Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 14 - Evidence - February 1, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 1, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:30 a.m. to study the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system.
Senator Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I want to welcome back all senators, who will be introducing themselves, particularly the new senators on this committee. I am reflecting a wee bit on the last few months of how in a collaborative way we worked so well together with reports on Syrian refugees and issues in Vietnam, North Korea and Iran. We have reports out on a number of these subjects, and they have been very positively received.
Also, we are still in the midst of gender-based analysis. We are almost done that. Nancy Ruth can never be a former senator; she will probably come back and help us along with that report, and of course on the imports, exports and dealings in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
We have had a very busy last 10 months, and it has been extremely worthwhile and wonderful to work with all of you.
We are on a new road of discovery in this major issue that we will explore over the next many months. It is on human rights of prisoners in the correctional services. We will embrace this work. We know so much has been done in this field, but we think it is long overdue for us to become involved again. Hopefully, as we go along, we will probably have a report card of some sort by the end of June. Then we will continue to move on to a more extensive report in dealing with the human rights of prisoners.
I would like to welcome all the new members of our committee again.
[Translation]
I would like all the senators to introduce themselves.
[English]
I would like to start with our deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk from Saskatchewan.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick, and I am filling in for Yonah Martin.
Senator Fraser: Joan Fraser from Quebec, and I am subbing for Senator Hubley.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate from Ontario. Welcome. It is nice to see you in this new capacity.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar from Ontario.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling from New Brunswick.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I am Jim Munson from New Brunswick but I am a senator from Ontario.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba.
The Chair: We have more senators than ever, and we are really happy about that. Our committee is full. We have the new independent senators, and we want to welcome all of you to our study.
We welcome the department officials with us this morning. From Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly, Senior Deputy Commissioner; Kelley Blanchette, Deputy Commissioner for Women; Larry Motiuk, Assistant Commissioner, Policy; and Jennifer Wheatley, Assistant Commissioner, Health Services.
I believe, Ms. Kelly, you have an opening statement on this journey we are going to take.
Anne Kelly, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for inviting us to speak on behalf of the Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, regarding this committee's study on the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system. We look forward to providing information to help inform your study. As you know, I a21m joined by three of my colleagues today.
As you may be aware, CSC is responsible for administering sentences of offenders with a term of two years or more as imposed by the courts. In addition, we are responsible for managing institutions of various security levels and supervising offenders who are on conditional release in the community.
At the outset I believe it is important to note that our founding legislation, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, specifically stipulates that offenders retain the rights of all members of society, except those that are, as a consequence of the sentence, lawfully and necessarily removed or restricted. CSC is recognized as a leader in the international corrections community and has a long-standing history of cooperating with national and international partners in the stabilization and reconstruction of foreign criminal justice systems.
As part of Canada's criminal justice system and respecting the rule of law, CSC's mission is to encourage and assist in the rehabilitation of offenders to become law-abiding citizens while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control. During the past decade the offender population profile has changed significantly, putting new pressures on our organization and its operations.
Despite the challenges resulting from these pressures, CSC has adapted to the changes in offender profile by implementing population management and mental health strategies, enhancing intelligence and information systems, and regularly reviewing and modernizing the delivery of our operations and rehabilitation programs.
To this end, CSC has developed correctional programs that are empirically based, structured interventions which contribute to reduced reoffending by targeting factors known to be directly related to criminal behaviour. CSC offers a broad range of correctional programs to offenders both in institutions and in the community to ensure the continuity of care and interventions and increased public safety.
The continuity between institution and community program participation is critical to the successful reintegration of offenders. Research has shown that this continuity enhances the effectiveness of institutional programs by reducing the likelihood of recidivism upon release.
In addition to correctional programs the provision of health care, particularly the delivery of mental health services, is a major driver in the rehabilitation of offenders coming into the federal correctional system. Offenders' health needs are often complex and include a higher than average incidence and prevalence of infectious diseases and mental illness. To tackle these challenges, CSC has a national essential health services framework that promotes quality and consistency across the country. Health services in institutions and mental health services in treatment centres are fully accredited and delivered by health care professionals who are registered or licensed in Canada, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, psychiatrists, psychologists and dentists among others.
The delivery of effective mental health interventions can often be challenging, as offenders with complex mental health issues often experience multiple overlapping needs. At the same time they may also have challenging behaviours including aggression and violence. CSC has developed an integrated mental health strategy, along with an updated mental health services delivery model, to ensure the most effective mental health care services are matched to those with the greatest need.
Our organization has made effective and timely intervention in addressing mental health needs of offenders, one of our corporate priorities. In order to provide robust mental health services, CSC spent approximately $77 million in fiscal year 2015-16 on these services alone, which are delivered in psychiatric hospitals, treatment centres, mainstream institutions and various sites in the community.
Since 2007 our key initiatives have included implementing our mental health strategy, providing mental health training tailored to various frontline groups, including primary workers and correctional officers, and implementing policies and oversight mechanisms to prevent inmate suicide and self-injury. Although their jobs may be challenging our dedicated staff across the country work hard every day to safely manage and care for the offenders in our custody.
As the committee is likely aware, CSC has also been taking a close look at how we used administrative segregation in our institutions and where alternatives may exist. Over the years a number of internal and external inquiries and reviews have examined administrative segregation and CSC's practices have evolved as a result. CSC has invested a significant amount of time and energy into the rigorous management of administrative segregation.
The consistent decline of the population in segregation over the past few years is a reflection of all the work that has been done locally, regionally and nationally to implement, monitor and reinforce updated practices.
The recent decrease in the use of administrative segregation stems from many initiatives. Beginning in January 2015, CSC reached out to key partners, stakeholders and staff to develop a framework for change. In October 2015, CSC implemented new policy expectations and tools on the use of administrative segregation.
There are two demographic groups that I believe warrant specific mention in my remarks and which I believe are of particular interest to this committee: indigenous offenders and women offenders.
As this committee may be aware, CSC continues to observe an increase in its indigenous offender population. Approximately one-quarter of incarcerated male offenders and one-third of incarcerated women offenders are indigenous. Tackling the overrepresentation of indigenous offenders is a challenge that extends beyond CSC's mandate but is an area where CSC can and does play a part.
Community-based research has demonstrated that reconnection with culture, family and community are key factors in the safe reintegration of indigenous offenders. By ensuring that we approach indigenous corrections in a manner that is both culturally sensitive and inclusive of the indigenous community, we ensure that we provide the most effective correctional outcomes and ultimately contribute to the best possible public safety results for Canadian communities.
With respect to women offenders, this group comprises a small and unique subset of the total federal offender population. CSC recognizes that women offenders have diverse needs that may impact their response to interventions and reintegration. CSC has adopted a holistic, research-based, women-centred approach for managing the rehabilitation of women offenders. We have developed correctional environments and interventions that are gender, culturally and trauma informed. We have implemented services and training opportunities designed specifically for women offenders. We strive to provide a safe and supportive environment that fosters opportunities. Our approach is to empower women to live with dignity and respect, and to help women offenders rebuild their lives as law-abiding citizens while creating safer communities for all Canadians.
While this only skims the surface of the work performed by the dedicated and professional staff of CSC each day across the country, I hope it gives the committee some insight into our role as part of the criminal justice system in actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control.
CSC continues to work diligently to ensure that the human rights of all offenders are respected. We will remain focused in addressing and responding to the challenges within the correctional system as we move forward. Thank you for your time and we welcome the committee's questions. Merci.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening statement. I would like to remind the committee that our Library of Parliament analyst Erin is not here today but has put together a very well-documented backgrounder for all of us, including suggested questions as well. I want to thank you very much for that. We received it this morning, but normally we get it two or three days before. However, there were some serious family issues that prevented that from happening, so we got it this morning. As a former reporter, I did a speed-read and liked what I saw. I think it is well worthwhile to have an exhaustive read of it. It is extremely important.
As usual, we will start with the vice-chair, and then put your hand up anytime and away we go.
Senator Ataullahjan: I will read a statement by the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and I would like to have your response to that. It says:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has long held that placing vulnerable individuals in solitary confinement denies them their human rights, and for those with mental health issues, it can lead to irreparable harm. Canada's human rights laws and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act give people with mental health issues the right to receive correctional services that respond to their unique needs. Yet, despite the law and all the evidence, those with the keys are unwilling to recognize the harm they are doing. Correctional Services Canada continues to deny that their actions can cause profound damage.
Could I have your response to that?
