[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 19, 1996
.1048 
[English]
The Chair: We are ready to proceed.
We have with us Mr. Ole Ingstrup, the new commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, and Marcy Grossman, who is manager and ministerial liaison with Correctional Service Canada. Welcome.
I assume, Mr. Ingstrup, you want to make some opening remarks. Then we'll carry on.
Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service of Canada): I would like that, Madam Chair.
Good morning everyone. It's truly a pleasure for me to be back working with this committee. When I was in the Correctional Service some years ago I got a lot of good ideas and a lot of helpful comments and hints from members of the committee, and I hope sincerely we will be able to work in the same fashion in the years to come.
As the chair already mentioned, I have with me Marcy Grossman, from our liaison office. She's here to assist me today to manage the information we've brought with us in case I can't answer your questions without the help of some paper information, but she's also here to take notes if I promise to come back to you with information we don't have with us.
.1050
I must say I am personally very pleased to be back as commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada. I've worked most of my professional career in the criminal justice system, and of those thirty-odd years I have to admit the time between 1988 and 1992, when I was commissioner here the first time, count among the very best and most rewarding years in my work life.
[Translation]
To provide some explanation of the system and of how it works, Madam Chair, I can tell you that in Canada, the federal government and provincial and territorial governments share the responsibility for correctional services, in conditions that are quite different from those that prevail in other countries.
The provincial and territorial governments are responsible for offenders who are serving sentences of less than two years. They are also exclusively responsible for probation programs, programs for young offenders, and programs for offenders in temporary detention.
The Correctional Service of Canada is, for its part, the organization responsible for the administration of offenders serving sentences of two years or more. That responsibility consists in managing a series of correctional institutions and in supervising offenders on parole. This is done of course with the National Parole Board. I know that the committee has already met with the chairperson of the aBard. I work in close co-operation with the Board's team. At Correctional Service Canada, we concentrate our activities on correctional services in institutions and in the community.
The Correctional Service is one of the largest among the departments and organizations of the federal government. We administer 41 penitentiaries: 11 maximum security institutions, 19 medium security institutions, and 11 minimum security penal institutions. We also administer 15 community correctional centres and 64 parole offices. Moreover, we have entered into contracts with several non-government organizations who are now responsible for administering approximately 160 community residential centres.
At this time, there are approximately 14,200 inmates in our penitentiaries, and 7,800 offenders are under supervision in the community. On any given day, some 12,000 employees work for us, either as permanent employees or on contract. We also have a group of 12,000 volunteers who provide a broad range of services.
We have a budget of about 1 billion dollars, and there are approximately 50,000 persons in our department.
[English]
While I'm pleased to be back as commissioner of corrections, I also recognize realistically that the road ahead will not necessarily be an easy one. We face a lot of significant challenges. It's particularly because we have a very diverse workforce. We have a 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year demand for our services within the Correctional Service of Canada, and we have a wide spectrum of jobs which must be performed across the Correctional Service of Canada. It's interesting to note that as a matter of fact this particular service administers all kinds of services that usually are taken care of by all kinds of other departments, from the sewer system to the most refined and sophisticated psychiatric work to food services to education or what not.
.1055
It's not often that one gets to return to a job, and often it is said that one cannot really go back to an old job. Coming back has, to me, posed some problems and some advantages.
One clear advantage is that from my perspective it is a business I know pretty well. That makes me feel a little more comfortable, even more so because I know most of the senior people in the Correctional Service of Canada. I know them because I've worked with them, and I know them as competent people, as dedicated people, as people who in many instances have had a long career and therefore are very experienced. So I think by and large we can be proud of a very capable leadership team within the service.
The fact that I am returning to CSC provides me, I believe, with a rather unique uptake. As I've been preparing for this meeting with you over the last while, I've found myself continually returning to two questions. One was what happened during the years while I was out of the service? The second and related question is what is it that is different now?
As I wrestled with the first question, it became clear to me that indeed much had been accomplished that I can applaud during the years of John Edwards as commissioner of corrections. I believe Commissioner Edwards had a strong focus on public safety as his overriding concern. I also think one should remember that the number of serious incidents in our institutions went down. The number of escapes from prisons over these years was reduced. Most importantly of all, the number of serious incidents in the community during these years went down.
At the same time the service continued, despite some admittedly high-profile incidents, to maintain what is actually one of the lowest recidivism rates I have found when I have looked around in other systems. Seven out of eight offenders released by the National Parole Board do not return to CSC.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Ingstrup, just for a minute.
We have a rule in this committee that if you want to be in here, you should extinguish your cell phone. Please, if you have a cellphone that's active, deactivate it. It's very rude to the witnesses and it makes the chair crazy. Thank you.
Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Commr Ingstrup: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
As I said, seven out of eight offenders released by the National Parole Board did not come back to CSC with new offences while they were under supervision. Five out of six offenders released on statutory release, according to the information I have - and they are obviously, under the law, higher-risk offenders than the rest of them - actually did not come back with new offences. I think it's worth mentioning.
While I realize failures are difficult to accept and sometimes it even seems almost impossible to explain them, and there is always room for improvement, I would still argue and suggest the kind of performance I have seen does not come out of nowhere. There are very good people, very solid people, high quality people working out there in the institutions, and they have to bring this about.
.1100
The Auditor General had come to know us quite well, because he has been looking at us over the last couple of years and has reported on a number of occasions, and will report again a little later this year; I believe that is his last report in this round. He has pointed out that there are in Canada over 200,000 people living in our communities who at one point in their lives have moved through the correctional system and who are not coming back, who live there now as law-abiding citizens, we have to assume, and hopefully also as productive citizens.
I believe that the Correctional Service of Canada continued to be an organization in which the vast majority of people were working hard and never forgetting what the public safety was all about.
The service is also in the process of continuing to open itself up to partnerships with the police, with the municipal governments, with a host of advisory committees across the country made up of citizens who are not employees of the Correctional Service of Canada, and I think that gives us a better-founded, healthier type of organization.
[Translation]
Madam Chairperson, when I asked myself the second question, which is what has changed, several relevant things immediately came to mind.
Firstly, we now have a new Act which covers Correctional Service Canada and paroles.
Another obvious change is the fact that the Correctional Service has become a very decentralized organization, perhaps overly so. In transferring responsibilities to the regions, the national office was not able to play its administrative role fully. The regionalization of services led to variations which I consider unacceptable.
There has also been - and to me this is very important - an unprecedented increase in the total number of offenders incarcerated in our institutions. Between 1989-90 and 1994-95, there was a 22% increase in the inmate population under federal responsibility. During the same period, there was, on the average, a 12% increase in the inmate population in provincial prisons. I think this can be attributed to several factors both in society and in the criminal justice system as a whole.
Another factor which is closely related to this significant increase in the inmate population is the following: Canada is among the countries where the rate of incarceration per 100,000 citizens is the highest, and our country is constantly moving up on that list. At the same time, we note a decrease in the number of offenders under supervision in the community.
This expansion of the penal population was accompanied by a large cost increase. Between 1984-85 and 1994-95, costs increased by 47% in the federal system, and increased even more in the provincial system, i.e. by 60.5%. Total costs are on the order of 2 billion dollars yearly.
I note that the number of aboriginal offenders is constantly on the rise in the federal system and that it is not proportional to the number of aboriginals in the Canadian population. In this regard, I am determined to work in close co-operation with the Aboriginal Advisory Committee to find solutions.
.1105
I also know that the number of female offenders we are responsible for is constantly on the rise. I am aware that we must find ways of coping with this influx by finding solutions that meet both the needs of the women and the population's need for safety.
[English]
I recognize that each and every serious offence committed by someone under the authority of the Correctional Service of Canada is in its own way a tragedy. I don't take these things lightly; we don't take these things lightly. As a matter of fact, they concern me greatly.
I must say that given the nature of our work, which as you know is very unique, and the work we're mandated to do, the surveys perform quite well most of the time.
In saying this I fully recognize that we do not do everything extremely well all the time. There is room for a lot of improvement and a lot of conversations about how we can improve.
