Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 19 - Evidence - May 31, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 31, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:31 a.m. to study issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system.
Senator Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. While two senators are sitting down, I will say for the public's interest that this committee has been on the road, dealing with the human rights of prisoners in our correctional system. We heard compelling testimony two weeks ago in various institutions across the country, including Millhaven, Joyceville, Collins Bay, Bath and Ste-Anne-des-Plaines. It was truly a reality check that will be incredibly helpful. We also visited a healing centre in Quebec and a women's institute in Joliette. It was certainly enlightening and will add value to our study and report.
I will ask senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Martin: Yonnah Martin from B.C.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I am Senator Munson from Ontario.
[Translation]
Today, we're continuing our study on the human rights of federal offenders in the Canadian correctional system.
[English]
We have with us today, from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Kim Beaudin, National Vice-Chief, by video conference; and as an individual with Mr. Beaudin is Shane Partridge. Welcome, Shane, to our committee. With us here in the room today is Michelle Mann-Rempel, lawyer and consultant. We are looking forward to your testimonies.
We will start with Kim. Kim, you have the floor, sir. After your presentations, there will be questions from the senators.
Kim Beaudin, National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Honourable senators, I am pleased to be here on traditional Algonquin territory in beautiful Ottawa, our nation's capital. Our newly elected National Chief Robert Bertrand has asked me to make this presentation because I have, for my entire life, been concerned about justice and public safety issues for indigenous people. I live in Saskatoon, which has one of the highest indigenous urban populations in the country. I was justice of the peace for the Province of Saskatchewan for five years, and I currently work part-time with STR8 UP, one of the only indigenous gang rehabilitation programs in Canada. In addition, I was the president of the Coalition of Indigenous Peoples of Saskatchewan for seven years.
I wanted to commend the committee on undertaking a study on human rights for prisoners in the Canadian correctional system. The correctional system is a hostile place for pursuing human rights. Over-representation of indigenous people incarceration is at epidemic levels in Canada. This grim reality has been generated by historic relations between the Crown and indigenous people.
Today, there is a lack of meaningful involvement of indigenous organizations in dealing with these issues and trust in the degree of commitment by the Crown to solve them. Even to a distant observer, there is something wrong with the criminal justice system that imprisons indigenous peoples to such high levels. Over-representation of indigenous peoples in the Canadian correctional system raises the issues of procedural fairness and substantive justice including just and equitable remedies for violations of human rights.
We commend the efforts of the current government to undertake modernization efforts and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. This will be a huge task, and we would like to participate.
I agree with the findings of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in their study of the justice system. Canada has an inefficient and costly system that is largely unaccountable. The institute reported that in Saskatchewan, the justice deficit is particularly prevalent to Metis people. I believe that it exists across the country. It was revealing to learn that, currently, there is no objective assessment of the performance of a complex justice system. There is no regular monitoring analysis assessment, and there is no transparency and accountability.
The first and central consideration to understand is that there are few resources to work on these justice issues. There is little engagement or trust in the Department of Justice. There are numerous reports and studies that Canadian justice is not performing and little progress has been made.
For example, in Saskatchewan a study was undertaken in 2004 that looked at the high incarceration rates, high crime rates, and conflicts with the police and indigenous people, and 13 years later, there has been little progress. If anything, the situation has become worse.
Canada needs to pay attention to what is taking place, for example, in Nordic nations. In 2014, fewer people were sent to prison in Sweden than in any year since the 1950s. According to new figures from Sweden's prison and probation services, they've developed skills and methods for community service, supervision, electronic monitoring and probation. While Sweden has made progress, Canada is locked into a dysfunctional and inefficient system.
Access to justice is essential for the protection and promotion of human rights. The justice system must guarantee that the constitutional rights of the accused persons, including providing them with fair and impartial trials, is guaranteed under section 11(d) of the Charter. Access to justice cannot be looked at in isolation without human rights, including structural discrimination, poverty, lack of access to health and education, and lack of recognition of our rights to culture, territories, lands and resources.
You have heard from others that the Criminal Code is increasingly complex, disorganized and unwieldy, and there is a need to consolidate and streamline the code.
In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled in Gladue that the courts must consider the Aboriginal offender's background when he or she is being sentenced to a crime. Factors that are considered include discrimination, physical abuse, separation from culture and/or family, and drug or alcohol abuse.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: It is important that the committee highlight the importance of implementing the UN declaration, since it is a crucial human rights instrument. We support the view of Paul Joffe, lead counsel to the Cree, that the UN declaration is the most comprehensive, universal, international human rights instrument that explicitly addresses the rights of indigenous people. It elaborates on the economic, social, cultural, political, spiritual and environmental rights of indigenous people. The human rights committees called on Canada to improve its prison conditions, reduce overcrowding, segregation, the treatment of prisoners with mental health issues. The fact that Canada has a poor record is not in keeping with how Canadians view themselves.
Under Daniels, our inherent indigenous rights have not been respected in Canada, and this failure is closely connected to the issues they are dealing with at the committee. In 1972, Gérard Pelletier, then the secretary of state, reported in a memorandum to cabinet that Metis and non-status Indians are far more exposed to discrimination and other social disabilities and were the most disadvantaged Canadians. In 2014, there has been little progress. Overcrowding and long-standing historical injustices require money, time and patience.
In order to receive the declaration that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to Metis and non-status Indians under section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, it took 17 years and millions of dollars.
For the last 31 years, Canada's justification of not providing service to Metis and non-status Indians was that they were a provincial responsibility. That jurisdiction is now gone. When the Daniels decision came down in April 2016, there were great hopes and expectations that programs and services, including those involving human rights, would improve. It seemed that grassroots, but it is now clear that the federal government should be on the level and should turn our policies towards addressing historical disadvantages.
What was understood was the fact that there was no legal obligation on the federal government to do anything specific. In dealing with the practical, legal and policy implications concerned with the rights of indigenous offenders, they are associated with broader issues, including self-determination.
In conclusion, it is important that the committee understand and report there are systemic problems with the Canadian justice system and that it will require major effort to bring about change. As we talk, there is a growing population of accused persons on remand, pending trial, indigenous people for appearing in court without representation, and racism and discrimination is still prevalent in policing, the courts and incarceration. Indigenous prisoners have little access and/or knowledge of remedies and they are victims of racism and discrimination. The crux of the issue is that it is difficult to develop trust in a system whose outstanding characteristics have lacked progress and accountability.
I look forward to reading your report.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Beaudin.
Ms. Mann-Rempel, we do this right now because we sometimes lose the video conference, and we would hate to see that happen. We will now go to Mr. Partridge, who is appearing with CAP, but appearing as an individual. Welcome, sir, to our committee. We are glad to have you here.
Shane Partridge, as an individual: Thank you very much. I am so happy to be here. I want to thank you on behalf of all the citizens in Saskatoon on Treaty 6 territory in the homeland of the Metis.