Ms. Kelly: Certainly in terms of administrative segregation over the years there have been lots of reviews and inquiries and our practices have evolved as a result. We have made concerted efforts and invested time and energy.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks in terms of measures we have taken around administrative segregation, it started out in January 2015, when we reached out to partners and stakeholders to develop a framework for change. Then in October 2015, we implemented new policy expectations and tools. For example, we enhanced the leadership and oversight so the authority to chair institutional seg reviews have been elevated. The cases are reviewed earlier by regional and national committees. We have daily visits by the warden and the warden has to inspect the conditions of confinement.
We also have created a tool which we call a segregation assessment tool. It guides staff through the mandatory legislative requirements that have to be considered, as well as risk considerations, in the placement of offenders into segregation. We have also enhanced our mental health assessment and intervention, and I will ask Ms. Wheatley to speak to this.
We have to remember that segregation is when we have to separate an inmate from other inmates. It is for the shortest time possible. When we place an offender in seg it is because of certain requirements.
Having worked on the frontline, I will give an example in an institution of why segregation is necessary. A fight breaks out and one offender assaults another. There are serious injuries. The staff had no clue this was going to happen. We did not have any information. We need a place to actually put these offenders in a certain area, and through legislation that area is called segregation.
That allows us time for intelligence officers to actually assess the situation and decide whether the assailant needs to be transferred and whether the victim is safe if returned to the institution.
Certainly in terms of our efforts our focus is on proactive efforts to try to resolve the situation so we can alleviate the inmate's seg status as soon as we can. Again, lots of work has been done in this area.
Before I turn it over to Ms. Wheatley, I would like to say that from mid-March 2015 to mid-December 2016, we have had a decrease of 50 per cent in our admin seg population. We have had a decrease of 70 per cent of those that spend more than 60 days in segregation and we have had a decrease by more than 80 per cent of long-term segregation. There are some good results, and we are continuing our efforts.
Jennifer Wheatley, Assistant Commissioner, Health Services, Correctional Service Canada: To add to Anne's comments in three areas, what we have been doing over the last decade is also looking at alternatives to segregation, more upstream. Part of that, for us, was remodelling our health care delivery system, which had been historically from a mental health perspective very hospital based. Hospital-based services for offenders are no different from those for any other Canadian. They require consent or certification.
We did have a gap for offenders who had significant mental health needs and would benefit from a more therapeutic environment but weren't ready to engage in treatment, for various reasons. We have remodelled our mental health service delivery model to be in keeping with the World Health Organization recommendations around mental health service delivery so that it's no longer predominantly hospital based.
This has allowed us to expand what we call intermediate care. I think of that as sort of intensive outpatient care. We now have more intermediate care for men and women across the country, so we're able to provide a more therapeutic environment and more interventions upstream before an incident ever happens.
It's not perfect. There are still gaps. There are certainly still gaps for men for intermediate mental health care outside of treatment centres, and for women in a maximum security environment. Those are two things we are continuing to look at in terms of how we can improve service delivery even further. That has been a significant change in our service delivery model that I think helps us find alternatives to segregation for some offenders.
In addition to that, one of the enhancements over the last five to ten years has been earlier identification of offenders with mental health needs to allow for earlier interventions. We now screen approximately 93 per cent of all offenders at intake to identify significant mental health needs, including cognitive impairments, so that we can intervene and assess earlier in their sentence.
As part of that screening, for example, 42 per cent of all offenders in any given year receive a specialized mental health intervention by a mental health professional, more frontline primary care than you would get from a doctor, a nurse, a psychologist, a clinical social worker or a psychiatrist. For us, a big part of segregation is about identifying offenders' needs and trying to intervene earlier.
Lastly, we have done a lot of work to strengthen the health care intervention. We have partnered, for example, with CAMH, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, to look at our training for frontline health care providers in women's institutions to ensure that we are staying on top of the research, on top of best practices, and that our staff has the skills and competencies they need for those early interventions.
Larry Motiuk, Assistant Commissioner, Policy, Correctional Service Canada: I would add that as part of our policy framework on administrative segregation we have added mental health professionals as part of our Segregation Review Board as permanent members. They stay with that case right from the initial placement in terms of the impacts the individual might be experiencing while being placed in segregation.
We also look at access to other individuals in administrative segregation. They do have access to advocacy groups, whether it is the John Howard Society or the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies or the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They have access to advocacy groups. They also have access to counselling and approved visits from family and friends. It is important to have that kind of contact as well. The fact that they are not associating with other inmates is really the impact for these individuals. They don't enjoy what a group of inmates would experience inside the institution.
They also have telephone calls. They can have entertainment equipment and gaming devices in those segregation cells. They can have access to their personal effects in a limited way, and after five days they can have full access to all of their personal effects in those cells.
We try to maintain the same conditions of confinement that they would experience in the general population. We address security and safety concerns: whether they are jeopardizing the safety and security of the institution, whether they are potentially interfering with an investigation, or whether their own personal safety would be at risk if they were placed in the institution. Particularly for inmates who are experiencing mental health difficulties, they do experience challenges with the rest of the offender population. We need to accommodate that as well. Again, this is not seen as a punitive measure. It is an approach in order to maintain the safety and security of the institution as well as the well- being of the offender.
Senator Ataullahjan: What you are saying is that when they are placed in segregation they don't interact with the rest of the prisoners but they have access to everything else. Is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Motiuk: Pretty well. For development on a one-on-one basis there is access to education and spiritual support. They can have access to elders and chaplains. It is not limited contact. It is just that in terms of association with the general inmate population they are removed from that group and separated from them when legal requirements are met for that. That's the institutional head's determination for every site. It's the warden or the director of the institution that makes the determination whether there is a requirement to be placed in administrative segregation.
Ms. Kelly: I would add to that. At one point many years ago I was a parole officer and I was responsible for the segregation unit. I would say that in terms of segregation there is a robust process around it. The offenders are seen by their case management team. That includes the parole officer, because the parole officer works with the offender to try to resolve the situation. Sometimes it's a matter that we have to resolve an incapability issue so that the offender can return to the population. Sometimes it's to work with the offender for a transfer to another institution or to reintegrate a different range.
As I said, with the seg process it's very rigorous. There are reviews at regular intervals that are chaired by the deputy warden or warden and reviews at the regional and national levels.
The Chair: We have a lot of senators who are very curious. We have five or six on our list already. This will be a fascinating journey.
I just want to acknowledge that Senator Ngo has arrived. He is on the steering committee.
Senator Fraser: Continuing on the matter of solitary confinement, what can you tell us now, after the policy changes from October 2015, about the population preferably annually but if that is not possible semi-annually? How many prisoners in your system are placed in solitary confinement in a year and for how long? How many would be there for more than 15 days, which is the maximum permitted under the Mandela rules? How many would be there for more than 60 days and how many would be there for more than 90 days?
Ms. Kelly: Beside me is the chief deliverology who has all of those stats.
Mr. Motiuk: We can certainly provide some of the precision of the stats, but in terms of the number of individuals, like a count of the population that is in administrative segregation, it hovers around 350. Three or four years ago it was 800. It's a dramatic reduction in the population count in terms of size. We would say roughly 50 per cent, but it has been holding very low since we introduced all these changes in October 2015.
There are three things we measure: the flow in, the number of people being admitted to segregation; the duration of segregation; and the count. You have already heard about the count. The flow into segregation used to hover around 8,000 admissions a year. They dropped down to about 6,500 last year. There has been a dramatic drop in terms of reduction of placements into segregation.
Senator Fraser: You only have 13,000.
Mr. Motiuk: Yes, but there could be multiple admissions into segregation.
Senator Fraser: I am trying to get a sense of how many people go in and for how long.
Mr. Motiuk: Roughly 6,500 in a year.
Senator Fraser: Yes, but you say that includes multiples, so individuals versus repeaters.
Mr. Motiuk: I don't have that number offhand, but I can provide that for you. It would be much lower than 6,500. It would be roughly 4,500 or so in a year. That would be an individual that would have experienced placement in segregation.
Senator Fraser: How long? What is the average? Is it more than 15 days, more than 60 days, or more than 90 days?
Mr. Motiuk: The average last year was about 24 days.
Senator Fraser: Ms. Kelly, you said there was a 60 per cent decline in the number of people held for more than 60 days. Where does that bring us to now?
Ms. Kelly: I don't have the actual number. There has been a decrease of 70 per cent. I can undertake to provide you with the number.
Senator Fraser: I have a quick question on the slightly different subject of double-bunking. It is also contrary to international norms. Under the preceding government it became an accepted practice in the Canadian system. Where do we stand now on double-bunking?
Mr. Motiuk: We are hovering around 11 per cent.
Senator Fraser: What is the official policy? You have policy statements about these things. Has the official policy statement changed?