I have, for instance, had discussions with my colleague the chairman of the National Parole Board, and we're determined to work together to get these numbers, although in my view they are low, further down and to get to the best results we can under the mandate of the law given to us by Parliament.
It cannot be denied that recently the focus has been on significant criticism from a number of sources. Most noticeable, obviously, is what happened in the Prison for Women and the inquiry that followed at the initiative of the Solicitor General of Canada, which inquiry was carried out by Madam Justice Arbour.
Madam Chair, I know that many Canadians and many members of this committee have been not only interested in but also concerned with respect to our implementation of policies related to the management of female offenders. It is an area that is complex and it is not always possible for us to give clear answers, but I would be pleased to discuss that later. I think, though, that there are two factors here that we can pinpoint as important factors in what happened.
One is that the report Creating Choices way back when may have been seen a little bit too much as a manual instead of as a philosophy paper. It was not a manual. It was an inspired and inspiring piece of correctional philosophy, but it was not a document that you could just walk out and implement sentence by sentence.
Secondly, I'm not sure that we in Corrections implemented what we decided to implement in Edmonton as well as we should have. I believe that we have taken some serious steps to correct the situation, and I sincerely hope that we are back on track.
Madam Justice Arbour also made some comments on the surveys that are broader than what happened in the Prison for Women and in some ways more fundamental about this individual situation. We are now reviewing this full range of recommendations in order to determine what we can do to make the best use of them and improve our operations.
Madam Justice Arbour was not the only one to criticize us and point out improvement possibilities or options for improvement. The Auditor General of Canada, as I mentioned, the correctional investigator, our own investigation reports and some of our own employees.... In many ways this is how it should be. We must keep the organization alive and open to discussions about improvement.
.1110
I can accept much of that criticism as valid and constructive, and we are working hard to improve the situation. To do that, I don't believe that we need any kind of change in the vision or philosophy or the overall thing about corrections. As a matter of fact, I think it is good as it is. But we may need to change some of the aspects of the work we do and the way we do our work and the accountability that we have in our systems. I think there's a whole range of things that can be done, and I believe that this is exactly what we have started and are in the early process of accomplishing.
We have strengthened our national headquarters. We are increasing our focus on the correctional agenda with one particular view: to make sure that we follow the law of the land and that we protect the citizens of this country as well as we can.
We also look to getting greater national consistency, and one of the things of which I'm happy to inform you today is that a very experienced, very professional, high-quality employee, Lucie McClung, has accepted to become senior deputy commissioner responsible for that whole issue, the correctional part.
The government has also moved quickly to fill the position of deputy commissioner for women, as proposed by Judge Arbour. We have a person with a wealth of experience from the National Parole Board and from other areas of life before that, Nancy Stableforth, who is now in the job and off and running.
We have started some task forces: a task force on high-priority issues, management of offenders, our policy framework - how we can get that very complex Corrections Act conveyed to our staff in such a way that they have the best possible chance of following the law. We are also looking at management of our information and our technology and what not. These task forces will be reporting to me over the next few months, and I think we will then be in a position to address more thoroughly some of the issues that I see as being key ones.
[Translation]
In thinking about what I wanted to say to you today, Madam Chairperson, I immediately felt that I had to try to be as objective as possible, that I had to highlight our strengths without trying to hide our weaknesses, that I had to clearly articulate the challenges we are facing and that I had to be realistic about our capacity to meet them. I hope I have succeeded in doing that.
I know for a fact that we have to face certain important challenges, and we will do so unequivocally. I also know that it is important to have quality correctional services. That has been discussed a great deal.
[English]
To do good corrections is not a state of affairs. It's an evolution. It is constantly to be after improvements where we can find them.
Madam Chair, members of this committee, we're ready to serve this country by providing the best possible correctional service we can within our means, within our capacity, and within the laws of the land.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): My first question is quite topical and involves your jurisdiction.
The Minister of Justice introduced a bill on dangerous offenders which includes a supervision program. According to the information we have and to estimates prepared in 1993 particularly, such a supervision program would cost about 250 million dollars.
Do you have the budgets you would need to put such a program in place? If you do not have them at the present time, were you given the assurance that you would get them?
.1115
Mr. Ingstrup: At this time, we do not know how many additional inmates we will be harbouring. That number depends of course on judges' reactions; the level of funding of the Correctional Service of Canada depends on the number of inmates. We do not, thus, find ourselves suddenly short of resources if the number of inmates is higher than what we had expected.
As for supervision, I think that unless we have to face a substantial unexpected increase, we should have the necessary capacity. We mustn't forget that at the present time the number of offenders who have been reintegrated into the community and are under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada is not very high. There would be some 7,800 offenders in that situation, which means an average which is somewhat lower than 25 inmates per supervisor.
Unless something unforeseen were to happen, there should not be a problem.
Mr. Bellehumeur: If such a bill is being introduced, it is because we wanted it to have repercussions in society. If a supervision program is being planned, it is because we feel it will be implemented. My question is to follow up on what you said: have you had discussions with the Minister of Justice to see how, in light of your experience, the program could actually be applied in practice, what its cost would be and where the necessary funds would come from?
Mr. Ingstrup: I am sure that discussions were held with the Department of Justice, although I am not aware, in detail, of the results of those discussions.
Mr. Bellehumeur: But you did not discuss this with the Minister?
Mr. Ingstrup: No, not personally. But evidently, our finance division discussed it with the Department of Justice; that is common practice.
Mr. Bellehumeur: But the Correctional Service will play a very important role in that supervision program.
Mr. Ingstrup: Surely. The Correctional Service of Canada will be responsible for the supervision of the offender population involved. It is somewhat difficult at the present time, for us, in any case, to estimate the number of offenders who will be in that situation because, as you know, the judge also has the power of limiting the number of years of supervision. Although ten years is the maximum, a judge may well decide that five or six years will be sufficient.
According to the information at my disposal, we have estimated that we will need budgets on the order of 50 million dollars for the next 15 years.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Does that sum of 50 million dollars include the supervision you carry out at the present time?
Mr. Ingstrup: But also for the others...
Mr. Bellehumeur: But also the program. So you have had discussions with the Minister about the cost of the supervision program proposed in Bill C-55.
Mr. Ingstrup: We did not foresee an enormous increase, as I have just explained to you. This amount of 50 million dollars would represent our needs over a period of 15 years and does not include any annual increases.
Mr. Bellehumeur: All things considered, the supervision program isn't this century's major brainwave, since it won't apply to very many people. It isn't the brilliant solution that will make the population feel more secure, because it won't be used all that much, finally. Is that a fair conclusion?
Mr. Ingstrup: Yes and no. I think it's fair to say that we don't depend enormously on community resources. It is obvious, however, that the nature of those expenditures is completely different from those in penal institutions.
.1120
The resources we have at this time in the community are not bad. I haven't yet talked enough about supervisors in the community, but I intend to do so in the months to come. My general impression is that the community has good resources.
I could compare that to what is being done in other systems. We could always use more programs, but it isn't... [Inaudible-Editor].
Mr. Bellehumeur: I believe I hear you saying that at this time, with the tools at your disposal, you feel that you can do a good job.
Mr. Ingstrup: At this time, yes.
Mr. Bellehumeur: In the final analysis, there will be so few offenders involved in the supervision program that it won't be all that different from what is being done presently.
A 50 million dollar budget for what you are doing presently and what you may be doing with the supervision program is not enormous.
Mr. Ingstrup: If we suddenly have to face an unforeseen, substantial increase in the number of offenders involved, we will invoke our agreement with Treasury Board to obtain funds in proportion to the number of offenders under supervision. The same situation applies in correctional institutions. I think it is too soon to make a definitive statement. We have to wait and see how judges see the situation. We do already have 64 parole offices throughout Canada with a good number of supervisors, men and women.
Mr. Bellehumeur: If the Correctional Service of Canada feels that it is too early to make an assessment, that certain data are not in yet and that you cannot foresee all of the repercussions of this bill, is it too soon then for elected representatives to vote on Bill C-55 with full knowledge of the facts?