I am a member of STR8 UP, which is an organization that assists young men and women to master their own destiny in liberating themselves from violent street gangs and criminal street lifestyles. I have been a member of STR8 UP for about five years. I will get into that later.
I would like to start by giving you a couple of things to think about while I am explaining STR8 UP to you. For example, for someone to make a phone call right now, it is $2.50. For that guy, it takes two and a half days of work for a 20-minute phone call. That person has to be in touch with his lawyer throughout his incarcerated time. He is working just to talk to his lawyer. His family and his children all suffer as a result.
Now for a little bit of history on STR8 UP. It was conceived not by foresight, intent or planning. It came about not by a collaborative, comprehensive or initiative of agencies, institutions and community organizations. It came about by active gang members wanting assistance and support to gain confidence and support networks to aid in their desire to abandon an organization which for them had become abusive, destructive, dysfunctional and alienating.
In the mid 1990s, the phenomenon of gangs became a quiet but increasing reality in Saskatoon. Recruitment on the street, as well as within the Saskatoon Correctional Centre, was rampant. Father André, who was the coordinating chaplain at the Saskatoon Correctional Centre at the time, introduced a two-pronged program within the SCC, the correctional centre, to address the growing phenomenon. Inmates who qualified for TAs and who had expressed positive attitude and values would volunteer to participate in speaking engagements, workshops and presentations, all outside the SCC, in schools, treatment centres and various youth groups and community organizations to talk about their stories and experiences.
The second segment to that program was the involvement of the inmates who did not qualify for TAs but were potential speakers and participants and who were willing to assist the chaplain in welcoming community organizations that wished to visit the Saskatoon Correctional Centre. These inmates would act as guides, provide information and answer questions from the visitors. From 1997 to 2017, over 300 incarcerated inmates, ex-offenders and ex-gang members have been involved, in some capacity, with this two-pronged approach.
We use the First Nations medicine wheel model. It has assisted inmates and participants in identifying sources of dysfunction, criminality and addictions, which leads them to negative lifestyle, criminality and gang involvement.
While Father André was working in the correctional centre, he was approached by two gang members who were not only involved in workshops and presentations in the correctional centre but had confided to him their desire to extricate themselves from their respective gangs. One had his partner stabbed and murdered by a hostile gang while the other had two younger brothers who had followed in his footsteps. Both were highly disillusioned with gangsterism and were searching for a way out of their membership. They eventually left the gang and are presently productive citizens. This was the beginning of the group of young men and women who would eventually identify themselves as STR8 UP.
Numerous requests and invitations from treatment centres, inner-city schools, reserves, churches and community agencies have all heard of STR8 UP and have requested their presence to speak to their respective audiences. Since 1997, STR8 UP has given approximately 1,500 presentations throughout the province of Saskatchewan. Currently, many of our members have returned to school, enrolled in various trade programs, have attended treatment centres, are enrolled in parenting classes, and have worked at developing and maintaining healthy relationships and lifestyle choices.
I would like to add that we currently have one member who recently graduated from Indian social work. He has his social worker's degree. I went from being on the street and being in a dark, dark spot to being interested in politics and being able to get out there and work in the community. I now sit on numerous boards across the city. If I'm not working actively for STR8 UP, I am volunteering in the community. The point is that I am giving back now that I am healthy. And more than just helping someone out, I am giving back for the betterment of our society.
The member profiles of STR8 UP is that we work with individuals and families from many backgrounds. However, the majority of STR8 UP members are of First Nations or Metis descent. They are from cities and communities across Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba but are now living in the Saskatoon area. Many of our members have not been able to compete school, have limited work experience and reside in areas of Saskatoon that are recognized as having higher rates of poverty, drug use and gang activity. Many grew up in households characterized by violence. Some struggle with mental health issues such as PTSD, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, FASD, ADHD, et cetera. Many have health concerns such as hepatitis C, HIV or long-term complications due to past violence and drug use. Due to their race and economic standing, many have had negative experiences within social systems designed for their support.
I can go on about the hardships, but I would rather focus on the positives, such as the fact that STR8 UP members are extremely proud individuals. We are proud of our people, our culture and our identity. We are extremely loyal to our friends and family and our employers. We have dreams, visions, hopes, ideas, boundless courage, strength and stamina. We possess strong values. We are generous and respectful towards elders and children. Our humour is always present and contagious. We are never judgmental. We are always willing to try to understand how things are, how they were and where they are going. Gang life has made all of us strong and resilient, with the ability to accept the challenges that we face. Members currently actively support one another by building a community of individuals who all work together to change their lives.
The terms we use at STR8 UP to define an individual's healing can be seen through two distinct areas of prevention and intervention. It is a holistic framework that speaks to an integrated approach that focuses on preventing and reducing gang activity and behaviour.
I want to speak to that because the current model that our society is using right now is suppression, and it is not working at all. Our incarceration rates are going up. Gang involvement is at a crazy, alarming rate in our federal institutions right now, and in Saskatoon we have the highest youth gang population in Canada per capita. That is coming from a small farm town back in Saskatchewan.
The female Aboriginal offender population has increased by almost 90 per cent since 2000 and represents the fastest growing offender group under federal jurisdiction: One in three federally sentenced women is Aboriginal, despite representing only 3 per cent of the female population in Canada. In 2016, our newspaper, The StarPhoenix reported that Saskatoon had the highest overall per capita crime rate of Canada's 33 major cities for the second year in a row and 76.7 per cent of all Aboriginal women offenders were serving for a violent offence compared to 46.8 per cent of non-Aboriginal offenders.
Provincially, Saskatchewan's crime and youth crime severity index was the highest among the provinces. From 2000 to 2010, the Aboriginal incarcerated population under federal jurisdiction increased by 28.1 per cent. Aboriginal people currently represent approximately 15 per cent of our population in Saskatchewan, but they are significantly overrepresented in the justice system, where 70 to 80 per cent of people in custody are Aboriginal. In 2015, Aboriginal people made up 45 of the active 64 dangerous offenders in Saskatchewan, or 70 per cent, according to your statistics. The national average of Aboriginal dangerous offenders is about 29 per cent, and Aboriginal people are seven times more likely to go to prison than non-Aboriginal people in our province of Saskatchewan.
I would like to say that over the last few months since December, we at STR8 UP have noticed that something needs to be done. Our federal penitentiary in Saskatchewan is in Prince Albert. We are in Saskatoon where we have the highest gang population and so on. Many of our members' families and what not are serving time in the pen, yet it is near impossible for families to get out there to visit. It is even more so if they are labelled a gang member.
What we at STR8 UP are proposing is something we have been in talks about provincially. Believe it or not, Minister Ralph Goodale came down to the thick of the hood in Saskatoon and sat in the basement of our office to meet with us and discuss coming up with a provincial gang strategy that we can implement in our institutions, cities and communities across the province with the aim to take this federally after running a five-year pilot project. I beg you guys to look into that. I know that our gang strategy proposal is floating around and I know that you guys have access to it. Please look at it.