Ms. Kelly: It terms of double-bunking the rate is slightly lower than 10 per cent, again because lots of efforts have been made. We have two types of accommodation. We have single cell accommodation and shared accommodation. Single cell accommodations are cells designed for one offender. For example at Mountain Institution in the Pacific region where I worked we had shared accommodations, which are cells designed for two offenders.
Senator Pate: You don't count those as double-bunking.
Ms. Kelly: No. Double-bunking is when we place two offenders in a cell that is designed for one. It is basically a double bunk bed.
Senator Fraser: How many would be in shared?
Mr. Motiuk: I don't know.
Senator Fraser: I will stop now, chair, but maybe the witnesses could provide the information to the committee.
The Chair: Yes, that would be helpful.
Ms. Kelly: With the double-bunking, lots of efforts and energy have gone into reducing the rate. It was higher. The reason was the closure of institutions but we built new cells. That has helped. At this point it is something that is monitored on a consistent basis. We also prioritize transfers so we can alleviate the double-bunking rate. It has gone down and will continue to go down.
Senator Pate: Our four witnesses are people I have had the privilege and opportunity to work with over the last 25 years in particular so it is nice to see them here.
I want to start with a comment and then some questions, some of which you may have to get other information on.
I agree that Canada has one of the most clear legislative frameworks for protection of prisoners in the world. We have historically been a leader in that area. Those of you working in it do your best to do what you can within that framework, but I also know when you are here you have to present the best possible perspective about what is happening within Correctional Service Canada.
The deputy chair asked you a question. As you know, the current Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission used to be the primary independent chairperson who went into the prisons and had some first- hand knowledge of what was happening. I don't expect you to denigrate Correctional Service Canada or your colleagues' work, but there are some things that would be helpful for the committee to be able to examine. They relate to a couple of areas.
To pick up on Senator Fraser's comments around costs and numbers, if you have them here today, that is great, but if you don't, you could provide them to the committee: the number and cost of section 29 agreements that you have outstanding, the number and cost of section 81 and section 84 agreements you have outstanding, as well as their locations. That would be very helpful. As well, what have the negotiations been around the exchange of service agreements, particularly for health care?
Jennifer Wheatley and I have had these discussions in the past, particularly to women. There have been some obstacles, but what efforts are being made to ensure that the section 29 agreements can happen for mental health, with the exchange of services agreements in the way that they do it now when you have emergencies of other natures?
You could provide the number and cost of uses of force within the prison system, broken down if not by institution then by region; the number of bed days in segregation and the cost of those bed days, broken down preferably for men, women and institutions.
You could also provide the number and cost of transfers of prisoners, as well as the reasons for the transfers; the number and cost of lockdowns, and the reasons for the lockdowns; and the manner in which you are looking to apply, in light of a number of cases that have been happening across the country, some of the new mechanisms or challenges in terms of apply the Gladue principles in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, as well as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations on the work you are doing. I am not only interested in what is planned, but what is happening already in those areas.
I have comments about some of the use of seg, but for the purpose of this committee that will be some of the most useful information to get right away.
The Chair: It would also be helpful in a précis form when you talk about the sections 29, 81 and 84 if there was just a touch of an executive summary of what those are. We have people at home who are watching and have a lot of interest in this and that would be helpful whether in the answer or in the question. That is easy.
Ms. Kelly: Maybe I could speak a bit about what we're doing around Aboriginal offenders. I am quite excited. I am going to speak more around male offenders. Kelley could speak about women offenders. Certainly Larry could speak about research and Jennifer about mental health.
The overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders is a priority of the government and of CSC. In CSC we can't control the number of offenders coming into our custody. However, where we do have a part to play is preparing them for their earliest parole eligibility date and their case can be presented to the parole board.
In terms of overrepresentation at this point 26 per cent of CSC's total incarcerated population are indigenous male offenders, and it's 36 per cent for women offenders.
In terms of new admissions, approximately 24 per cent of new admissions are indigenous offenders.
The indigenous offenders that we see compared to non-indigenous offenders are younger. Certainly Dr. Motiuk could speak to this because in terms of under 35 years of age it is 51 per cent versus 38 per cent. Some 51 per cent of indigenous offenders are under 35, and that speaks to the growth in the indigenous offenders.
They are also more likely to have served previous youth and adult sentences, 33 per cent versus 26 per cent; to be incarcerated for a more violent offence, 78 per cent versus 66 per cent; to have higher risks, 58 per cent versus 24 per cent; to have higher needs, 59 per cent versus 44 per cent; to be more inclined to have gang affiliations, 18 per cent versus 8 per cent; to have higher rates of substance abuse, 76 per cent versus 42 per cent; and to have mental health issues, 83 per cent versus 60 per cent. Then for women it's also the history of sexual and/or physical abuse.
Our approach is to offer culturally sensitive programs and services that include the indigenous community. In terms of our programs we have what we call the Aboriginal integrated correctional program. It was developed in consultation with the elders. The elders are also involved in the delivery of the program.
If we look at our approach to indigenous corrections it's along the Aboriginal continuum of care. It starts at intake. We do a comprehensive intake but with indigenous offenders. Instead of having a correctional plan, which is the blueprint for the whole sentence, we have a healing plan. We also look at their Aboriginal social history. That's something that we've been focusing on. We also involve the Aboriginal community development officers, if the offender wishes to return to his community to start planning. That's what is called a section 84 release plan, where we involve the indigenous community.
Then we offer correctional programs that target criminogenic factors. Those are Aboriginal-specific programs or indigenous-specific programs. In terms of interventions we have the elders that provide guidance and counselling. We have Pathways interventions. Pathways is basically a unit. It's an elder-driven intervention, intensive healing, and it's for those offenders who are committed to following a traditional path.
We also have healing lodges. Health lodges are for the most part minimum security environment that are steeped in Aboriginal teaching and culture, and again we work closely with the Aboriginal community.
Can we do more? Yes, we can. Just recently we had the OAG report on preparing indigenous offenders for release that made several recommendations. We have accepted all of the recommendations. We're working on are proactively preparing the case of indigenous offenders for the earliest appropriate release, specifically low-risk offenders. We are increasing the availability and access to indigenous-specific programs. We are actually validating our current assessment tools and developing new culturally appropriate tools. Certainly Dr. Motiuk can speak to one such tool.
We are ensuring that staff considers the impact of the Aboriginal social history. Lots of work has been done there. We're much better at documenting the Aboriginal social history. We are providing direction to our staff on how to take this Aboriginal social history and look at potential alternative options.
Also in terms of pathways we are doing a lot of work in that area because currently our staff in reports may say that the offender participated in Pathways, but what does that mean? It means normally that they're working with an elder, that there are fewer security incidents, and fewer positive urinalysis tests. We want the staff to actually expand on what it means to participate in Pathways. We continue to work with Aboriginal communities to support and assist in the reintegration of offenders.
Again, lots of energies are spent in that area.
Senator Pate: Section 29, for the benefit of people listening and for the committee, allows Correctional Service Canada to transfer out to health instructions and other facilities individuals in their care and custody. It is a mechanism whereby people with significant mental health issues, instead of being kept in segregation or in prison, could be held in mental health facilities. There have been discussions, and Ms. Kelly can share the current perspective in terms of how efficiently or not those negotiations have gone with the provinces. There is exchange of service agreements with every province and territory between the Correctional Service Canada. For instance, if someone has a heart attack or needs urgent medical care, they can be taken out immediately. The same sorts of provisions haven't necessarily been negotiated as robustly with mental health unless something new has happened.
Sections 81 and 84 deal with the ability of Corrections to actually move individuals back into their communities. It's widely recognized as only applying to indigenous prisoners, but that's not accurate because subsection 81(2), for instance, talks about it applying to not just racialized but also non-racialized prisoners. It can apply to everybody.
Section 81 allows people to serve the prison part of their sentence or the custodial part in the community sponsored by a group, and section 84 allows them to serve conditional release or their parole part in the community.
Is the costing something you have to get back to us on, or do you have those figures?
Ms. Kelly: I will have to get back to you on costing.
Senator Pate: I meant to ask also for the various forms of segregation. Even when segregation is a status, not just the place, when you are doing medical observation or intensive psychiatric care, those are forms of segregation by law. I know Corrections doesn't always count them as segregation, but we would like those numbers and the cost as well, please.
The Chair: Time is always our enemy. Perhaps you can answer that or refer to that, Ms. Wheatley. We have 15 minutes. You are going to come back too, but if you could keep your answers concise we would appreciate it.
