quite high and therefore we have two shifts going in the same area. In other places we may be dealing with a very small labour force, many times smaller than a few years ago. They're still using the space but it's not being used nearly as intensely as it could be.

Ms Phinney: Do you do any advertising at all out to small businesses to say you will help them set up some kind of industry within the prison?

Commr Edwards: Yes, we do. We also have a board of directors who are private sector, a cross-section of people from across the land - I'd be happy to give a list, including the occupations from which they come - who advise me. We meet once every couple of months, and that is very valuable to us.

We do put out publicity on our product lines. I have one in front of me, in French, about beds. It's a brand-new product we're producing for domiciled care, people in nursing homes and what have you, beds that go up and down and all over the place. I'm happy to get copies of our whole product line listing, which has photographs and what have you.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I'd like to get back to the testing for diseases. I was quite interested when my colleague across the way was asking about mandatory HIV testing because of the fact that we don't have compulsory HIV testing when people immigrate to our country. It was interesting, because Art Hanger introduced a private members' bill that would have provided for that, but the government voted it down. Usually when that happens it's because they're going to introduce a bill of their own; but we don't see that coming.

.1100

Nevertheless, could I ask you this. When an inmate first enters an institution, is there no testing for diseases? Is there no physical, where a person submits to a blood test, chest X-rays and so on?

Commr Edwards: We certainly test for TB, I know that.

Ms Dufresne: At reception.

Commr Edwards: At reception, yes. The moment they arrive they're tested with a double Mantoux test, I believe.

Ms Dufresne: That's right.

Commr Edwards: What about a blood test? Do we do a routine blood test? Do we screen for HIV? I don't think so.

S.D/Commr Graham: A physical is done. I can't answer the question about a blood test. It's been a long time since I've been a warden. We could find out the exact tests that are done on admission, because there's a standardized admission procedure. We could get that for you in terms of what specifically is measured. We'd be happy to get that for you.

Mr. Ramsay: Are psychological tests done at the same time?

S.D/Commr Graham: Yes. A full battery of testing is done. It's called the assessment intake, which includes psychological testing and criminal history. It includes all of the information. There's also what's called a computerized lifestyle - which is I think a bit of a misnomer - that tests family background and tests for propensity for drug use and alcohol abuse. A complete array of testing is done, called the offender intake.

Commr Edwards: We spend about eight weeks, I believe, assessing new inmates before we move them on to an appropriate institution.

Mr. Ramsay: I find it difficult to understand why we have a TB problem, why we have an HIV problem, why we have any kind of a communicable disease problem within our institutions if the inmates are checked at the time of entry to determine whether they're sick, whether they're carrying any of the viruses that could be spread within the population. Of all places, you'd think in an institution of incarceration you should be able to control that.

Now, if there's no testing, then I can understand why it's not. But why are we having these problems within the institutions of our country if it's a simple matter of testing? We test people who enter the armed forces. When I entered the RCMP, I had to undergo a full medical, blood test and everything. Is there no mandatory testing of inmates when they enter the federal institution?

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, we can get details of what tests are run when inmates come in, but let me pick up on the TB. We do test with as good a test as is available to us when inmates come into our institutions. But bear in mind they have visitors. We have 9,000 volunteers who come in and out. We have psychologists who come in and out, all kinds of contract people. Police come in and out. Now, in the case of TB, all it requires, as I understand it, is for you to share the air with someone else who is infected and you'll get it. It's a highly volatile situation with TB.

I think your arguments are stronger, much stronger, on things like HIV. If we knew who they were, we could probably isolate them. But that is not the policy at this stage.

Mr. Ramsay: I understand that. The point I'm making is that if there is simply a standard physical at the time an inmate enters an institution - and particularly when they're transferred from one to another - I would suggest there should be a standard medical examination requirement for everyone who moves into an institution, whether it's a transfer or whether it's from the courts. Yes, there are diseases that are going to be picked up, as you say, from visitors and so on, but surely we should be able to rely on a policy that ensures that someone who enters an institution is reasonably healthy and not either carrying the HIV virus or in some way dangerous to the other inmates who are subjected to being in close proximity to them.