Actually, I am not even going to go there and explain it. I will tell you the example of one young fellow who just joined STR8 UP. He was put in solitary — secure segregation — for nine months. During that nine months, this young man, who had been locked up his whole life and had never been outside in society, had a job or anything, was trying to tell the guards, "Look, there is stuff going on with my head. My mental health isn't right. I need help. I need out of here. I need something.'' No one would listen to him. Months and weeks passed by. The guards taunted him, saying things like, "We put something extra special in your food today,'' to the point where this young man didn't eat for up to a week straight for fear that there was something gross in the little meal that they get. That kid repeatedly warned them that something was going to happen, and he ended up suffering a mental break and cut his own nose off. How is that cool? How is that fair? How can we, as a society, live with ourselves knowing that we are flat out ignoring the pleas of prisoners for help when it comes to mental health and addiction?
I personally know all too much about mental health and being locked up. I have been out of trouble for many years, but the last time I was in, I had some medications that I had to take. I am going to be open with this example I will give here. They are extended-release medications. I was put in jail. I understand how they need to have tablets versus capsules, but they gave me a tablet that was the same strength as that extended-release capsule, so it knocked me out. It would drug me up and knock me out and was ineffective for my mental health. It didn't matter to anyone, because I was ushered right back to my cell. I was in a secure unit, as well. That has to stop.
I know that everyone is talking about mental health, addressing mental health in our correction systems and addressing all these factors that lead to criminal behaviour, like addictions and mental health, but let's do it. We've talked enough.
In the province here, we had an ombudsman put up a report that we as taxpayers paid out the nose to have done, which our premier decided he didn't like and ignored, as he is doing with many of our Crown corporations. The public was all up in arms, asking him not to sell them off. Instead, he is doing it anyway.
The Chair: Mr. Partridge, you have very compelling testimony and we appreciate it very much, but we have another witness here to speak. A lot of senators here have questions for you so we will continue this conversation.
I wanted to know what you meant by TAs, again.
Senator Pate: Temporary absence.
The Chair: Temporary absence. Thank you. That's just to put things in perspective.
We will get back to you. We appreciate your testimony very much.
We will move on to Ms. Mann-Rempel. Welcome to our committee. We have a little extra time today because we don't have secondary witnesses. We are not rushed for time. Thank you for being here.
Michelle Mann-Rempel, Lawyer/Consultant, as an individual: Good morning, senators, and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.
I would also like to start by acknowledging our presence on unceded traditional territories of the Algonquin people.
Today I plan to briefly canvass the intersection of indigenous mental health, Gladue principles and corrections with some comments on administrative segregation as well. I will be offering my comments from the perspective of a lawyer who has practised Aboriginal law and specialized in Aboriginal criminal justice over the last 20 years.
As clearly indicated by the gentlemen before me, one way in which systemic discrimination in our criminal justice system manifests itself is in the over-representation of indigenous peoples in correctional institutions. While you have probably been drowning in statistics, I thought I would add a few of the key ones in.
We know that as of 2015, 21.9 per cent of federally incarcerated offenders are indigenous while, according to the Statistics Canada household survey of 2011, indigenous people made up 4.3 per cent of the Canadian population. So 4.3 per cent of the population but 21.9 per cent of federal incarcerates. That's obviously an indication of grossly disproportionate over-representation.
We also know that indigenous offenders are overrepresented among incarcerates in administrative segregation in federal correctional services. Federally, 660 offenders were in administrative or non-disciplinary segregation at the end of fiscal year 2014-15. Of those offenders, 195 were indigenous. So while indigenous offenders compromised 21.9 per cent of federally incarcerated inmates, they represented approximately 29.5 per cent of those in administrative segregation. Again, using the comparator as the percentage of indigenous inmates who are incarcerated, they were again overrepresented among those in administrative segregation.
We know that indigenous offenders are more likely to present upon entry into the correctional system with a history of substance abuse, addictions and mental health concerns. They are more likely to be classified as both higher-risk and higher-need entering the correctional system.
Indigenous over-representation in correctional institutions and in segregation should be understood considering several indigenous-specific or sui generis, meaning unique or special, root causes. Those include the impacts of colonization and disparate socio-economics. What that basically means — I think Jonathan Rudin once said — indigenous peoples have more of what you don't want and less of what you do want when it comes to socio-economics. There are also issues of cultural difference and systemic discrimination within the criminal justice system and in society at large. That has been found by the Supreme Court of Canada in several cases, so it's been accepted that systemic discrimination does exist within the criminal justice system.
Colonialism and attempts at forced assimilation — I think hopefully all of us are familiar with the impacts, for example, of Indian residential schools, and we know that they resulted in disenfranchisement, community fragmentation and breakdown. Those root causes also include a vast array of colonial impositions on indigenous peoples, including but not limited to the effects of the Indian Act and breach of treaty, and I also think the Supreme Court of Canada back in 1990 said that the treaties with Aboriginal people had been honoured in their breach.
Also a lack of recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights, the Sixties Scoop, Indian residential schools, and the ongoing effects of current child removal practices, among others.
These unique underlying root causal factors of indigenous criminality have become known as Gladue factors arising from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Gladue. I don't have time this morning to walk you through the full implications of the Gladue decision, but Gladue principles arise from the Supreme Court's interpretation of subsection 718(2)(e) of the Criminal Code, and that's a sentencing provision, which provides that a court imposing a sentence shall take into consideration:
All available sanctions, other than imprisonment . . . with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
That provision in the Criminal Code has been subject to interpretation repeatedly and also at least three times by the Supreme Court of Canada, but I will try and boil it down for you.
What does it mean in practice in corrections? In the correctional context, as I understand it, the application of Gladue provides for, one, greater contextualization and understanding of the indigenous inmate and their behaviour through a consideration of their systemic and background factors; and two, rehabilitation and mitigation of risk via the utilization of culturally appropriate procedures or sanctions that resonate with the indigenous inmate.
Certainly Correctional Services Canada law and policies have incorporated Gladue principles into correctional decision-making. The language you will frequently see, particularly in the CDs, the Commissioner's Directives, is Aboriginal social history. That is Correctional Services Canada language for Gladue.
That has been incorporated into correctional decision-making pursuant to both the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and numerous commissioners' directives, and including commissioners' directives pertaining to segregation decision-making.
So how do we understand the mental health issues of Aboriginal offenders in corrections through a Gladue lens? Indigenous mental health and wellness issues can be background in systemic Gladue factors requiring culturally appropriate approaches. This remains the case even when psychiatrists and psychologists become involved.
Correctional staff and mental health teams need to have the capacity to contextualize the mental health concerns of indigenous offenders with Gladue factors and to be able to consider culturally appropriate alternatives for their treatment.