Ms. Wheatley: Briefly by way of background for exchange of service agreements with hospitals across the country, we certainly have the capacity for physical and mental health care to bring people to the hospital closest to the institution for urgent acute care in an emergency.
For context, we have one hospital bed or intermediate mental health care bed for every seven women inmates. For men, it is one hospital or intermediate mental health care bed for every 17 male offenders. That recognizes that inmates in our custody have higher prevalence than in the community, and women higher prevalence than men. That includes our beds and the community.
Senator Pate: How many are out in the community and how many in your prisons?
Ms. Wheatley: For women, we currently have a very longstanding partnership with Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal. At the Pinel institution we have 17 hospital beds for women and three for men. We also have a MOU with The Royal Ottawa health care group for their location in Brockville for two hospital beds for women. We've been negotiating with East Coast Forensic Hospital to access beds for women in the Maritimes.
Certainly the 1:7 ratio for women to mental health care beds reflects our capacity and our community partners' capacity. That's a lot of capacity, but as we have recognized for a number of years that distance is a barrier to care for women. Right now most of our care is located in either Brockville, Montreal or at the Regional Psychiatric Centre in the Prairies. One of the things we are looking to do is gain access to care for women in hospitals that are closer to their home institution so that we don't need to remove them farther from their community support and their families.
Senator Pate: On a point of clarification, are you saying that Brockville is no longer a pilot, that it is now a permanent contract for two beds?
Ms. Wheatley: We have signed an MOU with Brockville, yes.
Senator Pate: Is that time limited?
Ms. Wheatley: I believe it's a five-year MOU. It was about three years ago.
Senator Bernard: Ms. Kelly, I appreciate your report and the questions and responses. I will not expect a response to my question today, in the interest of time, but I hope that you will provide us with a response to the question.
I was pleased to hear you talk about the two demographic groups warranting specific attention, and I would like to ask about a third group: Black offenders.
We know that between 2005 and 2015 the Black offender population in federal institutions grew by 69 per cent and that the Office of the Correctional Investigator, back in 2013, found that Black offenders represented 9.3 per cent of the federal prison population, while the population in Canada is estimated at about 2.9 per cent.
I would like to know what are the more current statistics. I would also like to know where CSC stands. We've heard about the priorities around women and indigenous populations, which I absolutely applaud and agree with. This is not about whether or not they should be considered a priority. The question is more about where is CSC with regard to offenders of Black Canadian heritage, and the ethnocultural.
I didn't hear anything in your opening remarks about the work being done by the ethnocultural group. I think our committee should hear more about that work but also more about what the current stats are for that population and what efforts are being made to address their human rights needs.
Ms. Kelly: Certainly our job is to be responsive to the needs of offenders. In terms of the numbers for ethnocultural offenders, my colleague here has those.
We had the Ethnocultural Advisory Committee in the region when I was regional deputy commissioner, and that still exists. The regional deputy commissioners meet with the regional Ethnocultural Advisory Committee on a regular basis, which provides advice to the regional deputy commissioners. They also have a chance to go into institutions and speak with the ethnocultural offenders. The Ethnocultural Advisory Committee also meets regularly with the commissioner and senior executives to discuss the needs of ethnocultural offenders and how we can best respond to them.
Senator Bernard: As I said, I wasn't looking for an answer today, in the interest of time. There isn't time to give a response in the detail that I think we need. What I am doing is inviting you.
The Chair: I assure Senator Bernard that the steering committee is meeting tomorrow. In terms of the Black population in Canadian prisons, this issue will be addressed by the witnesses representing. Rest assured that equitable treatment, time and testimony will be given in that regard. It's a very important subject that you have raised.
Senator Bernard: I might be able to add to your witness list.
The Chair: Absolutely. We are close by and at your service.
Senator Omidvar: I will quickly get to my question. My interest is in women residing in minimum security prisons. I would like to know whether you have been able to operationalize the recommendations of the Office of the Correctional Investigator and other recommendations that talk about increased use of temporary absences, work releases, and employment and vocational skills training for this group.
Could you give us a sense of who is in that group? I understand from my colleague Senator Pate that there is an overrepresentation of Aboriginal women in this group. I would like to understand the other breakdown as well. I know about Black males, but I don't know about the representation in terms of Black females.
Ms. Kelly: Dr. Blanchette is the deputy commissioner for women, so I'll turn to her.
Kelley Blanchette, Deputy Commissioner for Women, Correctional Service Canada: I don't have off the top of my head the percentage of work releases and temporary absences now and in the past. We can get you those, unless Mr. Motiuk knows them off the top of his head.
Your interest is women in minimum security. We have five regional prisons for women, plus a healing lodge, owned and operated by CSC. They are multi-level facilities where women at security levels of minimum, medium and maximum reside in the facility.
At four sites we have recently built minimum security units outside of the perimeter fence, though there are also minimum security units inside the fence. The minimum and medium security women live in house-style accommodation where they would have their own room. They would have responsibilities like groceries, ordering from a list, doing their own laundry and cooking their own meals, et cetera. It is meant to emulate the community environment to make the transition easier when they do go back. In the interest of time I won't go on, but I wanted to contextualize that for everyone. We will provide the numbers on work releases and temporary absences.
The Chair: We will certainly have you back. There is no doubt about that. We could have spent two hours here. There are always two sides to every story, so our next witnesses will give us another insight into the work you are doing.
I always say, and I really mean it, that we appreciate what public servants do. It is important to recognize that fact. This is not an interrogation but a conversation to understand more so that we can put something in our report that may make sense in the future.
Senator Andreychuk: I have many questions, but I will restrict it to one area that I am interested in. The prison population has changed. When I started working with Corrections, there were very few women. Now there are many more. Certainly more Aboriginal people and others are being incarcerated.
My area of concern is that often gangs, leaders especially, find themselves in the prison population. It seems they have access back into the community and are influencing younger people. What are the rules? Where is the access from the inmate to the outside group that he was with? I am concerned that it broadens the circle of those who are likely to get trapped back into prison. The communities are starting to recognize that and to work with younger kids who are being trapped in this gang issue.
The issue of drugs within prisons seems to have escalated, whereas before it was the smuggling of cigarettes, et cetera, and perhaps a bit of homemade whatever into the prison. How is the flow of drugs into the prisons monitored? What are the rules around that?
Are these two areas growing problems, both the drugs and the interrelationship between those inside the prisons and outside the prisons but perhaps belonging to a gang or a group?
Ms. Kelly: If I start with substance abuse, it is a challenge. We acknowledge the prevalence of substance abuse problems among offenders, but we have a comprehensive strategy that includes prevention, intervention, treatment and enforcement.
First, we increase awareness of negative consequences. Some of these consequences can be fatal. One of the challenges that we have more specifically now is fentanyl. It is will be a challenge going forward. It is 100 times more potent than morphine. We are hearing of W-18. It is similar. Deaths are occurring in the community. That is a real challenge for us.
Health services have put out some posters to the inmate population to let them know of the consequences to not touch fentanyl or any drugs because you don't know what they are being cut with. We have methadone that we offer to offenders as well. We do searches of offenders, visitors, buildings and cells. We have ion scanners. We have drug detection dogs. We have a good intelligence capacity that monitors inmate activity and potential smuggling. We involve the police if need be. Obviously we do whatever we can to prevent drugs from coming in. It seems that once we have managed to plug one hole there is something else surfacing, but we are certainly moving forward on one of the challenges, synthetic drugs.
In terms of gangs in the institution we have offenders that belong to different types of gangs and as such we need to separate them. Some can't be with others, so we do that.
Senator Andreychuk: In future discussions we can talk about the prevalence that leads to violence, if you have two opposing gangs that have been working a neighbourhood and now they find themselves in prison. I am more concerned about the younger ones entering into gangs for all kinds of reasons, your prevention of key players who have been caught and the diminishing of their contact with the newer gang members who therefore need more services outside.
How do you blend the two to make sure that we are not enlarging the circle and helping those who still have a great hope of rehabilitation in the community but for the influence of the senior ones that got them hooked in the first place?
Mr. Motiuk: Gang management strategies and influencing the offender population to be a little more law abiding is the core of our mandate. Looking at all the many and varied strategic threat groups across the country is a constant challenge for the service from a security intelligence perspective in terms of communication both inside the walls and outside the walls back and forth and carrying on activities.
We have a very well-defined strategy around all of that. You're right. We are very concerned about susceptibility to influence. As of late we have done lots of research on radicalization. It is the same sort of phenomenon. There are some offenders who are quite susceptible to being influenced. We know what kind of individuals they are. They are considered to be vulnerable in many respects and are easily influenced or led. We identify them and those who are likely to be engaged in that activity. We have lots of good case management. Our correctional line staff is very observant on the floor of what is going on each and every day, and we intervene accordingly.