.1105

Commr Edwards: I hear the comment. I'm not sure how to respond beyond what I've already said.

The Chair: If I understand, it's a policy question that goes above you to the minister.

Commr Edwards: No, I don't think it's that. I think it is very much a policy issue that does not lend itself to an easy answer. These people are not coming to us voluntarily. They do go through a battery of normal medicals. However, I'm sure we're not testing for HIV.

The Chair: Isn't the question not to test for HIV a policy question?

Commr Edwards: Yes, most definitely; most certainly. But there's a counter-side to it, and that is deep fear on the part of offenders that the word will get out that they are HIV and they will end up being treated severely by other inmates. They themselves, if they have HIV, are not a danger. They're only a danger if they engage in unprotected sex or exchange needles or do the other kinds of risky behaviours that spread HIV.

So if someone comes in with HIV, so long as we're using universal precautions when we get into an altercation with them or something of this kind, wearing gloves and this kind of thing, we should not have much of a problem, and that's what we tell our staff: universal precautions with everyone. Assume everyone has HIV. If you are getting into a serious situation, put on your gloves and take other precautions to avoid risk to yourself.

The Chair: I have a few questions myself.

Recently I've had constituents who are English speaking being sent to institutions in Quebec where there are no English-language programs. As you know, there are about 800,000 to 1 million anglophones in Quebec...or at least English is their adopted Canadian language. Probably the same problems occur in Ontario and in the Atlantic provinces for francophones.

For example, I've had some correspondence with your people recently about a person at the Drummondville Institution. The person had problems with alcohol and drugs, which led to robbery and other offences. He was sitting in prison without any program. The programs were available in French.

I just want to know what your policy is and what you're doing about having programs for anglophone inmates in Quebec as well as for francophone inmates in Ontario and New Brunswick.

I've had problems like this over the years. On occasion when they were serious, I referred them to the official languages commissioner for investigation, and every year I think the official languages commissioner has followed through on some of these. Is there not a way of at least sending the English-speaking inmates in Quebec to one institution - let's say Cowansville - and having programs there rather than dispersing them all over the place? What's the answer here?

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Jean-Claude Perron to add his remarks in regard to the specifics in Quebec. Our general policy, as you are all too well aware, is to provide treatment where numbers allow. In the particular case you're referring to, in Drummondville, I understand the inmate started a substance abuse program in English on April 3.

The Chair: That's right, finally. It took a long while.

Commr Edwards: That's right. When I've visited the institutions in Quebec, I have met quite a number -

The Chair: If he hadn't come to me...I don't know. It took a lot of pushing and shoving, but it's finally happened.

Commr Edwards: What is our general policy? Do we have quite a number of programs?

The Chair: I'm just as concerned for the francophones who are outside as I am for the anglophones inside Quebec.

Commr Edwards: I appreciate that. - Jean-Claude.

[Translation]

D/Commr Perron: Anglophones have less problems in Quebec institutions than francophones in other provinces.

The Chair: I don't know. From time to time, I receive letters from inmates in other parts of Canada.

D/Commr Perron: As far as the Quebec region is concerned, we have obviously tried to address the situation in Drummondville. We also have problems in Port-Cartier because many anglophones come from Ontario and other regions. We are addressing these problems.

Obviously in the Port-Cartier area, it is more difficult because even within the population, it is difficult to find bilingual contractors or resource people.

.1110

The Chair: I understand this argument in the case of Port-Cartier where families live far away, but in the case of Drummondville, Cowansville, or the Leclerc Penitentiary most of the families are close by, since these institutions are all in the Montreal region.

D/Commr Perron: The Leclerc Penitentiary offers the largest number of programs for anglophones. There are many Jamaicans and anglophones of various origins there. They have access to programs against drug addiction, criminality, etc. In Cowansville and Drummondville, we solved part of the problem. Specific cases will be dealt with individually but in general the policy applies to everybody. That is the law and no one can break the law.