Systemic and background factors impacting indigenous mental health in corrections include poverty and homelessness, low rates of education and employment, historical disadvantage, geographic and social isolation, family breakdown, and loss of culture and identity.
In particular, indigenous mental health in corrections may be closely interconnected with the history of colonization and assimilation, often resulting in disenfranchisement, community fragmentation and breakdown. Indian residential school syndrome has been recognized as a unique, culturally specific type of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Indigenous mental health issues in corrections include substance abuse, residential school trauma, self-harm, depression and anxiety, suicide, and secondary disabilities from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
These should be contextualized by the underlying sui generis root causes and addressed through culturally appropriate approaches.
Further, given the unique root causes of indigenous criminality, time spent in segregation may be particularly detrimental, given its cultural inappropriateness, the history of residential schools and underlying indigenous mental health issues. Segregation placement has been found for all offenders to be an independent factor elevating suicide risk, particularly given the prevalence of mental health issues among offenders in segregation. Aboriginal offenders continue to have the longest average stay in segregation compared to any other group.
Administrative segregation should not be the fallback for management of all behavioural and mental health issues, including management of chronic self-injury. As noted by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, behaviours associated with mental illness are often met by a security response rather than a therapeutic or mental health response. Aboriginal offenders are disproportionately involved in the use of forced interventions relating to prison self-injury.
Recent Correctional Services of Canada research found that culturally specific programs were instrumental in dealing with past trauma and ceasing self-injury for Aboriginal offenders.
Viewing indigenous mental health issues in corrections through a Gladue lens obviously does not preclude the implementation of standard mental health treatments, for example, psychiatry and medications, where needed. A treatment plan may well include elements of both mainstream and culturally appropriate approaches.
In conclusion, whenever the liberty interests of an Aboriginal offender are at stake in the correctional system, their unique systemic and background factors must be taken into account, including those impacting their mental health.
Actively considering the impact of these factors on the offender's mental health and overall well-being can contextualize the behaviour and also provide a bridge to a culturally relevant restorative approach, as mandated by Gladue. By implementing culturally appropriate rehabilitation and reintegration, we are cumulatively contributing to reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal offenders in corrections.
CSC, Correctional Services Canada, has adopted and integrated the Gladue approach into its law and policies and has started some implementation. These are promising steps, but with an important and increasing focus on mental health in corrections, we need to ensure that this Gladue lens is not neglected where indigenous offenders present with mental health issues. Dedicated and thorough implementation of the Gladue approach to indigenous mental health in corrections would require holistic mental health care teams and culturally sensitive treatment plans and approaches for indigenous inmates.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for this information. It's important for us. We do have senators on a list to ask questions of all three witnesses today. We'll start with Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: Thank you, Ms. Mann-Rempel. That's fascinating and very interesting. How often is mental health and/or addiction, because sometimes they go hand in hand, missed or misdiagnosed or ignored in the correctional system?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: I don't have statistics on that. I do know from conversations and discussions that mental health issues such as depression and anxiety — I don't want to say they are at the lower end and I'm not a psychiatrist — are harder to diagnose and may often go unnoticed. Certainly there are screening tools used at intake. I considered talking about the screening tools today, but that's another topic altogether. There are legitimate questions in terms of whether the screening tools are adequate and effective at catching those mental health issues at intake.
Senator Eaton: You've talked mostly about the indigenous population in the corrections system. You have shown us by percentage that there are many more indigenous people who are kept in segregation, but does it also apply to the general population that mental health issues are misdiagnosed or missed all the time?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: If we take an expansive definition of mental health, then I think the percentage of offenders presenting with mental health issues is probably staggering. Particularly we know that with respect to substance abuse, people are often self-medicating for depression or anxiety, and then they abuse substances and sometimes develop addictions. If we're using an expansive definition of mental health, it would be a large percentage that would be presenting with those issues.
We have to be careful as well. Sometimes what's called behavioural problems are mental health issues that are being labelled within CSC as behavioural. That's also an important point to bring out as you're looking at mental health issues. How expansive is that definition going to be? Often you'll see people in administrative segregation for behavioural issues. Well, what really is the behavioural issue and what underlies it? My best guess would probably be a mental health issue.
Senator Eaton: It seems to me last year, and I don't have the figures here because I don't have any Finance Committee book, but I believe Corrections Canada put $20 million towards providing culturally sensitive services, sweat lodges, as I remember, in some of the prisons. Have you heard of anything that Corrections Canada has tried to do to be more accommodating and more culturally sensitive to its indigenous clients?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: In recent years, I know that they introduced the Integrated Correctional Program Model, the ICPM, partially in response to criticisms that they were not getting programs out quickly enough to inmates as they were entering the system, and there is an Aboriginal offender stream in that Integrated Correctional Program Model. I think it was piloted two years ago, maybe three. I'm not in Correctional Services Canada. Unfortunately, when you're outside, it's not easy to know, in terms of evaluations, whether it is working. I know it's getting programs out more quickly, but their efficiency and their adequacy in terms of meeting culturally appropriate needs, I honestly don't know.
Senator Eaton: Well, I'll bring it up again this year. I'll ask them when they come before us.
The Chair: Mr. Beaudin I noticed you nodding your head, sir, and taking notes on this question. Do you have an observation?
Mr. Beaudin: Yes. In terms of the cultural appropriateness, I know there are elders, for example, that are provided to Corrections, however, in terms of limited resources. I mean you might have one elder who is assigned to a number of inmates, for example, in Prince Albert, the federal penitentiary out there. The resources just aren't there. I don't believe that they pay a whole lot of attention to that issue in terms of traditional competency, particularly with respect to indigenous people. There needs to be some work in that end.
One of the other things too that I believe in terms of mental health issues is front line, for example, the police. It doesn't matter what police department across Canada, they are not equipped to deal with mental health issues to a great extent. They certainly don't have the education to do that as well. One of the biggest issues that I always hear about is with respect to people's medications, for example. They don't even get them. They could be off their medications for weeks on end and they don't get them at all, and it's not good. Even at the beginning of the process, with respect to the police departments and in terms of when they end up in the federal Corrections, there are a number of barriers, so that's why I was nodding my head.
The Chair: I appreciate those comments. Mr. Partridge, do you want to add anything to this question? We have many questions that will be asked.
Mr. Partridge: I think Kim covered that fairly well. Thank you, though.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Andreychuk: Ms. Mann-Rempel, you talked about fetal alcohol syndrome, and I wonder whether you have any information. When it first came to light, we were focused on prevention in pregnancy and assisting these young people through life. It is a very difficult situation.