We provide at length some descriptions of approaches that we take for reducing those negative influences. At the moment new arrivals come in we want to have the influence in terms of what direction they take, not a gang or somebody affiliated to a gang. We do measure and have some numbers that we can provide on the amount and extent of gang affiliation inside our environments for your study.
The Chair: Senator Omidvar, you have a point of clarification. We have to move on but go right ahead.
Senator Omidvar: You will forgive me. I have a different line of questioning but it is important if they can't give the answers that they provide them.
The Chair: Sure.
Senator Omidvar: We have been trying to get a picture of what happened in the corrections system. I want to turn the picture on to the CSC staff. I would like to know what percentage of your staff are members of Aboriginal and native groups? How many are women? How many are Black, et cetera.
I look at the four of you, and I imagine you're the leadership. There is a disconnect between the picture you are presenting and who is in prison. I want to know if that is a systemic issue. Have efforts been made to correct it? It is that whole side of the question.
Ms. Kelly: Yes, we're all in leadership positions. In terms of breakdown we have approximately 48 per cent women in CSC, 9.5 per cent Aboriginal, and about 5 per cent people with disabilities.
For example, my director general of Aboriginal Initiatives is First Nations. We have recently developed a succession planning approach for indigenous people that want to stay within the stream to leadership positions. We're going to offer programs, mentoring and coaching so they can be represented in leadership positions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here today. We really appreciate it. You will be back, voluntarily of course. We don't have that much power but we do have power of persuasion and suggestion.
We earlier heard from the department officials but we are pleased now to welcome our friends on the second panel from the John Howard Society of Canada, Catherine Latimer, Executive Director; Lawrence DaSilva, Former Federal Prisoner; and from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Society, Diana Majury, President; and Alia Pierini, Regional Advocate.
We can take an opening statement. We are full of questions. We are very excited about this study. We hope to play a role in what happens in the future in prisons, both inside and of course what happens on the outside in rehabilitation.
Diana Majury, President, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: As stated, I am the president of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. We are an umbrella organization that brings together 24 Elizabeth Fry societies from across Canada.
We work with marginalized, victimized, criminalized and institutionalized women and girls. We are extremely pleased that you have undertaken this study. We will be happy to work with you in this study. We appreciate this first opportunity to talk to you about these issues as you embark upon this important work.
A very important part of our work as case is our Human Rights in Action program under which we have teams of regional advocates who visit each of the federal prisons that incarcerate women to examine the conditions of confinement and to check for human rights abuses. We visit all areas of the prisons when we go in, so that includes segregation, and we meet with the elected prisoner committees and the prison administration on a monthly basis.
We then write a letter to the warden after each of our visits outlining the issues that have been raised by the women we have talked to in our visits and requesting responses to those issues, again on a monthly basis. We copy those letters to CSC, to the director of the women's directorate, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Office of the Correctional Investigator.
Our regional advocates work in teams and do these visits as volunteers. They include lawyers, EFry staff and board members, and women with lived experience from having been in prison. They have unique access to information that women may be afraid to share with others, or that women may have given up hope will ever be addressed, or that women may not actually know are human rights abuses.
I am pleased to be joined today by Alia Pierini, who is one of those amazing regional advocates. She will speak to you in a minute.
I want to make three high-level points as I understand that to be our focus this afternoon. These will echo issues that you have already raised but I want to emphasize them again.
First, the problems are endemic to the institution itself, to the prison. I already knew that stark reality, but it was recently seared into me when I watched an old documentary, The Stanford Prison Experiment, wherein college students were turned into classic stereotypes of guards and prisoners by being placed in those roles in a simulated prison setting. If you have not seen the film you must see it as part of doing this work. It's a film called Quiet Rage. You will see that prison reform is not the answer. Our goal must be to keep women and men out of these institutions which are themselves a human rights abuse.
Second, the focus needs to be on the most marginalized women who are disproportionately incarcerated. As you have already referenced, women with mental health issues, depending on whose stats you look at, are at least from 30 per cent up to 50 per cent documented. I am sure it is vastly more than 50 per cent of incarcerated women who have mental health issues. Those are mental health issues they may have had when they came into the prison or have been caused by being in the prison itself.
Indigenous women who are at the federal level are 37 per cent of sentenced women. They are vastly overrepresented in the general population and overrepresented in those who die in custody.
Third, and I echo here Senator Bernard's point, other racialized women, particularly Black women whom we have not really had as a focus point in our discussions, are dramatically overrepresented in our prison systems and have very different needs that are not being addressed.
From a human rights perspective those are all grounds of inequality and discrimination. Prisons magnify and play upon those inequalities in pernicious ways. Sex and gender are also human rights grounds. Sex-gender inequalities and differences are huge factors in terms of how women are dealt with in prison settings. The vast majority of women in jails have experienced violence and abuse in their childhood, in their young adulthood, as adults or often all three.
In the health field we have recognized the importance of addressing the social determinants of health. We urge you to adopt a social determinant of criminalization approach. That is what a human rights lens would look like if you were looking at these issues. This is a systemic issue, not a question of individual human rights abuses or a few problematic practices.
Finally, you have already paid quite a bit of attention to the critically important issue of segregation. It is an avoidance strategy. It does not address a problem. It inevitably makes it worse. It is inhumane. We at CAEFS, along with the jury into the death of Ashley Smith, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Howard Sapers last week and Louise Arbour last year have called for an end to the use of segregation, particularly for women but not only for women. In fact CAEFS and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have offered to pilot such an initiative that would look at the elimination of segregation. A petition has been tabled with the federal government to review and remedy the cases of all women prisoners placed in segregation in federal prisons over the past five years.
I urge you to engage in this process with open minds. If you start from the position that certain practices are a given, that we have no choice or there are no alternatives, then you will be doing a disservice to your human rights mandate. There are alternatives. We just need to be brave enough to look at them and for them.
My best advice to you as you begin this work is to listen to the women and men who know what is going on in our prisons. Listen to Alia among others.
Alia Pierini, Regional Advocate, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: I will also probably touch base on a lot of the topics we've already discussed. I will try to keep it briefer than what I was hoping.
I am here today to speak on behalf of the women inside the institutions who don't have a voice to come here and speak for themselves. I am a regional advocate for the CAEF society and someone with lived experience inside a federal correctional facility. I am here today to support the call to end segregation for women, a place where too many women, me included, are left inside their head suffering with untreated mental health issues. I encourage the committee to come on board and help pave the way of ending segregation.
As a young 20-year-old first-time offender I never imagined the psychological, economic and social effects prison would have on my life to this day. At that age I felt hopeless. I was ashamed and the guilt of leaving my son left me emotionally numb. I was quite overwhelmed. I remember every single night trying to get to sleep for hours. Finally, once I could get to sleep, I was just as quickly awoken by my son's cries. I would wake up prepared to go feed my son and change him and realize I was sitting in a dimly lit prison cell.
Over that time the guilt I had turned to hate for myself. I spiralled into a depression, which I still struggle with today. I found myself placed in segregation for months and months at a time. Segregation was a dark place for me. No one should ever have to experience that. It was the first place and the only time in my life where I have ever contemplated taking my own life. No one should ever have to feel like dying is better than living, let alone be left for weeks in a cell with their dark thoughts.
I am urging the committee to consider addressing this in a way that would lead the way for others internationally. Not only should there be an end to administrative segregation, but I urge that we look at alternatives to housing women somewhere other than in prisons. There have to be alternatives to how we manage female offenders.
I highly recommend that we consider the overarching goal of not just reforming our prisons but finding solutions to reduce the number of women in prisons. To this day, almost nine years after my release, I suffer extreme psychological effects that I never had before prison. There will be days where I need to go to the grocery store and my anxiety is so bad that I sit in the parking lot and convince myself that maybe I really don't need these things or maybe if I go to another store it will be easier. Too often I go to another store and I sit in the parking lot and convince myself that I don't need these things. Too often I go home empty handed. Then the embarrassment sets in.
It's impossible for me to have meaningful relationships. I spent the ages of 20 to 24 in prison that taught me nothing but how to survive. Those are important developmental years I missed in the community. Most people that age are building life-long relationships, friends and careers, and I was sitting in segregation getting sicker and sicker.
I urge the committee to consider the alternatives that have been discussed here today and take that as a step in the right direction. Section 29 of the CCRA allows people to be transferred to hospitals. It was for severe emergencies most of the time. They could easily have been transferred to women and men who dealt with mental health issues. In my time I have not seen one of these releases.