Mr. Ingstrup: No, I do not think so. It is of course up to you to make that decision, as members of Parliament. In my opinion, the bill introduces an additional tool which we will be able to use for a group of inmates. It is the judge who will decide.
Mr. Bellehumeur: We have no estimation of the...
Mr. Ingstrup: Yes, we have certain details.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. White.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Ingstrup, you may consider me an ardent critic of the prison system. I have been in better than sixteen prisons in this country. I have been in federal prisons, a number of American prisons, and provincial prisons, so I feel I do know from where I'm coming and what I've observed.
You've said a whole range of things can be done. I'd like to give you a range of things and ask you a question about that range.
In your prisons today we have golf courses. There are conjugal visits at all levels. We provide condoms, even though your commissioner's directives say male inmates cannot have sex with one another. Prisoners get GST rebates, Canada Pension Plan, old age security, guaranteed income supplement. There are applications for sex changes. There is legal aid. There is the right to sue. Prisoners have the right to vote and the right to refuse work. They are provided overtime pay. Children are allowed to reside in our women's prisons, among the inmates. You fly cultural cuisine from the Northwest Territories to a prison so they can enjoy their culture while in prison. Many inmates are warehoused today; that is, not actively working. I guess I only need look at a few menus of the protective custody spring socials in such places as Kent maximum penitentiary to see filet mignon on the list of things they eat.
.1125
I would like to ask you, does this describe to you the type of prison system you feel is effective in Canada?
Commr Ingstrup: Madam Chair, I am happy, through you, to respond to Mr. White.
Indeed, I have seen your comments and read your comments with a great deal of interest, especially since I came back to corrections, and I do not always see you, sir, as a violent critic of us. I see you have some observations and legitimate questions that have to be answered.
I'd like to go into some of them. I can't go into them all, but among those I mentioned, it strikes me that it's important to see that the act - and that is my manual for administration of the Correctional Service of Canada - is formulated in such a way that imprisonment itself is what constitutes the punishment. This is a view that has been reiterated by ministers of justice from all territories and provinces. Recently in a report they said one of the guiding principles in the correctional system and the criminal justice system should be that penal institutions are there as punishment, not for punishment.
Having said that, I'd like to say something about a number of the things you mentioned. It is true we have a few golf courses here and there. They are not the kind of golf courses I believe most golfers would love to play on. I'm not a golfer, so I can't talk about the quality, but I've been told they're pretty rudimentary. They've been built by the prisoners themselves. Quite frankly, I think it's not a bad idea that prisoners are focusing on things other than exchanging views on crime and reinforcing a criminal culture.
I don't think our penitentiaries or our prisons should be country clubs; and certainly, Mr. White and Madam Chair, I don't think they are. If they were, I don't think people would be quite as eager to go out of them.
We have the kinds of visits, Mr. White, that you call ``conjugal visits''. I would like to call them by their real name, namely ``family visits''. Lots of these visits have nothing to do with sex. They have to do with parents spending time with their kids in prison. They have a lot of other things. If it is a permanent relationship, yes, sure, then it is true there is probably a sex aspect to it, I would expect. But the most important -
Mr. White: If I may, it is the greatest source of drug intake in the prisons today.
Commr Ingstrup: This is what some people are saying. Some other people are saying something else.
Mr. White: The inmates are saying so.
Commr Ingstrup: It is obviously a place where we should focus a lot of our control attention. The last time I was in the correctional service, I was a proponent of the idea that if indeed one of these visits is being abused with criminal activity, including smuggling of drugs or the use of drugs, I'm quite prepared to take that right or privilege, whatever it is, away from the prisoner.
We have about 120 of these private family visiting units across the country, and I think they do contribute to the strengthening of some family ties, which are incredibly important for people's return afterwards. If they don't exist, if people are left on their own, if wives and whatever have left these offenders behind, one day, when they come back, what do they have? We know positive family ties are among the most important factors in reducing risk of new crime.
.1130
So I think that can be defended. I realize one can have different views on it, but I think it is well founded.
Mr. White: May I just make a comment on that now? I understand you to say a lot of this rests with politicians, if the rules are to change and so on and so forth. Did you just say that?
Commr Ingstrup: No, I said we are administering the corrections act as it is.
Mr. White: Would you agree, for instance, that recommendations you would make, as the commissioner, would go a long way towards implementing change in the system?
Commr Ingstrup: I think so. I hope so. I hope my recommendations will all contribute to a better-functioning correctional system. But I have to say I don't think the elimination of private family visits will be one of my recommendations.
Mr. White: I would agree recommendations are important, and I just want to quote a colleague of yours who made a recommendation to this government last year:
- ...more offenders are in debt to other offenders, more offenders are seeking protection as a
result of being in debt, and illicit activities such as brew making, drug trafficking, and
loansharking are on the rise.
The Chair: Mr. White, just to be fair, rather than ambushing the commissioner, could you tell him who made the quote and under what conditions?
Mr. White: A corrections investigator, last year.
Commr Ingstrup: Mr. Stewart, whom, it goes without saying, I respect a great deal, not only for his office but for who he is. I think his recommendation, as far back as I can remember, has been to make sure we give inmates more money than we do at this time.
As you may know, a few inmates - I don't know how many.... The maximum an inmate can earn, outside of the few who work for CORCAN, is $6.90 a day. And they have to contribute to travel back home, if they go on home leave. They have to buy a lot of necessities. It's not a lot of money, and the correctional investigator was pushing me, when I was in last time, to increase the number of dollars paid to inmates by the system. But I understand the system has not found over the last ten or fifteen years that we should seek additional funds to pay inmates higher. A lot of the inmates are getting not more than $1.60 a day. I think Mr. Stewart's recommendation should be seen in that light.
Mr. White: Would you please tell this committee what you think the single biggest problem is in the correction system today?
Commr Ingstrup: There are a number of things that strike me. I think we can improve significantly the process of what is called ``case management''. It continues to be a problem in our system, as it is in every system I know of, that there are drugs in the institutions. It bothers me no end. I have seen reports, sir, on the most likely level of drugs in our institutions at this time, measured by the urinalysis we do on offenders on a random basis. We take 5% of the population on a monthly basis and test them. The positives we have there have gone down from I think approximately 30% to around 10%, 11%. It's a significant improvement.
.1135
Have we eliminated the problem? No, we have not. I will be seeking the help of colleagues and other systems to the extent I can to find ways of getting that down.
Mr. White: Your wardens say it's drugs.
Commr Ingstrup: Yes, I would tend to agree. It's one of the higher....
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you.
I want to follow up on this subject of drugs, because there are critics in this country who say that because drugs are forbidden in prisons and sex is forbidden in prisons it naturally follows you should not have a needle program and condoms should not be provided, that in doing so you are sending a message that it doesn't matter what the regulations say, we're condoning it. What do you say to those critics?
Commr Ingstrup: If I had a chance to sit down with them, I would say I do understand their views. It's very understandable. I understand it so much more in that I actually argued that way publicly before a Senate committee a number of years ago. But I've changed my mind.
The reason I've changed my mind about condoms - that's what we're talking about now, first and foremost.... We could include the bleach system we're implementing these days. At this stage we're not looking at needle exchange or anything like that; it's not a thing that's in the works. The thing is that yes, we will do whatever we can to keep prisons or penitentiaries free of homosexual activities. Absolutely, we're not condoning those. We will also do whatever we can to make sure people do not have drugs, and if they have them, they do not use drugs.
But given the risk to human lives we're talking about, I think we also have to be realistic. Nowadays, sir, we don't have systems anywhere I know of or anywhere we have been in touch with - and that's a lot of systems - that are drug free. We do know needles exist. We do know homosexual activities do go on from time to time. What is important here, I think, is to face the facts and say to ourselves, let us do everything we can to keep that level of homosexuality and drug use and existence of drugs as low as we can, but at the same time let us not put people at risk of having these kinds of diseases which can be transferred by unsafe sex and careless use of drugs.