Do you have any statistics or are there any studies linking the children who had FAS as being in the criminal justice system in greater proportions, or are they not? In other words, we did identify the problem and we did look at it and we tried to give assistance to these young people, but in addition to all the other problems, FAS is very difficult. Is there anything linking their incarceration in any numbers?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: Actually, I did work on fetal alcohol spectrum disorder as part of my Masters of Laws. I don't have the statistic right in front of me, and I don't think there is a reliable statistic with respect to incidents or prevalence of FASD because we don't have uniform, reliable testing across the country. I also know that particularly with respect to the indigenous population, the question of statistics and percentages is a thorny issue because of the risk of getting involved in stereotyping of indigenous motherhood.
I believe I once sat in the Senate and heard Don Head say that federally incarcerated inmates were overrepresented as those with FASD. I don't think anyone would question that there are more people in the federally incarcerated population with FASD compared to their representation in the general population. It certainly is a risk factor for criminality.
I don't necessarily have statistics at hand. Like I said, in the work I did in 2012, there weren't a lot of reliable statistics because of questions around who do you test. If you test in the indigenous community, it may look higher, but then if you test in a low-income, non-indigenous community, is there parity there? There are many ethical concerns around coming up with those kinds of statistics.
There's no doubt that it is a significant issue in policing and then, of course, going into the correctional system. There have been some court cases over the years where judges have actually tried to order FASD testing because they've had an accused before them and they can see that this individual is not functioning well. Those resources are just not there to do the kind of testing that we need to be doing for individuals coming through the court system and then, obviously, going into prisons and penitentiaries.
I think it's a sleeper issue, but it's a big issue. We really just don't have the tools even to ascertain, especially at that lower end of the spectrum. I'm just assuming that everyone knows that Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder is a spectrum. So, at the far end, you have full-blown FAS, where someone will often have facial abnormalities and significant behavioural issues that you can probably readily identify, but, at the lower end of the spectrum, someone can look just like everyone else. It's not necessarily so readily identifiable. Particularly for those individuals, we know there are problems. Also, for example, on bail or on parole, if we have unidentified FASD and that person then has a whole long list of conditions and we're not aware that maybe they have trouble just with ordering their lives and showing up at certain places and being on time, we certainly know it presents an issue even in terms of breach of bail or breach of parole conditions if it has not been identified.
Senator Andreychuk: To Mr. Beaudin and Mr. Partridge, I spend a lot of time in Saskatoon, and I know the issue of gangs. I'm wondering if you can give us any information. Gangs were not prevalent 30 years ago in Saskatoon, and then it almost seemed overnight that this was the big issue of young people being lured into gangs. I read statistics about gangs that were infiltrating Saskatchewan from other places and putting incredible pressure on young people, and there were no pushbacks from the community.
What is the makeup of gangs now? Are they inside Saskatchewan, local gangs, or are they affiliated across the country? Are they targeting younger and younger people, as I'm being told?
Mr. Partridge: Absolutely, and, no, gangs are definitely homegrown here. Indian Posse is a specific gang that was born out of the prairies here. As well, we have seen a rise with Terror Squad, Native Syndicate. Then there's The Warriors, who run across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as well.
One of the things with gangs and with our youth, especially indigenous youth, is that they'll come in from Northern communities or remote communities into city centres like Saskatoon. They know nobody. They get involved with sort of the wrong crowd and get wound up in drugs, alcohol and violence. These gangs prey on these kids coming in because they are these squeaky clean kids that have no record. They aren't being watched. These kids end up getting sick with diseases, things like hepatitis and HIV. They have these crazy addictions, and that's if they escape the violence involved with gangs in our city right now.
Then they go home to their reserve, and they're proud. They don't want to admit that they are coming back with diseases and addictions and a criminal record. They put on that face, I guess you could say, and they tell their friends, "Oh, you know, I was down with this gang. I made all this money. We were rolling, and we were doing so well,'' because they can't admit the truth behind these gangs.
That's part of where STR8 UP comes in too. We go all across the province to these communities, and we educate these communities on what STR8 UP does, what gangs are about and what our members are about. So I think that's really the key, being able to reach out to the youth in our province to educate them about the realities of gangs and stuff so that they don't have to go and learn this on their own, so to say, and then we end up with them in our corrections system for the rest of their life.
Mr. Beaudin: I want to add a little bit to it as well. In the early 2000s, I was an employee with the City of Saskatoon, and I did recreation and leisure programs for indigenous people. We knew, at that time, that gangs were starting to form in Saskatoon, and we actually approached management in terms of the city and started trying to give them the heads up. They didn't take us seriously at all. We indicated to them numerous times that people were being recruited. They were coming out of Winnipeg, for example, into Saskatoon, and they were going after indigenous youth here. What happened is that they took hold.
Now, of course, you have a ballooning budget now with respect to the City of Saskatoon Police Department, hitting over $100 million. A lot of that budget is earmarked for guns and gangs, and it's kind of funny. I look at it like when you know you have a problem with your vehicle. You know it's going to break down because you're not putting oil in it, and the motor blows. We basically told the city, "The motor's going to blow,'' and they didn't listen to us. So here is where we are today. It's unfortunate.
We have a lot of work to do. For example, I know that, in Saskatchewan alone, the budget here is hitting almost a billion, and it just increases all the time in terms of justice issues. To me, the bow is going to break. Taxpayers don't have the money to continue to do this on a regular basis, so we have to look at different ways of doing business. Yes, we have a lot of work to do.
Mr. Partridge: I would just like to add one quick thing on that, about gangs and how they got started here in Saskatoon. When I was a kid growing up, this was when gangs first started appearing. Indian Posse came here, and then, as kids, we were bouncing around. I had, as a child, mental health concerns, and, unbeknownst to everyone around me, I had been fed alcohol from the time I was an infant. So I was an alcoholic as a child, right through high school. We bounced around. We had no place, nowhere to fit in, and we became the founders of these gangs and stuff that was going on.
I went out to B.C. for a stint, and I brought back all that violence and big city stuff with me. All these gangs definitely started right here, and it started with kids who were just sort of lost on their path.
The Chair: Thank you for that. That's one of the focuses of our study. It's not once you're in prison. It's way, way, way before that, and we hope to tap into that in terms of our work.
Senator Hubley: Thank you, each of you, for your presentations this morning.
Call to action 32 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon given reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on the use of conditional sentences.
I believe this program allows Aboriginal or indigenous individuals to serve their sentences within their home communities. Could you tell me if this is an active program, if it is working and if re-engaging Aboriginal youth with their communities has a benefit that may have been overlooked in the past?
I would probably like to have a comment from Mr. Beaudin and maybe from Mr. Partridge as well.
Mr. Beaudin: Again, we go back to the issue of resources. I just believe that we haven't put enough in terms of resources towards it. Some people think it's all about money as well, and I know that, with respect to youth, for example, we certainly have a lot of youth that are lost in terms of who they are, their cultural background, their home communities, their connection with the community, as well as their families.