Sections 81 and 84 could reduce the numbers of indigenous women significantly by allowing them to serve their sentences in an Aboriginal community rather than have them stat out of their release without a chance. I hope someday in my future I can see these being utilized more often than incarceration itself.
I remind everyone of sections 76 and 77 of the CCRA that direct CSC to develop programs designed specifically for the successful reintegration of offenders and to collaborate with the expertise of women and men such as John Howard.
I spent the last eight months of my sentence in segregation with no preparation for release. I served the full two- thirds of my sentence in jail. I was released to a community that was eight hours away from me where I had no family or support. Thankfully day after day I broke down barriers. I am grateful I am sitting here today rather than back in prison where statistically I should be. I encourage your questions of somebody with lived experience who has been through that situation. Thank you.
The Chair: We thank you for being here. You are very courageous.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: The John Howard Society couldn't be more pleased that the committee is undertaking an examination of the rights of prisoners. It is an area that has been in dire need of study and remediation because significant human rights abuses are happening behind bars.
It is timely to be embarking on this now as 2017 marks the 25th anniversary of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It was initially based on a respect for human rights. Our concern is that it is no longer fulfilling the promise of respecting human rights. In fact we are starting to take considerable criticism from United Nations committees that have been looking at the way in which corrections are being done in Canada. In its sixth periodic report on Canada's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the UN committee specifically called on Canada to make improvements to its prison conditions, including reducing overcrowding, limiting the use of segregation, avoiding it entirely for people with serious mental illness, and improving the treatment of prisoners with mental health conditions.
It is also timely because in December 2015 the new UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, were adopted. It would be good to look at Canada's compliance with those provisions.
It is set in law that prisoners have charter rights and residual liberty interests that cannot be eroded except in compliance with fundamental principles of justice. Many prisoners have fought hard to secure voting rights, due process rights, and other human rights in the courts, but hard-won judicial victories and codified rights in the charter do not translate into prisoners having their rights in practice. Individual rights may be seen as contrary to efficient management and security. Prison is not a rights-affirming culture. Rights without remedies are no rights at all.
Prisons have very limited access to remedies. The grievance system is broken and often completing a grievance process is a condition precedent to going on to the courts. The correctional investigator's recommendations are advisory only and will not directly fix any human rights violations that are found.
The citizen advisory committees are advisory to the CSC only and exercising habeas corpus rights to challenge unlawful detention is extremely difficult for prisoners and poorly understood. Access to counsel is limited and even access to legal materials so prisoners can self-represent is inadequate.
I invite the committee members to be vigilant about prisoners experiencing negative repercussions for having asserted their rights. I am told that those seeking rights can be viewed as management problems and lose access to programs and privileges.
Prisoners believe that bringing complaints or lawsuits against Correctional Service Canada can lead to reprisals. Certainly Shawn Keepness, who with others brought a successful habeas corpus application and then sued for damages, claims he was deliberately shot in the testicles with a rubber bullet as a direct consequence of his lawsuit against the Edmonton Institution.
The charter right violation that has been most litigated by prisoners relates to their section 7 rights not to be deprived of their residual liberties except in accordance with fundamental principles of justice. Despite Supreme Court rules affirming these rights there are significant abuses made by those revoking residual liberties in the corrections system. These decisions affecting liberty interests can include breaches of parole, involuntary transfers, placements in administrative segregation, increasing security levels, and placement in special handling units.
The recent January 16, 2017 Federal Court decision in the case of DeMaria v. the Attorney General of Canada found that the Parole Board failed to meet its duty of procedural fairness. I hope we will be looking at paroling and breaches as part of the study.
Successful habeas corpus applications from those in administrative segregation are usually based on the correctional authority's failure to respect fundamental principles of justice. Losing liberties unfairly not only violates the individual's rights but alienates them from the belief in the rule of law and justice for all.
I listed a whole bunch of charter provisions which protect rights that I'm hoping the committee can go into, but in the interests of time I will focus a bit on section 12, which is particularly applicable to prisoners. Those are the charter rights against cruel and unusual treatment and punishment.
The courts have set a very high bar on what constitutes torture, but cruel treatment of prisoners has no place in a humane, progressive country. Thankfully there has been a growing awareness of the mental and physical toll experienced by those confined in isolation and an increasing number of lawsuits and public calls to limit this practice.
We are grateful that the government is committed to implementing the related Ashley Smith coroner's recommendations and trust that the legislative reforms will also ensure independent adjudication in relation to administrative segregation placements.
The failure to provide adequate mental and physical health care can also amount to cruelty. Chronic diseases such as diabetes tend to be managed in a manner that is more likely to lead to complications down the road and would be inconsistent with good therapeutic practices. Many prisoners with prescriptions for pain medications can be cut off their medications because of their behaviour or the behaviour of others. Isn't the infliction of pain, whether by active abuse or by withholding treatment for pain, a form of torture?
Increasing long parole ineligibility periods and greater numbers of indeterminate sentences raise concerns about cruelty consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Charkaoui. Many serving indeterminate sentences do not get the programs and timely reviews needed to earn their releases.
Peace officers within the prison system can use reasonable force, but there needs to be better limits on accountability for the excessive use of force. The death of Matthew Hines following the use of force, together with the correctional investigator reports about increasing use of pepper spray and video recording errors in more than three quarters of the use of force episodes studied, raises some serious concerns about monitoring and accountability for the force used.
Prisoner accounts of double dooring which traps incompatible prisoners in confined spaces raise the spectre of deliberate cruelty and risk of harm to others. Also worthy of investigation are the allegations that some prisoners in psychiatric distress are being told to go ahead and kill themselves. Prisons are harsh environments but prisoners vulnerable due to power imbalances should not be treated with cruelty.
I encourage the committee to look at every rule in The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, and assess how well the federal correction system complies. The first rule states that all prisoners should be treated with respect due to their inherent dignity and their value as human beings, but far too many prisoners in maximum security facilities have told me that the atmosphere is one of being goaded and disrespected by the staff.
Talking with prisoners and former prisoners is essential to fully understand what rights are available and not available behind bars. There is a significant disparity between the rights and protections written in human rights documents and reflected in laws and regulations and what actually takes place in the dark recesses of our prisons.
I am thankful for the many prisoners and former prisoners who have taken the time to share their experiences with me. Those stories are difficult to reconcile with our understanding of Canada as a compassionate and rules respecting country.
I wish you every success as you proceed with this study. Senators are always welcome behind prison doors. I hope that you individually and as groups will take the opportunity to go in and meet with prisoners and talk to them about what is happening there.
It was Ronald Reagan who said that "a violation of human rights anywhere is the business of free people everywhere.''
The Chair: We will be travelling across the country and going to the prisons that are suggested to us.
Lawrence DaSilva, Former Federal Prisoner, John Howard Society of Canada: Hello everybody. It has been a long time to get here but I'm happy to be here.
My name is Lawrence DaSilva. I was recently released from prison 164 days ago. Those who don't know me know of some of the things I've done. I was a young man who kidnapped and carjacked a lawyer and his wife off the street. I was eventually sentenced to 19 years in prison, which I did every day for.
As a federal prisoner I come before you to say that there are a lot of genuine people who come here. They have their own agenda, their own interests and their own picture of what needs to be fixed. God bless them for it; everybody's opinion matters. The reality is everybody in this room will fail if we don't listen to each other both on the security front and the human rights front. There has been a line that's easily matched together with consistency.
The way it is working now is that these inmates you are talking about in these gangs are being placed in seg and transferred. They are effectively being arrested under the legislation that was passed by Parliament itself under subsections 97(1) and (2). When an inmate is placed in segregation or transferred from point A to point B this is effectively an arrest, but Parliament left out the fact that was no due process clause such as an independent adjudicator to deal with men and women who have been accused of these things inside prison.
The reality is the rule of law says one thing when you've been arrested. You have the right to know the information against you. We're protected by that outside in the free world, but prisoners are not protected by that on the side because of security information that is used inside of these documents.
The reality is that I was accused of influencing in the Edmonton Institution. In 2010, I was placed in seg for a range disturbance that was vague, that I was influencing inmates on the range. There was no description.
This is illegal because I was arrested and I couldn't speak to the information against me. I'm left so vulnerable. The legislation says we are allowed to call counsel, but counsel is not permitted to participate at any point during that process.
What you guys need to understand is that without independent adjudication and that person having that statutory power, which was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in May in 2005 in May v. Ferndale Institution, where they clearly described that the grievance system is broken and there are no remedies. There is no way for these people who are caught to be released after they've been arrested.