It is a balance, sir. There's no doubt about it, and I'm not without understanding of where people are coming from. But knowing the danger of AIDS and what that leads to, in many cases it's irresponsible, from my point of view, to close one's eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.
Mr. Gallaway: Thank you.
Now, you mentioned the complexity of the prison system today, and you also used the noun ``improvement'' or ``improvements''. In North America, certainly in Canada and the United States, there's a movement today towards finding greater efficiencies in government and in government services. You mentioned that. But there's also a movement in certain quarters in this country to privatize prisons.
Commr Ingstrup: That's right.
Mr. Gallaway: You're called on, in your role as commissioner, to give advice, I'm certain, to people here. I'd like to hear your view on privatization. We have eleven maximum security prisons. What's your view, if you were asked - and you're being asked - of privatization?
Commr Ingstrup: I could say, sir, yes, I was asked, but not by my minister.
.1140
I would say that it's not a black-and-white issue. At this point in time, of approximately $2 billion in our budget, we spend approximately $120,000 a year on private services. We have private contractors coming in doing all kinds of things. We have lots of services across the board that are privatized.
There are some studies on privatization. I have to admit that I'm not completely up to speed on all of them, but I've seen studies that indicate that maybe some of these privatized prisons can be run a bit less expensively than those that are run by states or governments. But we're talking about in the order of 5% to 10%, if my recollection serves me well.
I don't think it would be easy for me to come up with a final black-and-white recommendation, but I would say one thing. The people who would argue for a total privatization of either one institution or a whole prison system would have to think carefully about what that does to the very concept of state. If the state gives away one of its most powerful tools towards its citizens, what does this do to the concept of state?
I think that a good combination of political and senior bureaucratic accountability, including accountability for cost and accountability for an optimal working relationship between the government and the private sector, is probably the best thing. I would have to think more carefully about exactly where the line should go, but these are some of the points of view I have.
Mr. Gallaway: Are you aware of any privatizations that have occurred in the United States?
Commr Ingstrup: Yes.
Mr. Gallaway: Are you aware of the results of those privatizations?
Commr Ingstrup: To the best of my knowledge, they have been running primarily medium security institutions. I don't think we have any examples of maximum security institutions. They have been running medium and minimum security institutions of moderate size with offenders who are not too difficult.
In the short time it has existed, the results have been difficult to compare completely. There are different standards of services sometimes, I hear, depending on what the individual states are buying, but I don't think that at this stage one can say that one is clearly superior to the other. I know of no basis for that.
Mr. Gallaway: We've heard this morning that our federal prison system can be what I would refer to as a cushy place, especially for those at the minimum security level. This morning on the seven o'clock CBC radio news I heard an interview with a person called the toughest sheriff in the United States, who operates a county prison and prides himself on running a really tough act. The only television they're allowed to watch is the Newt Gingrich channel.... It's called cruel and unusual punishment.
What do you say to the critics who now are saying that we are not tough on criminals once they get inside? You've heard Mr. White refer to filet mignon. They are saying that in some way we're not punishing criminals. I know that prisons are not intended exclusively to punish but that there's another dimension to that, another paradigm. What do you say to them?
Commr Ingstrup: I say to them that although it is sometimes emotionally attractive to feel ``Let's get after these people and do something nasty to them'', for us as officials and as professional corrections we have to say that.... To the very best of my knowledge there is absolutely no research anywhere that indicates that harsher punishment, worse treatment, being tough on individuals, making them suffer more, reduces crime. On the contrary. We know, for instance, that a lot of the programs we have in the federal correctional system are actually reducing crime among those who are being released, after they have been released.
.1145
I have to say that to me, as a professional corrections person, it is more important, sir, to be able to say I did something that is likely to enhance the safety and security of innocent citizens in the streets than it is to say I treated a few prisoners badly. I think there is a lot of confusion in that respect out there in the public. Lots of people think if we just get really tough on these individuals and make them suffer, then somehow other people won't commit offences or somehow they won't commit offences. I can understand that type of thinking, but to the best of my knowledge there is no indication that this is true. There are lots of indications to the opposite effect.
The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I would like you to give us some specifics on the method you used to calculate the number of repeat offenders, a very topical issue these days. Using different methods, one can come up with different figures. What method does the Correctional Service of Canada use to calculate the number of repeat offenders?
Mr. Ingstrup: That is an excellent question which has concerned not only the Correctional Service of Canada, but to the correctional services throughout the world, and even to theoreticians.
What constitutes a repeat offence? A person who committed a murder and may commit an armed robbery after being released on parole. That is a serious crime, even though it is not as serious as his first offence. At the Correctional Service of Canada, we examine the phenomenon from several angles. For instance, we take into consideration the supervised population for the full ten-year period. We have such studies at our disposal.
Another measurement method consists in determining the number of paroled offenders who return to correctional institutions before the end of their sentence. According to a study carried out over a ten-year period, about 9 inmates out of 10, or, more specifically, 87%, who had been granted a full parole did not receive another sentence or commit any other crime before the end of their supervision period. The same figures come up again and again, with minor variations.
Mr. Bellehumeur: But if that individual commits another crime after his period of supervision is over, is he considered a repeat offender, or a new case?
Mr. Ingstrup: Not in the context of that study. There are longitudinal studies, however. I don't have any figures with me, but I could provide them to you later. It goes without saying that the longer the period studied, the greater the number of repeat offences. It is nevertheless interesting to see that the figures are almost always the same: 13 and 15 per cent of repeat offences for those who were granted a full parole and a slightly higher figure, almost 20 per cent, for those, men and women, who were released after having served two-thirds of their sentence. We came up with virtually the same figures over a long period.
.1150
There is also the case of inmates who have been ordered detained by the Parole Board. In such cases, we have almost the same level of recidivism for those inmates, men and women, who were...
Mr. Bellehumeur: Let's take a specific example. People are concerned, and perhaps rightly so. We always hear that there aren't many repeat offences; your figures are quoted, and so on. I would like to know if someone who has served his sentence, who is no longer under supervision and who commits a murder one year later is considered a repeat offender or a new case, a new file. Do you take that sort of case into account in your figures?
Mr. Ingstrup: It all depends on the type of study we are carrying out. The reason we often focus on the period which precedes the end of the sentence is that we automatically know that those people have committed another crime because they return to a federal penitentiary. But if they commit a repeat offence after having served their sentence, a new sentence may be handed down at the provincial level and we will have no way of knowing that. If it is quite a stiff sentence, we will know. In all of the studies we do, we provide our definition of "recidivism" for the purposes of the study in question.
Mr. Bellehumeur: But even if a sentence is handed down at the federal level, a stiffer sentence, you won't necessarily include that case as a repeat offence?
Mr. Ingstrup: That is correct. It will be included in other statistics. I want you to know that this concerns me in the same way as it concerns others because for me, the safety of the population is what comes first.
Mr. Bellehumeur: In any discussion of recidivism, a very low rate is always quoted: 1% in Quebec, and another percentage in Ontario. Those figures are accurate, but only to a certain extent, as they reflect your record-keeping methods, or the methods used to arrive at those figures. I have always been told that a six-month period was used. After six months, the person is no longer part of the system and is no longer considered a repeat offender if he reoffends.
Mr. Ingstrup: A very, very small group is put under supervision for a six-month period; as you know, the average sentence runs from 44 to 48 months.
M. Bellehumeur: No, no...
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, that's your time, plus.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: He didn't understand my question.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ingstrup, in May of this year a report was prepared for the federal, provincial, and territorial Ministers of Justice on corrections population growth. It predicts a 50% increase in the prison population in this country unless the current practices of incarcerating people are not changed. I have three questions arising from that study. The first is whether you agree too many non-violent first-time offenders are being incarcerated in our federal-provincial institutions. Secondly, is the construction of more penitentiaries an option to deal with this problem? Thirdly, are additional community-based correctional facilities or alternative programs for non-violent offenders an option?