[English]

The Chair: I want to move to another question, on the new women's prisons. I have a whole exchange of correspondence here between the Elizabeth Fry Society and the Correctional Service.

My concern relates to the construction of the new penitentiary. In the past, for men, we've had, as you know, the various categories of classification - maximum, medium and minimum security, and halfway houses, etc. At the Prison for Women, it's always been all categories of security in the same institution, which leads to problems for programs and security. As a matter of fact, I think some of the recent problems at the Prison for Women are due to the fact that you have maximum security women mixed in with medium and minimum.

The problem is, with the construction of the five new penitentiaries, you will still have all categories of security in the same institution. I notice that in a letter from the Elizabeth Fry Society to your director of the federally sentenced women program, it says, first of all, ``I wish to commend you and your staff for attempting to develop an alternative security classification system for federally sentenced women''. It then goes on to refer to the recommendations of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women.

Here we're spending all this money for these five new institutions, which will have newer walls, concrete and bricks. Are we going to have the same problems we had at the Prison for Women because we have the same types of security classifications and the same approaches on security that were in place for men?

On the other hand, alternative solutions have been suggested both in the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women and by the Elizabeth Fry Society and other organizations. What is being done now before these institutions open to prevent what has happened for years and years and years at the Prison for Women?

S.D/Commr Graham: The first basic fact is that when we looked at the current population in the current prison, the vast majority -

The Chair: You mean in the Prison for Women.

S.D/Commr Graham: Yes. In the current prison the vast majority are not maximum. In fact, the majority are minimum or medium security. I think that's just a fact, for background purposes.

The Chair: Then you have minimum security women in this institution, which is really a maximum security institution.

S.D/Commr Graham: That is one of the reasons why we created the Isabel McNeil House across the way to house eleven of them a number of years ago. You're absolutely right. It was not the best of situations.

Similarly, as you well know, the current construction is really one big jail, whereas in the new model there will be houses for up to eight individuals, who will obviously be associated in terms of cooking, etc. on their own. The small number of inmates who are both maximum and disruptive - and there's a very important difference here, and certainly we've learned at the Prison for Women that it's the destructive element rather than the particular length of sentence they are serving that has been the problem - will be contained in what's called the ``enhanced unit'', a special unit. As well, we will not use the current classification system - maximum, medium, minimum - as applied to males.

Recently within the service we accepted a proposal based, I might add, on some of the initial proposals coming from the Elizabeth Fry Society, which we were able to build on through research, looking at such places as Shakopee in the United States, where in fact a much more graded system of classification is used, one that is much more sensitive to women's issues. It's a system of classification based on the needs of the individual and the risk they pose.

.1115

While your point about having them all in one place I think has some validity to it in terms of our concern, we're attempting to address it two ways. We are removing those who are disruptive to let the rest get on with dealing with their offences and get on with life and using a new classification system that is much more centred on women than the previous one. We are very sensitive to the issue and we're trying to address it -

The Chair: I have to limit myself as well as I limit the members of the committee. I'll move to Russell and then to Ms Meredith.

Mr. McLellan (Edmonton Northwest): Mr. Edwards, I want to ask a question about the Auditor General's report. If I'm not mistaken, this is the third Auditor General's report that comments on the insufficient information that is gathered by Correctional Service Canada and then turned over to the National Parole Board for their investigations. This seems to be an ongoing problem. That's not to say improvements haven't been made, as you can appreciate, and it's not to cast aspersions. I know it may not be difficult, but it's very important that this problem be dealt with, because this has tremendous reference...not only the volume of information but the accuracy; not a lot of information that is immaterial but proper information that can be easily disseminated by members of the parole board for their hearings. What is going to be done to correct this problem so we won't have another Auditor General's report?

S.D/Commr Graham: This is one of the areas I've spent a lot of time on. You're absolutely right, if that information doesn't flow and it isn't the information they need, we always have trouble. You're also absolutely correct that this is an ongoing issue, because you can set up systems, and all systems have to work, and of course we're working at both ends.