One thing I wanted to point out, someone mentioned the issue with respect to FASD. I have the stats in front of me. It is from the Canadian Research network, FASD network. It states here that 10 per cent of individuals in Canadian correctional institutes are diagnosed with FASD and an additional 18 per cent are suspected of having FASD.
If you go back in terms of the impact on youth when they enter the justice system, for example — someone mentioned this earlier — you can't get a serious reading on people unless they have been diagnosed. They can't self- diagnose, and the criminal justice system and courts don't know how to address it. There are many people who don't understand why they are there or what they have done for reasons of cognitive impairments experienced by individuals. That is where they end up in terms of the legal system. Also, they struggle to comprehend legal concepts and statements, to communicate and receive instruction from legal professionals and to understand the implications of proceedings and/or entering a plea.
If you go to the front line, the police are not equipped to handle that either. They don't understand it. They are just doing their job. When someone breaks the law, they are not equipped to handle this stuff. It is a complex system.
I hope I answered your question. I should have written notes when you were asking, but I wasn't sure who you were directing your question to.
Mr. Partridge: What was the question again, please?
Senator Hubley: I will begin by talking about a culturally relevant sort of approach. If it's a program available to indigenous youth or indigenous persons within the justice system, but it's a system where the judge may decide to allow them to spend some time within their community as part of their sentencing, that sounds good from where I'm sitting, but is it something that is working and is it happening?
Mr. Partridge: I think it's absolutely something that works when it happens, I guess you could say. It's not happening as much as it should.
Part of the problem with our inmate population, specifically for indigenous inmates, is that nine times out of ten, these guys have lost touch with their culture for many reasons, systemic and whatever. By being able to serve their time in their community, they are able to get back in touch and use their culture as healing, which is something that is invaluable to us in STR8 UP. In STR8 UP, with respect to our members healing, we always say you have to go back to conception to find out what happened to you along the way and led you to where you are. That outlines the key to what you need to do to get better.
It would only ever be beneficial to have someone close to their home community and serve their time in their community. It is very difficult to have an indigenous young man from Saskatchewan sent out to Quebec to do time, for example, where there is little to nothing representing Cree culture, for instance. Does that answer your question a bit?
Senator Hubley: Yes, I think so. Michelle, do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: Sure. I will take more of the legal angle because you raised the question of mandatory minimums. I will say at the outset that I am not a fan of them because in general I believe in judicial discretion. There is only one person who is the trier of fact in any case, and that's the judge sitting on the unique sets of facts of every offender and every offence.
Certainly with respect to that provision of the Criminal Code that provides for restraint and the use of imprisonment for indigenous people, of course, when you have a mandatory minimum, you have a mandatory minimum, so no conditional sentence in the community is available in those circumstances. There is no doubt that mandatory minimums chip away at the ability of judges to use their discretion in a particular case and impose a sentence that is served in the community.
The second prong of that, though, as these gentlemen have said, is absolutely true. That is, if we are to ask a judge to give this person a conditional sentence rather than incarcerating them, the judge needs to see those resources are available in the community. That goes to the question of resources. If you are going to the judge and asking for a conditional sentence and there is not really anything available, then they may not give that conditional sentence. There is the law part, which is the mandatory minimums, and then the resources and the community part as well.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Because we don't have a second panel today, I thought we could go on to one o'clock or so. It is compelling testimony and we certainly need to hear more.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for your presentations today.
My first question is to Mr. Partridge. I may have missed this when you were speaking about STR8 UP. You just talked a bit more about it. Are you getting funding for that program? I'm wondering about the uptake. Is it a community-based volunteer program that people are actually accessing?
Mr. Partridge: Yes. STR8 UP is a community-based, grassroots program that started with a Catholic priest, Father André, who is a chaplain in our correctional centre. It operated for many years out of the back of his truck, where he would meet gang members in the alleys and streets of Saskatoon who wanted to leave the gang but didn't know how. When you are in that world, authority figures like police and so on — I don't know how to put this better, but they were like the enemy, if that makes sense.
So people would confide in Father André. There was suddenly this man who was willing to listen and work with guys who were getting caught up in this lifestyle and were wanting a way out, but that's all they'd ever known. They've heard there was another life but they need that guidance.
We are a community-based organization, and we fight every day to operate. It has only been recently, since Christmas, that we developed a relationship with our provincial government. As I mentioned, STR8 UP uses a model of prevention and intervention rather than suppression in dealing with gang members, so being proactive in dealing with mental health, addictions, family dynamics and stuff like that. It is more of a holistic type of approach, I guess you could say.
We have only recently started this relationship with the government where they have said that suppression isn't working. All we are doing is putting 1,000 gang members in the same building, and they are breeding and creating more gang members, because if you go in there, you are outnumbered; you have to join a gang.
Right now, STR8 UP is at a roadblock. We fight every day, tooth and nail, for funding to operate and to provide programs and services for our members. We have daily programming. Our members come in. We have teamed up with another organization, Homeboy Industries out of Los Angeles. They are a multi-million dollar organization down there doing great things and they have kind of been guiding us. We are getting so much need on a daily basis. Every day new people are wanting to join STR8 UP and wanting to get out of that lifestyle, but they don't know how.
So far with the correction system, it has all been through word of mouth among the inmates. When STR8 UP was first formed, you were labelled a rat or something in jail because people weren't sure what it was. They thought you were getting out of a gang so that meant you would roll on all these people or expose them.
Over time, people have got to respect the fact that, no, when you join STR8 UP, you're trying to be better for your kids and for your family. STR8 UP has become respected, but we can't get to institutions like the P.A. penitentiary. It costs us so much money to get out there that it eats away at our programs for our members on the outside.
That is where we are in asking for this relationship.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. Your program sounds similar to one in Nova Scotia targeting the Black community. It's called CeaseFire. It is a pilot program. Have you heard of it?
Mr. Beaudin: Yes, I have.
Senator Bernard: They just finished their midterm evaluation, so it may be useful for you to connect with them to see what they are doing and the model they are using.
Mr. Beaudin: I wanted to add that with respect to STR8 UP, we can send the committee information pertaining to the program itself and give you a better understanding in terms of what we are trying to do.
It is a unique program; there is no question about it. We have been working on a four-phase approach in terms of the program itself. We believe there are four phases for people when they make a decision to get out of gang life; they go through these phases.
It is a unique write-up, and I think it would be an interesting read for the committee to take a look at as well. We can certainly send that out.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We would appreciate it if you could send that to us.
Senator Bernard: Ms. Mann-Rempel, regarding Gladue, some of the feedback I have heard from some folks who work in the justice system at various levels is that Gladue is there, but it is not really being implemented as proactively and aggressively as it could be and perhaps as it was meant to be. Would you mind commenting on that? I know there are advocates in the ethnocultural community who are looking to Gladue for answers, but some of the feedback is that maybe Gladue is not exactly what you want because it is not working so well.
Ms. Mann-Rempel: There is no doubt it hasn't been fully implemented, or even partway implemented, as far as I understand it.