Commr Ingstrup: Sir, I'm not trying to play games here, but when you ask whether there are too many non-violent...it is a policy issue. If I may formulate it this way, do I think we could treat some of those in the community in other ways, then the answer is yes, I think we could. When I look at the profile of the federal prison population, approximately one third of that population, according to my information, is a non-violent population. There is no doubt in my mind that in that population we could find people who could be managed in the community, maybe with some additional programs, maybe with some additional help. This is what one of our task forces is looking at.
.1155
It's very interesting, if I may add to this, that we did some research you may have heard about, sir, the cognitive skills training program. As a matter of fact, for property offenders we're told by our researchers the cognitive skills and living skills programs work much better in reducing recidivism if they are delivered in the community as compared with the level in the institutions. The interesting thing - and I can't explain why, I can just explain what it is - is that cognitive skills training programs delivered at the institution are very good and are quite effective for high-risk violent offenders and high-risk sex offenders. I think it is; we have a report on it. But for property offenders it's just the other way. If we deliver it out in the community, the impact is much better.
Also, and I did allude to it during my introductory comments, I think we can manage our population better by getting some of them ready for a safe release. That's what it is about: safe release. But I think it can be done.
The second thing was whether construction is an option. It's a question of where one wants to spend the dollars. I have always found that prison construction is extremely costly. We're looking at $70 million for a normal medium security institution for 200 or 300 offenders. If you add to that the cost of running these places in the long term, it's a huge thing. So I've always been very cautious in recommending more prison construction. From time to time it's necessary, and I applaud the decision to have a new medium security institution in Ontario, in the Muskoka area. But what we see south of the border is what I would call, with respect, wild prison construction, in the amount of $10 billion or $15 billion U.S. a year. I don't think it's the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars.
What we are doing in corrections is adding some units to existing institutions, if we can. Unfortunately we have had to double-bunk some of our cells. I hope with better management of our population and other measures we can avoid too much of that.
I'm sorry, I put a third item here, but I forgot to -
Mr. DeVillers: We dealt with the community-based or alternative programming.
Commr Ingstrup: Yes. Way back in the late 1980s, when I was here the last time, we started to put more sex offender treatment programs in place, because we had more sex offenders. But we also became aware of the importance of doing something to these people before they got back into society and would represent a higher level of risk. What we started to realize at that time was that it's important to be able to follow these programs up. You can't just treat people in the artificial institutional milieu and then send them out into the community without any follow-up. So we have built more programs in the community now: drug programs, alcohol programs. I think there are some educational programs. There are a lot of cognitive skills programs.
So the answer is yes.
The Chair: Mr. Hanger.
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Ingstrup, a matter that has been on the minds and hearts of a lot of people in this country is Clifford Olson. I'm going to focus right now on the tapes Mr. Olson was permitted to make, twelve in total, between 1993 and 1995, when he was an inmate in the SHU, the special handling unit, in Prince Albert. There seems to have been an agreement between Olson and the warden at that time, Mr. Jim O'Sullivan. The news of the tapes came about in March of this year, I think. CSC initially denied any knowledge of the tapes being made and later made some statement to the effect that they had learned that in fact this had happened.
.1200
I understand that there are seven tapes in the prison itself that are held by CSC. Five of them are in the hands of Olson's lawyer, who I believe is Mr. Robert Shantz. At the same time, Olson and the lawyer were permitted to copyright the tapes under the title of ``Motivational Sexual Homicide Patterns of a Serial Child Killer, Clifford Robert Olson''.
I am also aware, Mr. Ingstrup, that you were informed of this matter as of July 10, 1996. As a matter of fact, you were written to by an organization called the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, and I will point the director out as being Mr. Steve Sullivan.
I think the families of these victims of Olson want to get some answers from CSC and the Solicitor General. They've been trying for some time now, Mr. Ingstrup, yet none have been forthcoming.
A number of questions centre around these particular tapes. Who authorized their creation? Who was involved in the creation of the tapes? There was some indication that the RCMP were involved. Again, how is it possible that Olson has a copyright pursuant to the tapes? Why was Robert Shantz, Olson's lawyer, given a copy of the tapes? Was there any kind of written agreement concerning the tapes? I understand that there was an agreement. Did CSC national or regional headquarters know about the creation of the tapes before? There was some indication that Olson testified at a hearing where the tapes came up and CSC lawyers were present during that testimony.
When are we going to get some answers and what is going to happen to those tapes so this thing can come to closure for the victims of Olson?
Commr Ingstrup: Mr. Hanger, I understand the concerns of the victims; I understand the concerns of other people as well. I think that now is a good time to give some of the answers, the ones I have.
Twelve tapes were produced, of which five were handed over to Mr. Olson's attorney. The reason why these tapes were produced is a bit more complex than maybe one thinks. There were basically two reasons. One reason was that the RCMP and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have an ongoing study on serial killers to try to improve their ability to detect that type of crime by better understanding how these people think, what motivates them, how they react, etc., and I understand that these two organizations jointly asked for access to Mr. Olson and that he agreed. So that was one side of it.
According to information that I have asked for and received, Mr. Olson never had a videotape recorder. He was not the one who produced any of these videos. They were done by, so to speak, the other side.
But there was another aspect to it, which was that I think that at this stage Mr. Olson had talked about other victims of the type of crime he had committed. I'm not sure whether it was crimes he potentially would take responsibility for or if he would lead the authorities to missing bodies. In any event, the warden of the Saskatchewan penitentiary - he's resigned now, or retired, and has nothing to do with this - decided he wanted to record those kinds of explanations on tape.
.1205
Now, you may very well say -
Mr. Hanger: But why would Olson be given a copy - if you want to call it that, an investigative tape - of those tapes?
Commr Ingstrup: He was never personally given a copy of any of the tapes - never, according to my information - and he has no copyright. We have looked at that from a legal point of view and our lawyers inform me that under Canadian law Mr. Olson has no copyright to these tapes. These tapes belong to the Correctional Service of Canada and he has no right.
Mr. Hanger: But the lawyer has five of those tapes.
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, you've had about seven minutes now, so we'll....
Mr. Hanger: I've had barely four minutes, Madam Chair -
The Chair: I have seven on my time.
Mr. Hanger: - and this matter has to be cleared up, once and for all. There has to be closure to this particular matter.
The Chair: We're going to be here for a while.
Mr. Hanger: The commissioner has been written before by some of the victims who remain behind after the murder of their children and no answers have been forthcoming. It's high time there were.
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, you've had seven minutes to ask your questions. We'll get back to you in a few minutes. I'm not cutting you off permanently. I'm just giving other people their time.
Mr. Hanger: I wanted to mention -
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, that's it.
Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): One of the benefits of having Nancy Stableforth as your deputy commissioner is that there is a real opportunity for some of the issues about the records that are prepared for the Parole Board being improved. I wonder if you can tell me if you have already instituted some measures in that way. I know, for instance, the Parole Board sometimes says, well, we have to rely on the stuff that comes out of CSC, and if it's not accurate or if it's missing or if they've somehow been co-opted by the prisoners - not co-opted but influenced, I guess - we don't get the best records and we make less than perfect decisions. Have you worked on this since you've arrived?
Commr Ingstrup: We have not done it. We're working at it - and for all offenders, because it's not true just for female offenders. I guess there's a particular problem there, and like you, I'm very happy to have Nancy, for a number of reasons, but one of them is obviously that she has this very valuable experience at the National Parole Board. I have a past there too, by the way, so I'm very interested in that whole area.
She has been busy doing a couple of things since she arrived. She has been extremely busy understanding this whole business of creating choices and the implementation process, what went wrong and what didn't go wrong, and what we could do to avoid anything like that in the future. But she is also co-chair or vice-chair of the task force Lucie McClung is leading on the reintegration of offenders, that whole process. Obviously we made her co-chair because of her special knowledge in the area of parole and because of her special responsibilities. So I have no doubt that when I get the report in a couple of months there will be some substantial improvements.
Ms Torsney: Tuesday the minister announced some proposals on follow-up and post-detention supervision of high-risk offenders. How are we going to have the resources allocated? I guess the minister, the Solicitor General, was not there.
.1210
Sorry. Mr. Bellehumeur, was that your question?