There are some improvements, though, that are major improvements. The board now has full access to our files electronically through the offender management system. That means they know what we know, so there's none of this paper...whatever you might call it, this business of the flow of paper. They not only have our reports to them but can go behind them electronically and see what other information is on the file, which would make their life easier.

We have put in place an ongoing process. They've been working now for about eight months - ``they'' being the five regional directors of the parole board and the assistant deputy commissioners of each region - to streamline and to find where the flow of information isn't working and how we can improve it. I was actually at a meeting with them. I attended a half day of their session last week, looking at a number of major continuing issues.

The whole relationship is cemented by an administrative agreement, which is that we agree we will provide this information. That is continuously being updated, and in fact, for one of our main reports which we provide them - it has been called a ``progress summary''; it's now going to be called a ``risk assessment report'', dealing with the real issues - once again we asked the board what they needed to get their decision-making as accurate as possible and in what format, so if we can provide it, we will. They've just come back with some proposals that I will be presenting to our executive group very shortly, and I think we'll all feel very good about it. That's a continuing process.

We're very pleased about the results of something we've just completed, a new risk assessment training program based on the most current research. It was a joint training program, so everybody is learning how to address the issues in the same way.

There are a number of other steps, but without doubt it's a continuing challenge for us to try to make improvements, and we're trying to find as many ways as we possibly can to do that.

Mr. McLellan: I think, Mr. Chairman, it's not a question only of volume of information, it's trying to anticipate what information is going to be pertinent. That's not always easy, but I think you would agree, Mr. Graham, it's very important.

S.D/Commr Graham: Absolutely.

.1120

Ms Meredith: I want to follow up on one of the other things the Auditor General's report indicated, which was that not enough attention was paid to the community supervision of parole after statutory release or parole was given; that the Correctional Service seemed to be very institutionally driven.

To bring up Mr. Auger as an example again, although he was released on statutory release he didn't commit his offence when he was on statutory release. But it was the process.

Another case has been brought to my attention, that of a Paul Butler. His statutory release was revoked, but he was given day parole in a halfway house. The supervision just wasn't there to prevent him from killing an individual. In Mr. Auger's case the supervision didn't seem to be there...or should he have been out there anyway?

It brings up the question of whether there are individuals you would consider dangerous offenders who shouldn't be back out on the street because the supervision isn't there, can't be close enough to prevent an activity you know is likely to occur. How do you feel about statutory release and dangerous offenders being put back out on the street, because of the time element?

Commr Edwards: Mr. Chairman, those are some pretty searching questions.

First of all, on the Auditor General I will concede as leader of the Correctional Service that there is no doubt we do tend to spend a disproportionate amount of our executive time on institutional matters, which is almost inevitable, given the dominance of the institutional side. That's where probably 80% of our resources are spent, as opposed to the parole side.

Parole also has tended to be somewhat self-functioning - individual people, well trained, doing their business, looking after a caseload, and what have you. We have, partly as a result of the Auditor General's comments, now set up a council, which involves a good proportion of our top parole people across the land, to review everything from the set of beliefs they profess, if they can be called a profession, what tools should be used, which resourcing determinants should result in equitable resourcing from one part of the country to another, what the advantages of intensive team supervision are, as opposed to general supervision - i.e., one parole officer having some intensive cases and some non-intensive cases.

There's a lot we can do, I believe, at least to open up the parole side of the house to easier inspection, as opposed to relying on professionals carrying out their job on a more individual basis. That should lead to some improvements.

That being said, let me turn to your more central issue: are there offenders we see who come to the end of warrant expiry and who shouldn't be released, from the point of view of risk? I have no doubt there are such cases. I know of some cases where I feel grave disquiet as warrant expiry date comes. They will have fulfilled their sentence. They're not mentally ill in the context of mental health acts across the country and they are destined to go out as free people back onto the street. I think they are very small in number, but we know some of them all too well, and that worries us. We notify the police and tell them that in our judgment this is a dangerous situation and hope they can do what they can.