Personally, I still think that if we take an expansive understanding of it and implement it, I have seen it make a difference in the lives of individuals. Ultimately, in terms of addressing that over-representation, it is one individual at a time.
So I believe it has potential. I don't believe it is the solution to every problem; it is just one piece of a legal approach. There are obviously land claims, crime prevention, self-governance and all sorts of issues that need to be addressed.
Gladue has not been fully implemented or even partially implemented within corrections. It is not something that can just be added on. It really is about a change in how you do business within corrections. It's about a fundamental shift and change in paradigm or in approach. Sometimes, it's treated a bit too much like an add-on rather than a fundamental shift in understanding.
I also think that corrections is risk-averse. For three years, I was the Gladue trainer for Correctional Service Canada. Between 2011-13, I travelled the country training mainly parole officers on how to implement Gladue. We only reached a small number, because I was training groups of 20, but it became clear to me that it's such a risk-averse environment. That is the primary concern all the time.
Going into an environment like that, where the staff are steeped in that as being their primary operating concern, the avoidance of risk, it is nothing short of a fundamental shift in how you approach the issue of corrections. That is part of the problem.
It is largely about an institutional change that has to happen. It's about broader initiatives and about those resources being available. It was interesting; when I travelled the country, training parole officers, I would say, "This is the kind of thing you need to put before the parole board. Put together an understanding of those systemic and background factors, and also look at those culturally alternatives available in the community to try to address the parole board concerns.'' I often heard back, "Well, those approaches don't exist in the community. Why are you here training us about alternative approaches and they don't exist?''
Again, it comes back to those resources. I could understand their point that my asking them to do this analysis when ultimately there is nothing there coming off as kind of pointless.
Senator Martin: On this point in applying the Gladue lens, you said, "Perhaps we can take an expansive approach.'' I am looking at the root causes in the Gladue principles. If we were to look at it so broadly, I wonder if it is difficult to apply because it is so broad.
When it is applied effectively, can you give us an example of how that would look? If it is applied so broadly, then it shifts certain blame or responsibility on the other versus perhaps what actions have been taken by the offender. I am trying to understand how it could be applied broadly but also be very effective in its application.
Ms. Mann-Rempel: When I say "broadly,'' I mean the kind of understanding that I bring to it. I practised Aboriginal law before, and I specialized in criminal justice. I had an understanding of treaties, self-government and Aboriginal rights and the history of colonization — that kind of broad, expansive understanding.
I can give a good, practical example. For a couple of years, I served as a per diem criminal duty counsel here in Ottawa. I did a lot of bail court. I argued a contested bail hearing for an indigenous offender who was a product of the Sixties Scoop and who presented with a lot of what I would call classic Gladue factors. He had substance abuse issues and had served federal time. He was homeless and didn't have connections.
Essentially, the Crown, in trying to seek to detain him, was arguing two grounds. The first ground was primary grounds, which is that they were concerned this person will not show up to court. "Look, he is homeless, he has no community connections and that kind of thing — no family, surety or upstanding member of society who wants to come forward and vouch to supervise him.'' The second ground they were arguing was public safety. "Look at his criminal record.''
I was successful in securing his release. I had a justice of the peace who was open to hearing this. I said, "We have to understand we are looking at homelessness and lack of community connections.'' I explained to the JP something to do with the Sixties Scoop and the fact he had gone through numerous foster homes and had been on the streets since he was a teenager. So I was able to contextualize these negative-appearing factors in terms of whether or not he'd come back for a court date with getting the court to understand where those factors came from.
Second, we're looking at his criminal record, and a lot of his crimes were what I'd call survival crimes of an addict and someone who was homeless. I tried to contextualize that with his life history. Then I addressed that second prong, the culturally appropriate alternatives, by making sure I had lined up programming at the Wabano health centre. I had lined up the Native court worker to be involved with his file. By bringing all those things together, I was able to convince the court to see things in a different light. He was still homeless and didn't have community connections. Those were facts, but it is about taking a different lens and understanding where that is coming from.
Senator Martin: Is indigenous law something that someone would specialize in much later in their studies, or could that be introduced to all first-year students, especially when we look at the population of indigenous people across Canada and the over-representation? What you did was the perfect order of understanding for anyone practising law.
Ms. Mann-Rempel: I am really old. I graduated from law school a long time ago. When I went through, there were no mandatory courses in indigenous law. I believe there are at some law faculties now. I certainly know it was a recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I believe, that law schools teach Aboriginal law. I think there is definitely a strong movement toward that, which is a positive thing.Certainly, in my case, it wasn't a requirement but, as I said, that was a long time ago.
Senator Martin: You look very young. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I have three questions but if you want to adjourn by one, perhaps I should not go now.
The Chair: No, we can go quickly on that.
Senator Omidvar: My first is for Mr. Beaudin from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Thank you for joining us. I imagine that your congress has ongoing ties, discussions and negotiations with Correctional Service Canada. What are some of the changes you can conceive of to improve the relationship between your congress, the indigenous peoples and Correctional Service Canada?
Mr. Beaudin: We want to be kept apprised in terms of any policy changes, for example, within the department. That would be number one. The other issue is communications. That is really important. An ongoing relationship with respect to the department and corrections would be very important to us as well.
Also, in terms of resources, for example, our organization doesn't have a whole lot of resources with respect to these issues that we deal with, for example, with corrections or with the justice system itself federally. We have different PTOs that are spread out from coast to coast; they are provincial and territorial organizations that represent provincial organizations. They also struggle in terms of the resources with respect to people who, unfortunately, are involved with the corrections system itself. We want to get to work on that relationship with corrections.
Senator Omidvar: From what I am hearing, you are saying it is not a relationship that is enduring in any way. You seem to be implying that it's ad hoc. Is that the case?
Mr. Beaudin: I would say it is ad hoc. I have a meeting coming up this Monday in Ottawa with Correctional Service Canada. These are the kinds of steps I have been taking. I have also established other relationships, for example, with the Correctional Investigator, Mr. Ivan Zinger. That's a relationship that we've begun to work on. The other one is with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We have taken steps to look at that. We certainly have a lot of work to do.
Senator Omidvar: They have a lot of work to do, as well.
Mr. Beaudin: Yes.
Senator Omidvar: My next question is for Mr. Partridge from STR8 UP. I just spent a little time on your website and noticed with interest the tattoo removal program. Tell me if I am overplaying this, but does it come in the four phases of your program that the tattoos are removed at a time when the individual is ready to start on a new path and wants to put the old behind them?
Mr. Partridge: The tattoo removal program or process that we have is something on which we partnered up with a local business that is willing to do laser tattoo removal on your hands or face of gang-specific tattoos. That is all we work on. Usually, when someone drops their colours, as we call it, or leaves their gang, they will have to remove any associated tattoos for risk of, in extreme cases, death.