Commr Ingstrup: It's the same question.
Ms Torsney: I apologize.
Commr Ingstrup: No problem.
Ms Torsney: It must be a matter of zoning or some such thing.
Why don't I give my other couple of minutes to Mr. Hanger.
The Chair: No, to Mr. Discepola.
Mr. Torsney: Mr. Discepola. Sorry.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): Do I have five minutes or seven minutes?
The Chair: You have three minutes.
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Ingstrup, welcome to the committee and welcome back to Correctional Services.
Commr Ingstrup: Thank you.
Mr. Discepola: You have a great challenge.
I took the liberty of visiting institutions. They were not the sixteen or seventeen institutions that my colleague Randy White has visited, but I did visit them from B.C. to Ontario. I never was served any cultural Italian spaghetti, nor any filet mignon, and I made a point of eating at each of these institutions at lunch-time.
Mr. White: You wouldn't know cultural food if you saw it, would you?
Mr. Discepola: Let me make a comment, because I really am angry about comments made by some of my colleagues.
I looked and I stared into Bernardo's eyes when I went to the Kingston penitentiary. I am appalled. Mr. Hanger asks why we don't close this. It can be closed by not asking any goddamn questions - excuse me, Madam Chair - because these people feed off the likes of the questions that Mr. Hanger is asking and off the likes of the media. That's what they seek, that's what they want, and that's what we give them.
As far as I'm concerned - and I think I speak for all Canadians - all we should do with these people is let Correctional Services do their job and we'll see them die and rot in hell eventually.
Mr. Hanger: Maybe the minister should do the job.
Mr. Discepola: Personally, I'm satisfied with the way in which you responded to Clifford Olson. I know that the tapes are in our possession. As I told my colleagues before, I can apply tomorrow morning for a copyright on the Bible. It doesn't mean I will get it. You have to prove ownership, and we have ownership. I think that's been established time and time again.
Let's drop the issue and get on.
I'd like to touch on two things, Mr. Ingstrup. One is the Arbour report. It's been out for six or seven months now. Are we going to get an official response to that report? Or are you going to take the report under advisement and go ahead and implement as many of the recommendations as you can?
One of the things I found about the report - and perhaps you can pass this on to some of the wardens, because I met with a lot of them.... You have a fantastic staff.
Commr Ingstrup: Yes.
Mr. Discepola: They're very dedicated people. I wish Justice Arbour could have taken one paragraph in her report and at least paid tribute to the dedication of many of these people. You did that, and I commend you for it. But I'd like to know how you are going to respond to that.
While I was visiting these institutions, one of the things that shocked me - and I made a point of visiting the segregation units, because she had some serious reservations about them - was that in some of these you're double-bunking. That shocked me. I think you're taking an awful lot of people there. It seems to be working well. Have you experienced any problems with it?
If time permits, I'll ask another question, on the recidivism rate.
The Chair: Your time really is up, so let's let the commissioner answer. We've got more than half an hour, so I'm sure we'll get back to you.
Commr Ingstrup: I thank the member for the positive comments on my staff. I think they are very well deserved.
The Arbour report is very thorough. Some of the findings and some of the recommendations have hurt quite a bit. Some of them may have to be modified a little bit. But we're studying them very carefully and from the positive point of view of, can this be helpful in doing what the Corrections and Conditional Release Act requires from us? If they can, then we will implement them. If part of it can do it, then we will implement it. We do keep track of where we're at in all these areas.
I really don't know if the minister or my predecessor have committed themselves to any kind of final report on it, but I know that some of the recommendations have been acted upon right away. Let me give you a couple of examples.
Nancy Stableforth is the deputy commissioner. We have made sure that emergency response teams will not go in if they consist only of men. If men are at all involved, they will not be involved in anything other than containment of the situation. They won't be involved in strip-searching. Men will not be witnessing strip-searches of women.
In that respect we go one step further than the Arbour report, because she gave us a little window by saying only under special circumstances. We have said no. We cannot imagine that these circumstances would exist.
.1215
We have also acted on the cross-gender staffing proposal. As you may recall, the report says we should try to staff one institution of these female institutions with only women at the front line. We have sought permission from the Public Service Commission to do that in the Edmonton institution. We have talked to the human rights commissioner to see if this is okay with him and we have a green light. So that's exactly what we're doing. We do have men further back, though.
Another major recommendation was that we should be looking at our segregation and the way we use segregation. I think that gets at least close to some of your concerns, sir.
We have a task force - and I should have mentioned it, but I forgot it - led by some very experienced prison people, who are looking at our whole use of segregation, the rules, to what extent we comply with the law, to what extent what we do is reasonable, to what extent the conditions are reasonable. This team, contrary to many other task forces, is moving across the country and will visit every institution in this country that has a segregation unit and actually check if they're doing to what they're supposed to do. They will also talk to the people who are there about the inmates and staff about what can be done to make it more true to what the act expects from us.
I think that's good progress so far.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I'm concerned about a number of other issues. I have several questions for you regarding cases of AIDS and HIV in prisons.
Judging from this table prepared in 1995 by CSC's health service, it would appear that there are three to four times more cases of AIDS and HIV in Quebec than in Ontario, despite similar prison populations. Can you tell me why this is the case?
Mr. Ingstrup: There is no easy explanation. However, I can guess at a few possible reasons, the most likely one being that inmates in Quebec agree more willingly to be tested than inmates in other regions of Canada. As you know, testing is voluntary. There are no mandatory testing procedures in place. Therefore, we can only work from the test results that we have.
I can't give you very much more in the way of an explanation, except to say that drug use appears to be more prevalent in Quebec penitentiaries. It's not a matter of blaming the people who work in these institutions. While I don't know the scientific reason for this, I've been told that the number of AIDS cases was slightly higher in Quebec.
Mr. Bellehumeur: My findings are similar to yours. There are more reported cases of AIDS in Quebec.
Mr. Ingstrup: I think you're right.
Mr. Bellehumeur: We can assume from this that in other federal prisons, AIDS is like a sleeping giant who is going to wake up one day soon.
Mr. Ingstrup: Clearly, this is something that we will have to...
Mr. Bellehumeur: ... take very seriously. I'm amazed, as I'm sure everyone is, to read in the newspaper that a former inmate was selling needles in prison. He claimed that a used needle, that is one not more than six months old, was worth its weight in gold, or between $50 and $100. Older needles could be traded for a pack of cigarettes.
.1220
It's hard to fathom how, in Canadian society, such things can be going on in our prisons. It's beyond me, unless I think back to the explanation I was given by certain guards about drugs in prisons. I also have a difficult time accepting that some guards are responsible for drugs coming into the prisons. It's not that they are selling drugs to inmates, but perhaps it suits them if the inmates are stoned and therefore easier to handle.
The two problems, drugs and needles, go together: on the one hand, if inmates need a needle, it is because they have something to put into it and, on the other hand, there is the drug problem in general. In 1993 and 1994, I put virtually the same question to this committee. Not much seems to have changed since then.
Mr. Ingstrup: Obviously, the problem isn't going away. As I was saying to Mr. White and Mr. Hanger, this is a serious problem that we can't ignore.
We also have to realize that there is a considerable amount of traffic in and out of the prisons, even the maximum security facilities. Contractors come and go, food is delivered, the garbage is picked up... There are all kinds of possibilities. Judging from what my colleagues from other prison systems have told me, it is extremely difficult to ensure a totally drug-free environment.
However, some prison systems have adopted rather special measures. In Denmark, my native country, one report referred to contract units between institutions and inmates to ensure that institutions remained totally drug-free. These contracts were designed for inmates with a genuine desire to take part in these programs. Even if we do have guards with other qualities, and even if we resort to all kinds of measures, we will never be 100 per cent certain that our institutions are drug-free.
Urine tests have been very useful as a source of information. The number of positive test results declined substantially between the two periods that you mentioned. We have seen some improvement, but we still have a problem.