Short of that, on statutory release, on the whole I think statutory release has not served us that badly, but there is a debate around statutory release among ourselves within CSC, within the National Parole Board, and I suspect that will continue. It is quite a crude measure, which basically says if we can't demonstrate there is going to be violence, the person should be essentially automatically released at two-thirds of the sentence. The danger is that if we drop statutory release, then we may find we're just keeping everyone in for much longer periods, which would not meet the goal of trying to be more distinguishing between high-risk versus low-risk.

Ms Meredith: You could be more selective, perhaps, on the use of statutory release.

An internal inquiry was done on the Paul Butler case. Is there any chance of getting a copy of that?

Commr Edwards: I believe it'll be out very shortly, in a matter of a week or two.

Ms Meredith: Could we get that report when it comes out?

.1125

The Chair: Surely.

Ms Torsney, you had a small question. Then we want to have at least a few minutes' adjournment to change witnesses before 11:30 a.m.

Ms Torsney: I just wanted to clarify the issue of when our inmates are released and their access to halfway houses and what have you. They get $80 and a bus ticket, or some kind of transportation to their designation, and a jacket. They also get a meal allowance if they're using a halfway house. What is the amount per day?

[Translation]

D/Commr Perron: At the Community Correctional Centres, I believe the amount is $12 or $15 per day. The halfway houses supply all three meals.

[English]

Ms Torsney: If I'm an inmate who's been on parole, so I have access to those people, or I've finished my parole and maybe I'm considered by Corrections Canada to have finished all of my sentence, do I still have access to those community correctional facilities? So there are some people who are being cut loose from the system?

Commr Edwards: After warrant expiry date, most definitely.

Ms Torsney: What percentage of your population would be like that?

Commr Edwards: I would hazard 10% as a figure. We'll get you a figure, but it is quite small. It may be less than 10%.

Ms Torsney: In most of those cases, if they stayed the whole time, they are the people who people had some questions about.

Commr Edwards: That's right.

S.D/Commr Graham: And they are the least cooperative, too.

Ms Torsney: So they're the least cooperative. They are, by some people's standards, perhaps the more dangerous ones. Yet those are the ones we just drop into the social services systems across the country and say help yourself, guys, that's it.

Commr Edwards: Social services and police systems. They'll be notified too.

Ms Torsney: Don't you see that this is the absolute worst-case scenario as far as building public confidence in the correctional system of Canada is concerned?

Commr Edwards: I want to correct you. It is not the correctional system in Canada. Once they've expired their sentence, they're no longer under our responsibility. They fall back into the normal responsibility of society, which means, as you say, the social services in that community and the police and so on.

Ms Torsney: I don't see that they give you a good reputation when they are your former clients who suddenly get into trouble again.

Commr Edwards: I agree.

Ms Torsney: People don't make those distinctions. They see us as the government...and that we have to address these people.

Commr Edwards: I agree wholeheartedly. There are one or two cases I know of where an inmate has finished the sentence, has gone out in the community, and is still attending some of our programming. But there's no financial justification for our doing so other than our concern that otherwise they're not going to get that kind of programming; and of course it's entirely voluntary on the part of that ex-offender.

The Chair: When they're under federal sentence, they're the responsibility of the federal Correctional Service, the federal government. Once the sentence is up, it's society in general that's responsible. We still have in government, in this Parliament, a responsibility to deal with that, but not through the Correctional Service.

Mr. Thompson, when he was asking questions, raised the issue of comparative costs of U.S. prisons and Canadian ones. You said you'd try to have a short paper to expand on what you answered him with. That would be very beneficial, because we get lots of questions about these things. I'd appreciate it if that could be sent along.

I want to thank you very much. Because we have gun control, intoxication as a defence, the Young Offenders Act, and many other things, we couldn't spend as much time with you this year as we did last year, but we may have special meetings if the case arises.

We'll have a two-minute adjournment, not more. We'll just get the crossbow people before us and then we will start up again.

The committee meeting is suspended for two minutes.