I come before you with the experience of 2,580 days out of that sentence in seg. It's about six years. I kid no one in this room. I was very problematic. I was no angel. I gave just as much as I got, but at the same time I was able to accept being arrested legally, brought to court, and sent to the pen.
Every day of my life I accept that and I have accepted every charge. I offer you my whole record. I offer you my criminal record. I offer you my old mess file. I offer you the whole thing. Look at it. It tells a transparent picture of what is happening here. Other members come before this board and you talk of them being the boss. Those bosses made decisions against my file that resulted in a seven-year arrest because someone said there was a gang issue.
When we speak of radicalization, I am also a Muslim. I was accused of being the head of a Muslim gang inside the segregation unit.
I offer you this: If guards were being threatened in the community by a person such as me who is in jail for these serious things, and if I was running a criminal organization like we heard discussed earlier at this table, why were no charges brought? We talk of the police being involved in these things. They are only involved when inmates are attacking other inmates or inmates are attacking these guards. The police were not involved in my case or in many other cases.
I have a lot of use of force against me, approximately 48 counts of use of force. I have over 250 major charges, which are disciplinary charges. When you are originally arrested and placed in segregation you are supposed to be given a clear indication of why you are there and supporting information such as a charge. For instance, if you fought with another inmate, it will say that you fought with this inmate at this time in this sector, that this is who wrote the report, and so on and so forth.
For administrative segregation it's indefinite seg. I was immediately transferred from Edmonton Institution, shuffled from a prison to a prison within a prison, for three institutions in provinces from Saskatchewan penitentiary to the finale, which was in Quebec in the SHU, for over seven years on allegations with no finding.
I look at everyone here and I say to you that the fear is this: If you continue to neglect these men and women like this, what will happen is that when these people come out they may not be able to come out like me, wanting to try to change, wanting to do better and wanting to fix things that are wrong. The next time they reoffend it could be so grave that they do not want to go back to the state they were in and in which they were terrorized. They look like the predator now but in the pen they are being hurt and victimized on an ongoing basis and daily account.
The reality is that if you send these men and women back out to the street you are putting everyone at risk, even everyone who wants to help them. They want help; they do. I've been that man. I've wanted help and I've needed that help. I always knew that when you walk through with the warden it will just be a walk-through because you don't have me and you don't have her. You don't have that relation side to relate to that inmate to start building the trust so we can start talking and really have communication with each other. Look, if the rule of law is one way and one colour, then that's the colour it is.
CSC is an agent of the state. It's recognized as officers who can use lethal force and have on Matthew Hines, Ashley Smith and Eddie Snowshoe. How many other names? These people have families. They are being transferred in states where they are not mentally stable. They are transferring from one cell where they have a TV, a radio and clothes, to another institution with nothing: no toiletries in the cell, no clothes in the cell, nothing. You are a problem because you are in segregation, and that's how you are treated.
As a federal offender I want to put this on the table. I never looked at it like this: You are a guard and I'm an inmate. You've got a job to do, man. You chose this career. All I'm asking is that you do it legally. If you can do it legally I can respect you and I can give you the same appreciation that you want for life in that environment, but when you look at what just happened in Sask pen these things are the effects of the government making decisions to cut food and to neglect the rights of inmates. It just continues until it bottles up and explodes.
My fear is that even as we sit here I know and talk to men on a daily basis who are illegally detained in segregation right now, with no remedy until they can get to court. I filed a habeas corpus from Saskatchewan, trying to go back to Edmonton, and then to Quebec. I was finally brought forward after seven years for the habeas corpus in Quebec. Then I got before the judge. I invoked my right, my right to habeas corpus, and the judge refused to let me talk against the people who are holding me, the people who we are sitting in this room talking about, you and me: them and us.
I don't want to point a finger at nobody because there are three pointing back. I want to give you my hand. Here's my file. I will come back any time you want me. I will be here and I will answer any question as best as I can.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Lawrence. That was very compelling testimony.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your sharing your stories with us. Did you hear any of the earlier testimony when I asked my question?
Mr. DaSilva: I heard a bit of Ms. Kelly's testimony as well as the questions that were asked from the committee.
Senator Ataullahjan: When I asked about placing vulnerable individuals in solitary confinement I was told that even though they are in segregation they still have access. They are not allowed to mingle with other inmates but they have access to all their stuff. They have access to religious leaders if they want. It's just that they are not allowed to mingle with other inmates. Was that true in either of your cases?
Mr. DaSilva: No, it's not true at all. It's true in the sense that formulaic expression does happen. For instance, when you are placed in seg a health care physician will come down to see you. It's just a basic thing that's always asked: Are you all right? Are you feeling suicidal? Do you have any issues? It's brief and it's behind the door. It doesn't feel human at all. If I felt like I was going to hurt myself and you were standing on the other side of the door, do you think I would be able to tell you at that point my most vulnerable point?
Ms. Pierini: From my experience personally I feel that they do their rounds just to cover what they are supposed to do. Yes, the health care comes. Yes, if you want an elder they'll come. However, all this connection is between a food slot. You are sitting at a metal door and peering through a slot trying to connect with either your psychologist or health care person.
That's not real connection. You are still sitting there alone in those walls. Just because they come around once you are first in there to cover their parameter of yes, now they have seen a health care person and now we can't say anything does not mean we've been adequately subjected to health care or psychology. Like he said, you are sitting between a door and you are already in there.
For myself, I would get stuck in my head with depression, and the last thing you want to do is reach out to correctional staff who will record everything you say in some of your darkest moments so that when you go in front of the review board this is thrown in your face: On this day, you said that.
Once you have experienced that once, the next time you are sitting there you will not open up to these people. It's an inadequate place to facilitate any sort of proper treatment, whether it's your religion or your health care, all of that. You don't have proper access.
Mr. DaSilva: These are illusions.
Ms. Pierini: It's hard enough in the prison population to get access to proper health care. There were months where I had kidney stones and was peeing blood for months before I got to a health care professional who could actually help me, and that was in the population.
When I was sitting in segregation sometimes it would be days before you actually get that request: "Oh, put in a request.'' Once they initially come through and see you their one time, if you have sort of health care concerns after that you need to put in a request. That request goes to this person and that person, and from my experience a lot of the time they are lost and so you have to put in multiple requests.
Mr. DaSilva: Just to touch quickly on what you said about adequate health care, what you really have to understand right from this point on is that CSC is not separated from Health Canada. There is no disconnect. The health care service works for CSC. They are employed by CSC and they work alongside CSC, so that's the same neglect. That deals with the whole aspect of the department like she was saying from dealing with the doctor. CSC doesn't want you to be medicated because there is a drug problem.
If you have a problem in your back or are passing kidney stones, are you going go to your doctor and get the appropriate medications? If you are, I would like to go to your doctor too and if I can't it's because I lost my freedom. When we look at the legislation, I maintain my rights as does the rest of society. That means I'm supposed to be given that adequate health care.
When you look at the individuals who are affected by these things you have to remember this is not just a quiet, long passage full of ladies and gentlemen who are keeping it down. They are angry at what is continuing to happen. When you have somebody at that vulnerable state like this woman here and me and you are falling into this black hole, there is no way you can adequately talk to anybody behind that door. The excuse is always: "We are short staffed. We can't bring you to the booth to talk to them right now. There are other people to holding it up. There is an incident.''
You have to understand, because this is already segregation, if there is an incident that happens everything gets shut down. Her mental health is put on hold. My mental health is put on hold as are my physical well-being, my yard, my canteen, my visits, and my mail.
When that is not delivered properly, every other part of my sickness starts to get sicker. It starts to dig, and that's what starts to destroy you as a human being. We have watched that with these men and women who have ended their lives in this these cells and with these other individuals who are killed by guards in a lawless society.
We are not saying anything new. The Arbour report found that there was a corruptive subculture within CSC. That's her language. La cosa correctional nostra is my language That has been able to grow this far, this long, undetected, but is only recognized by you guys every time there is incident like that of Ashley Smith, Eddy Snowshoe or other incidents that come up that are so blown up you know about them.
What about all the case law that's being passed when these people are winning in court? We are not saying suggestively that we should really curb this right now.
Every time CSC is given the opportunity to put its own house in order it does the same thing. It burns its bridge and we are left holding it. The reality is that some of our family members are citizens like you. They are not criminals. They go to work and we are the black sheep, but they are still our family. They are still people who vote. I vote and we vote. We believe in these people. It always seems like we are at this end of the table and we need your help.
Senator Ataullahjan: My understanding was that you have access to family members when you're in segregation.
Mr. DaSilva: No. You're placed on closed visits in the majority of the institutions, the majority of the time if you're in segregation. You go and talk to these men in segregation. I encourage you to bring me with you because these men will tell you the truth in front of me. They will cut your visits off when you're in seg because you have been placed in seg.