The Jurgens report, which some of our officials are currently studying but which I haven't yet looked at, recommends a needle exchange program, precisely because of the circumstances that you mentioned. There is another side to all of this.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): I have a few more questions on the treatment of prisoners within the prison system. When prisoners sometimes take courses from institutions outside the prison, whether secondary schools or post-secondary schools, I'm interested in knowing - again, severing fact from fiction - whether the Government of Canada pays for these courses or the individual pays for these courses. About what we'll perhaps call luxury items, are they allowed to have radios, televisions, and computers? If so, who is allowed to have them?
.1225
I'm saying that with specific reference to a prisoner by the name of Homolka, who is from my area of the Niagara. I get hit with these questions all the time.
Also, your initiative to replace the women's prison in Kingston with five regional prisons: will there be segregation units at each of these facilities, or will there be a major segregation unit in Kingston? How will this work?
Commr Ingstrup: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your questions.
I can't tell you right on the spot here, off the top of my head, whether offenders are contributing to courses. I think it depends on what kind of courses, what kind of treatment. Drug treatment programs, alcohol treatment programs, they don't pay for, but if they take courses that are less related to their return to society as law-abiding citizens, maybe they do. I can find that information for you and I'll make sure you get it.
As far as TVs and radios and computers are concerned, we don't provide those things, but if they have them and if they don't abuse them, in most places we will often let them have them - certainly TVs and radios. Quite frankly, we think it's important, given the fact that these people are going to go back to society one day sooner or later, that they have healthy interests, as ordinary citizens do, and they're not totally absorbed in the criminal culture that could otherwise....
Computers are a bit of a problem for us, because we realize the same philosophy as I've just mentioned could lead to opening up these computers to the Internet, for instance. But we don't do that. We don't do that.
Those who have computers - and it's not a huge number, 500 - in the institutions.... These are self-contained computers. If they have WordPerfect or a training program they can have them, as long as they don't abuse them.
Some are pushing for us to be a little more open in this area and to move gradually into the information age. But I think there are also some security concerns I'm not prepared to back down on.
Mr. Maloney: And in the segregation units?
Commr Ingstrup: In all these institutions we built what we called ``enhanced units'', or more maximum-security-like units. I have visited them all. I don't believe these units are good for women for a very long period. They are very narrow. They are good to contain a situation overnight or for a couple of days or a couple of weeks or whatever, but not to have a serious number of women there for a long time. In that sense there will be segregation possibilities. But also, I have asked each of the regional deputy commissioners to make sure we have capacities outside these institutions.
I think Madam Chair mentioned at the beginning that we have probably been a little too inclined to look at that report, Creating Choices, as a manual. We thought a little that once these women got into these institutions they would all behave. Well, they didn't.
At this point our policy is that maximum security women will be removed from all these institutions and we will then see later on how we can handle them. That's our philosophy. On the prairies, for instance, there's a unit for people who need maximum security protection. It's not a big group. It's maybe forty for the whole country. That's what we're talking about.
Also, the Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon has refurbished part of one of their wings to accommodate female offenders with serious mental problems. Sometimes the two, of course, combine when we have these difficult situations with women.
So my answer is a little.... I should be able to say yes or no, but the thing is we have these units where we can accommodate difficult women for a time, but if it stretches over a long period I would rather see them out of these institutions.
The Chair: Mr. Hanger.
.1230
Mr. Hanger: For the benefit of my Liberal colleague across the way, I know that he objects to the types of questions that are being asked. To that I say, tough. I think that this committee is designed for questions, whether they be tough or otherwise. I don't see what his objection is. Right now we're talking about the rights of prisoners and whether they are going too far or not. I believe that it's legitimate to continue in that pattern, so I'm going to ask some more questions about Clifford Olson. This matter is far from being closed. It concerns a lot of people - a lot of victims, a lot of families of victims. It's incumbent upon me and others, as parliamentarians, to bring it to a head in one way or another.
On the tapes of Mr. Olson, I understand, Mr. Ingstrup, that a contract exists between CSC and Olson. It's presently in the hands of CSC, and it outlines the terms for the series of twelve video recordings. It was stated - by yourself too - that it was done jointly with the RCMP and the FBI as some sort of investigative tool, yet, also to my understanding, it is admitted by CSC that these particular tapes hold nothing of value in that respect.
On the other hand, although the claim has been made that they are investigative tapes, they were in the physical possession of Olson at one time, and now are in that of his lawyer.
You say that the tapes are CSC property. What are you going to do to get the other five tapes back from the lawyer?
Commr Ingstrup: It was clear, as I understand it, that the warden at the time, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Clifford Olson had some kind of agreement, and it's true that there is some kind of agreement between them. I believe there was a decision or agreement between Jim O'Sullivan and the lawyer that these tapes were not going to be used for any kind of publication. That's not what they are about. So I think that by the time we got to know about these things at the national headquarters, five tapes had been handed over to the lawyer by the institution at the local level.
I don't know if there are any ongoing efforts to get these tapes back. I suppose that the lawyer is a person who will not use them in any inappropriate fashion.
I have to say that the RCMP and the FBI originally did not have investigative purposes with what they did. They wanted to talk to Mr. Olson in order to get a better understanding of how the minds of people who do these kinds of horrendous things work, in order for them to gather a bank of knowledge and be better at clearing up these things. This is a legitimate study.
The other thing about the potential investigation came through because the warden thought that instead of just sitting there listening to Mr. Olson, who apparently had talked about further crimes, committed either by him or by somebody else he knew about, it was better to have that evidence.
If you ask me, sir, I don't think it was necessarily an appropriate thing for the Correctional Service of Canada to do. I think we should have worked with the RCMP or with other police forces to do it. But there's no doubt in my mind that it was done with the most honourable of intents.
Mr. Hanger: Sir, no guarantees are offered to anyone. You say that the tapes belong to CSC.
Commr Ingstrup: Yes.
Mr. Hanger: Yet five are out in the hands of a lawyer. They are entitled ``Motivational Sexual Homicide Patterns of a Serial Child Killer, Clifford Robert Olson''. Obviously, no guarantees are offered either to the victims' families or to CSC. From what I can see, the lawyer could use those in any way, shape, or form, including capitalizing on the profits that could be made from such tapes.
.1235
I think it's incumbent on CSC that some guarantee be offered. You say you have possession of them. Prove that to everyone, when in fact the opposite is true: those tapes are out and circulated.
Mr. Ingstrup: They are not circulated. There were five of twelve tapes produced. That's the best of my information. That's all I can share with you: five of twelve of tapes produced. The first five were handed over to the lawyer because the institution thought -
Mr. Hanger: What is CSC going to do about getting them back, then?
The Chair: Let him finish. Your five minutes is up in any event.
Go ahead, Mr. Ingstrup.
Mr. Ingstrup: I'll just say I don't know if there is an active search to get these five tapes back. I would have to check with our legal division, but I know we're onto this whole case in a very, very serious manner. I can guarantee you that none of the tapes in our possession will be used for any purpose other than what it was intended for, namely as a research tool.
Ms Torsney: There are two special handling units, one in Saskatchewan and one in Quebec. I understand the one in Saskatchewan is scheduled to be closed.
Mr. Ingstrup: That's right.
Ms Torsney: What's going to happen to the prisoners there?
Mr. Ingstrup: Those who still need special handling unit treatment will be transferred to the federal training centre in Quebec.
With your permission, may I add that I think it's a very positive thing, one that speaks volumes about the competency of our staff, that they have managed to get the number of people they throw into special handling units down to a much more manageable size. That's the reason we have only one, or will have only one.
Ms Torsney: How many prisoners will there be in total then?
Mr. Ingstrup: I can't tell you, but I would be happy to get the information over to you.
Ms Torsney: How was the decision made to go to Quebec rather than to move the people from Quebec to Saskatchewan.
Mr. Ingstrup: Again, I can't tell you. I'm guessing here, but both of them were staffed with very good people. I think the Quebec one is a little larger, so.... That's my impression. But if you're interested, Madam, I'll give you the information.
The Chair: Did you want to pursue that?
Ms Torsney: If you wouldn't mind, I would be interested.