Ms. Pierini: I can only speak on behalf of the women because clearly I have only been to a women's institution, but there is only one institution, almost per province, and some of them not. For me, my family was eight and a half or nine hours away from me. If I was placed in segregation and my family had already planned to come down, I didn't get those visits with them. I had my three year old son at one point get denied access because of me. He ran up to the fence, crying and telling me, "It's okay, mom. I'll see you when you get out.'' You don't have family visits. I had to have private family visits because of the length. Those are revoked as soon as you get a charge and then you have to reapply for these family visits. It's draining.
At the end of the day I didn't see my son for the last year of my incarceration because of the denial of my visits. That would have been imperative to my reintegration. A huge part of my plan was obviously getting out and being a parent. I feel that I did not have adequate time and visits with my son. Especially in segregation I never got one visit. There were days when I didn't get phone calls home to call my son.
No, you don't have family visits when you are in segregation.
Senator Ataullahjan: Yet we heard them say that they recognize that women offenders have diverse needs. You wouldn't agree with that statement.
Ms. Pierini: To be honest, I would have to disagree with that statement. I feel the whole time I was in there that nothing specific was given to women. We were still using programs that were developed by men. We had men's goon squads come in to take down women. Personally and even as a regional advocate I don't see any specifically women- based programs at all in the prisons.
The Chair: We have about 15 more minutes. Once again, we are just scratching the surface and you are going to have to come back because at least in the Senate we have the time to really get into the issues.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for your submissions. I'm going to restrict myself to one question so everyone else gets a chance, and it is to Ms. Majury.
You were saying in response to segregation and changing it that you had a pilot project that you wanted to support. Do you have that in writing? If not, can you either get it to us or just explain what it is that you would do that would be different and explain fully how that might be implemented? That's a big question.
Ms. Majury: We have it in writing, so the easiest thing would probably be to give you a copy of the pilot we proposed. It is intended as a pilot to demonstrate that it is possible to eliminate segregation altogether.
Senator Pate: I was going to actually ask for some examples like that, but I know other people have questions and if these witnesses are going to come back I can wait until they've asked their questions.
Senator Fraser: I thank Ms. Pierini and Mr. DaSilva in particular for your testimony. Nothing can replace hearing from people who have been there.
I'm going to put questions to Ms. Latimer and Ms. Majury. The representatives of CSC who were here told us that they have been developing wonderful programming. They have mental health services. They have strategies and plans. It's all wonderful.
I don't think I've seen his most recent report but for years the correctional investigator has been saying less and less programming. The inadequacy of the mental health services continues. We heard two people say, "I wanted help. I needed help. I didn't get help.''
Wearing your institutional hats, what do you perceive as the situation for programming, mental health services, and all that ball of wax?
Ms. Latimer: CSC probably doesn't realize the extent to which people in federal prisons are being warehoused. They have a certain template for the programs they deliver but they don't necessarily match up with the individual needs of the people who are there and who are actually kind of keen to try and make some progress and put their lives back together.
It becomes more and more formulaic and a variety of programs they had were being compressed into a single program. There are some real questions about whether or not that actually is adequate. The extent to which there's very little for prisoners to do is most troubling. We need more programs. It would be really advantageous if they weren't necessarily all CSC-administered programs. There is often a level of distrust between the prisoners and CSC. There is no reason there couldn't be significant enhancements to educational programming and other skill sets.
Men in particular tend to want more certificate training so that way when they get out, they have a trade or something marketable that will help them on the outside. There is very little of that.
Ms. Majury: I would echo that for women. There is very little programming and it is not specific to the needs of women. I re-enforce the notion that many of the programs are offered in house. It's critical that these programs be offered by the community as part of bringing the women into the community and working with the community which creates a level of trust.
When we ask about programs and resources we frequently hear: We would like to, but we have to do all these other things. Programming is always at the bottom of the list.
Senator Omidvar: Ms. Majury, did you say that you have developed or are developing the social determinates of criminalization?
Ms. Majury: No, I was recommending that. I work in the health field as well. It's very useful to think about the systemic human rights issues that lead to criminalization and are part of criminalization. I was recommending it as a way forward. It has not been done that I know of. It may well have been.
Senator Pate: It has been awhile since I worked with men for the John Howard Society years ago. My experience working with women was the level of violence was very different in the prisons for women than it was in the prisons for men, not the least of which is contributed to by many of the things you talked about in terms of fairly sexist, misogynist racist attitudes that are reinforced and implicitly encouraged in the prisons.
The panel from Corrections that presented before you talked about changing populations. My own experience is it wasn't particularly changing populations but changes in practices. Were you at Sask Pen when the women were there?
When the women were at Sask Pen I would go to visit. One example is seared into my memory. I had encouraged women to put in a group grievance. They asked for the form and asked for the form. They yelled for the form. They swore and threatened for the form. By shift change they are screaming, yelling and banging the bars.
I had my baby Madison with me; she is now 18. When I was in the warden's office or unit manager's office afterward, the head of security was asking for authority to bring in the emergency response team. I asked why. I had been down there speaking with those women a few hours before and they weren't rioting. In fact they had some grievances.
I offered to go and talk to them. At that time it was still an option. I could go and talk to them. When Alia was there I could go talk to her in seg. What was striking to me was what the head of security said: "Why don't you take the baby? I hear they like the baby.''
I was struck on many levels. For one thing they wouldn't let me take the baby into the men's prisons. I'm not sure the baby would have been at risk but that's a whole other thing. In the women's prison even the staff recognized that you could calm the situation by putting a baby in there, or you could send in the emergency response team.
What changed was the ability for others to go in. Sometimes I would take Alia in to talk to some of the women, particularly the sisterhood who she knew and who trusted her because I didn't presume I would necessarily be trusted in those situations. They would allow us to have another prisoner come in to help discuss and air the issues, or they would allow us to us call other people in. I have not seen that happen for probably the better part of two decades.
Am I wrong? Have I missed something? I don't think I have missed it in the women's prisons but I may have missed in the men's. My last visit to the SHU was a couple of years ago.
Ms. Pierini: I know that's definitely true. There have been numerous situations as an inmate and as an advocate where I feel that they have jumped on either using force or sending in the goon squad, as I call it, — I can't remember the proper terms for it — rather than trying to diffuse the situation.
Once I was playing a game of cards on another inmate's patio. There is a rule where you can't be on other patios. I was breaking a rule, yes. However, I was approached by at least nine to twelve staff members coming at me aggressively. At that time I had just got out of four months in segregation. Seeing those staff come at me caused me to react in a way that I normally wouldn't react. I did go with a fight that time.
To think back on it now, I was working grounds and maintenance. I really trusted my staff that I worked for. I actually ran into one of them after I was out, and he told me he had gone to the warden that day and asked to come and talk to me. He knew I wouldn't have acted up and fought with him. I would have just listened, 100 per cent. If they would have let him approach me, I would have gone with him to segregation and not put up a fight.
Instead, they sent nine to twelve guards to come at me in a threatening manner. I ended up spending the last eight months of my incarceration in segregation over me playing a game of cards with another inmate.
I stress the fact that building those normal relationships as you do in the community is not feasible inside a prison. You get in trouble if you start getting too close to other inmates. They try to separate the inmates. To be able to live in society is something that would have helped with the anxiety. I don't fit in with my peers because of my prison sentence. If we were allowed to build relationships I think it would have a huge impact on the success rate of people coming out of prison.
Mr. DaSilva: I support what she said. The warden's negotiator was cut from 2005. That's what it was originally called. He was from the ERT. Before incidents would start to develop the warden's negotiator used to come. That was destroyed. That's why the use of force has shot up.
The guards do the negotiation now. The negotiation consists of this first order, second order, third order and use of force as with Matthew Hines in 30 seconds. Until the next time, ladies and gentlemen, we have kept you long enough.
The Chair: No, you haven't. It's very important. Sometimes it takes the Senate a year and a half to put out reports. Sometimes it takes a year. Sometimes interim reports take six months. After two hours today, I think we should put out a report each week. We should push our own communications seriously, senCA PLUS+, because this testimony is actually online and is on television.
Senators, you can take parts of this important testimony that we are hearing out of ParlVU to get this debate going across the country now. I think that's extremely important because time is of the essence each and every day for the people in Canadian prisons who you represent. They deserve your voices and our voices to make sure that CSC and others are paying attention to what we're paying attention to.
We want thank you so much. This is the beginning of our voyage of discovery, as I call it. We hope we can help in any way we can.
(The committee adjourned.)