The other question I had was this. You talked about how we want to make sure our communities are safer, post-release, for these people. Yet I understand from the 1996 Auditor General's report that one region receives 16% of the substance abuse program budget to treat just 100 offenders and the remaining money is used to treat the other 5,000 offenders. It would seem to me programming, and this kind of programming, would go a long way to making our communities safer, and I'm wondering why such a disproportionate amount is being allocated. What's going on?
Mr. Ingstrup: You're putting your finger on it exactly. It's not good that it is that way. We have a task force that is working now. It will also be looking at an issue that can, I think, best be described this way: find better ways of ensuring that whenever we have a dollar we put it in the best spot, as measured by the kind of protection society gets. We haven't been able to do that; and that's the essence of the Auditor General's criticism. He's asking, why do you spend all that money on a small group of offenders? Even if it works perfectly well, it may not be the best way.
But we think it is a broader issue than that. The same thing goes for CORCAN, our industrial component. Mr. White asked a question I didn't answer about work in our institutions. We will try to get more people to work, but if it costs money we should be careful to make sure the budgeting across our program spectrum gives the best pay-off in terms of public safety. We're working on that.
.1240
Ms Torsney: The other issue you face is that a lot of the people in our communities are asking for more bricks and mortar, more institutions, more people behind more and bigger fences, and more security, yet obviously that comes at a price.
Commr Ingstrup: Yes, it does.
Ms Torsney: This means that there will be less money for the programs.
When we visited the prisons in 1994, a lot of people said that they were on a waiting list and no one would give them a program until the very end of their sentence. It's ridiculous. The motivation is lost, the opportunity to practise the new skills they've learned is lost, and they don't have a chance to see if they need a second program before they get out. Yet we're dumping all the services at the end of their sentence and maybe not even giving them much programming that would help them become better citizens.
How do you deal with that?
Commr Ingstrup: Again you're bang on, although I don't particularly like to admit it. It's true that this is a problem. But it's more than an issue of dollars.
For instance, we started sex offender treatment programs in the prison system in Canada when I was here the last time. We started out with two programs in a few spots. Today they have almost 4,000 going through these programs over a two- or three-year period, about 1,200 or 1,500 on an annual basis. It's a huge expansion.
But there are also a limited number of experts who can do it. It's not a thing that you can ask just whomever to do. We're training our own staff to the extent that it is possible, but that's an area in which we are contracting out a lot. However, it remains an issue.
I learned the other day that some of the higher-risk sex offenders have to wait until about 16 months prior to their mandatory release date in order to get through programs. Hopefully we can keep the motivation up. It is certainly our ambition to make that faster, and it is the reason why we put a task force together.
Another aspect is important here. It is that our assessment system and preparation of people for their correctional plan seem to be taking longer and longer for us. This is basically because the system has tried to enhance the quality of assessment. But every time you enhance it, put a new element in it, it takes longer. So suddenly you find yourself quite far into the sentence - recalling that the average sentence is 44 months. There's something to be gained from condensing that preparatory process, and that's also being looked at.
Mr. White: Mr. Ingstrup, I'd like to get back to the programs that are offered in the prisons. In particular, you talked about cognitive skills.
Commr Ingstrup: Yes.
Mr. White: In many of the sessions I've been in with inmates and with staff in some of the prisons, they rise up and say that these programs aren't working and that the quality of the instructor is not very good. In some cases, even the staff have not many good things to say about it.
In fact, at Kent prison again, which is a maximum security institution, the inmates, from their computer work, put on the bulletin boards in the prison a joking thing about boosting cognitive skills. I didn't see it as being much of a joke. The staff took it down and gave it to me. I'll read you just a part of what it says:
- This ten-session program is another in a series of useless programs that was formulated by a
group of heavily medicated and bored criminology students, who, after having sponged up all
the funding available to them from the Ministry of Education, decided they would try a shot at
feeding at CSC's billion-dollar trough for a while.
.1245
What is your opinion of just how practical and how effective these courses have become? Are the instructors really good, qualified instructors to be giving those programs?
Commr Ingstrup: Sir, if I may say just one thing as a preamble to my answer to you, I think in any large system you will have people who produce that kind of what I would call nonsense.
Mr. White: I would agree with that.
Commr Ingstrup: You have it, and they sometimes have a tendency to get a much higher profile than the quality of their views deserves.
However, the question is a legitimate one: is it good enough? What we know from our research, sir, is that all offenders taken as one big lump, everyone who has gone through the cognitive skills training programs, have a recidivism rate 20% lower than that of a control group that didn't go through these programs, those who didn't get the program. In my view, 20% lower is significant, and if that is based on a large number of inmates, something tells me it is definitely worth doing.
By the way, it's not a very expensive program. We train our own staff. Many of them are correctional officers. They're fabulous coaches. I hear very different stories - although I also hear some of the things you're saying.
If you subdivide that - I have a note here so I get my facts straight - offenders in community programs, where we have cognitive skills in the community, show a 66% reduction in recidivism. I don't know how big the group is, but I'll go back and look at that. Property offenders, if they're treated with cognitive skills in the community, have a recidivism rate 44% lower than if they were not treated. Property offenders who were treated in the institutions show no difference.
Mr. White: This reminds me of a discussion I had with a parole board member when I was at them for some bad decisions they made in my particular community. A fellow phoned me and said, you know, you have it pretty good here in the Fraser valley; our success rate is 87%. But really, I said, the victims and many other people are concerned about your 13% failure rate.
It's not just success rates -
Commr Ingstrup: No.
Mr. White: - that Corrections Canada has to look at. I would suggest maybe you should concentrate on some of the areas, albeit maybe a smaller percentage, where it is not as effective, because people are being hurt by the ineffectiveness of that.
Commr Ingstrup: That's right. But sir, it's quite ironic. A couple of days ago I had a discussion with some of the people who are doing audits and investigations at CSC. My view - and it's not to contradict you, sir - was that we are focusing far too much on things that go wrong. It's not that we shouldn't do it, but we forget to see what things actually make people do better. We should have an equal understanding of how can we do better.
We are investigating every serious mishap in the community, and we should continue to do that. There's no slowing down on it. We are trying to learn as well as we can. We have some -
Mr. White: We accept you will do right. We expect you to do right. Where you go wrong is where a lot of people do get damaged in our society.
Commr Ingstrup: I know.
Mr. White: It's a little difficult to be concentrating on the positive when there are many negatives out there.
Commr Ingstrup: I know.
Mr. White: I really do think Corrections Canada has some way to go towards looking at some of the problems and fixing them. There are problems within that system and they do have to get fixed, because some of the people leaving those prisons are not fit to be on the street, whether it's as a result of your programs or whatever else it is.
.1250
Commr Ingstrup: Mr. White is absolutely right. Of course we have things that we will try to do better. But if I may, I'd like to object a bit, with all due respect, to the notion that CSC has done wrong every time somebody goes out and commits a new offence. As a matter of fact, we get them for a short period of time and some of them are pretty miserable when we get them and only so much can be done. We know that. But I can assure you, sir, and all of your colleagues - and hopefully the people of Canada also will understand this - that we will tirelessly continue to focus on anything we can do to get the failure rate, for whatever reason, down as much as we can. We will never stop pursuing that avenue, and I think some of the things we're undertaking now will move us in that direction.
The Chair: Before you leave, Mr. Ingstrup, I'll take the last word.
We are expecting an order to review the detention provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act shortly, and I think that we'll get to it in the spring. I wonder if CSC has carried out any research on the operation, impact, and effects of the detention provisions of the act. If so, will you share that information with us in order to facilitate our work in the spring?
Commr Ingstrup: Absolutely. We're doing some work in that area, but we're doing work in the whole area of the act. We have quite important information to share with you. As I said earlier, it's a very complex act and sometimes it is very difficult for people who are not lawyers - and not all of our people are lawyers. So we'll come back with something.
The Chair: Having a law degree doesn't necessarily guarantee any insights either, I can assure you.
Commr Ingstrup: Whatever we have we will be delighted to share with you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: That's great. Thank you very much.
This meeting stands adjourned.