Senator Omidvar: You shared your own story, which I found very powerful. When you were in the corrections system, was there any interaction with your community? Would that have helped? Would that have helped you in particular? What lessons can you bring to bear on the work that we are doing, based on your experience?
Mr. Partridge: It has been years, thank goodness, since I have had any brushes with corrections, but I will explain my last brush with the law.
I was charged with mischief and uttering threats. I was taken to our correctional centre. I was handed our orange clothes, told, "No offence, it's nothing personal,'' and I was shipped to the secure unit. Nothing was explained to me. I didn't know what was happening or what was going on. I got put into a cell that was so filthy I didn't want to touch anything, because I was scared. I didn't know who had what that was in the cell before me. I managed to clean out my own cell. I survived in there that day.
In that secure unit, each cell had a set time for recreation, or being out of your cell. When my time was just about there, I would get moved cells. No one would tell me why but I would get moved to another dirty cell. My mental health concern at that time was that I had OCD and some other stuff, so being in a filthy cell was torturous to me. That happened for three days before I was finally put in an area where I was allowed out of my cell.
Also, in those three days, I had medications and stuff that I had to be on. I was only able to obtain these medications when it was convenient for the guards or when they had time for it, not according to my medication schedule. And as I mentioned before, some of my medications had been changed on me so the effectiveness or the use that I was taking them for suddenly changed. Some psychiatric and mental health medications need to be taken in a specific format for them to be functional or have any specific use for different disorders. It is the same with certain medications. They take a while to build up in your system before they become effective. Once that is removed, you go through withdrawal and then your time of getting these medications starts getting played around with.
In my last brush, I was literally at the mercy of the guards. I was getting shuffled around and no one told me what was going on until, all of a sudden, I was in court and released on my own recognizance. Then I started being able to handle my case and deal with it proactively. That was my last brush.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for sharing that with us.
My final question is to Ms. Mann-Rempel. It is around what I see and what I hear about the efforts to institutionalize Gladue. What percentage of sentencing judges have access to a Gladue report? Do you know?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: I can't speak to percentages. I can say there are certainly not enough. I know that in Ontario, there is a geographic swath that does have access to Gladue reports through Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto. They recently had that extended. They are funded by Legal Aid Ontario to do that. There has been an extension in Ontario out of Toronto and its perimeter to some surrounding cities like Brampton and that area. You would have to look up specifics. I don't know which cities.
Senator Omidvar: But you would say it is not widespread? Not yet?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: We didn't have a Gladue report writer in Ottawa when I was doing bail court two years ago. Then they got one, but he was gone a year later. You can still try to obtain legal aid funding and go to ALST and have it done, or you can try to have it done privately.
For example, when I was training CSC in the Prairies — and this is an issue to be aware of — even where there are Gladue reports, they don't make it into the correctional system. This is something that has driven me a bit nuts for years. I don't know why that happens. I don't know if they need a memorandum of understanding. I found that even in Ontario, when I was training parole officers, none of them had access to Gladue reports that should have been part of the criminal court file.
Senator Omidvar: How do we make that happen? Is it a law? Is it a policy? Is it a regulation?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: I don't know, but it might be some sort of memorandum of understanding to make sure that provincial court documents are being transferred over to federal corrections. It's certainly an issue. And like I said, in Ontario, even, they would say, "No, we never have Gladue reports.'' In Ontario, they are not available everywhere, but I think they are more available in Ontario than any other province. There are some available in B.C. out of Vancouver. There are some available in Alberta. But certainly Gladue reports themselves are not widely available across the country.
What ends up happening is that a pre-sentence report is prepared for all offenders, and they end up sometimes slipping in a bit of a Gladue analysis in the pre-sentence report, but they serve very different functions, and the probation officers preparing those reports are not trained. I know that the view on the PSRs, the probation services reports, is that the Gladue content is usually not helpful and even sometimes harmful, because if it's not treated in the right way, it can actually be damaging.
There are still wide swaths of the country where you don't have access to a Gladue report.
Senator Pate: Thanks to all of you for being here. Mr. Beaudin and Mr. Partridge, I'm very familiar from my time in Saskatchewan with STR8 UP. I have lots of questions. When I was there, I was working a fair bit with the women who are part of STR8 UP. Have they developed a separate group? I know there were some very real issues that are similar to men escaping from the gang life, but there were also some particular issues for women. I don't know if that's moved any further ahead than when I was there a couple years ago.You guys do fabulous work. This is not in any way to say you don't. I'm just curious as to whether there's been any movement there.
Mr. Partridge: The women have a sister circle, which is just for the women of STR8 UP, and it's a supportive cultural healing circle. But other than that, no, they are with STR8 UP.
It reminded that I wanted to mention that women have advocacies out there for them when they are in jail, and men don't. John Howard does not advocate for men, whereas E. Fry does, and one of our members of STR8 UP works quite extensively with E. Fry, so they have that relationship and connection for our female members.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that.
Mr. Beaudin, one of the issues that we have been looking at is the whole issue of sections 80, 81 and 84, which are the provisions of the federal legislation that are supposed to put an obligation on corrections to work with indigenous communities, in particular, to provide community-based options, not just for parole but also for individuals to serve their sentences in the community. I'm just curious as to how much involvement corrections has had with your organization and if they haven't, that's important for us to know too. But if they have, what are some of the challenges? I think you have touched on them a fair bit, but just specifically about those provisions, if you are able.
Mr. Beaudin: My meeting coming up on Monday will be my first meeting with respect to Correctional Services Canada, and I am certainly looking forward to it. We want to establish that relationship with that particular department and work with them in terms of some of the things that you just spoke about. It's really important that we do that.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples operates from a national perspective, and we certainly want to know about what's happening all over Canada with different programs, initiatives and that kind of thing. We want to be involved. There's no question about it; we want to be involved.
The majority of indigenous people live in urban areas, and that's where they are coming from. Apparently they just announced a new program today. It was a news release on the OAS that the Liberal government has announced a new strategy. That was just out today in terms of a news release. They recognize that the majority of indigenous people do live in urban areas. There will be issues around justice as well. We want to do that.
I'm not sure if we have an opportunity for closing remarks, but I have a couple things that I'm hoping the Senate committee will take a look at as well.
Senator Pate: Ms. Mann-Rempel, we have known each other for a long time. You have done a tremendous amount of work both with corrections but also with Public Safety, and hopefully more with the Parole Board in the future.
I know that some time ago you did an opinion piece for the Department of Public Safety where you talked about the manner in which they were breaching their legal and fiduciary duty to indigenous prisoners. Are you still of that view? Also, in particular with respect to sections 81 and 84, the legislation is very expansive, and the opportunity for quite remarkable creative options for indigenous prisoners is there, but many believe that life has not been breathed into it.
For instance, right now it specifies it has to be used for minimum-security prisoners when in fact, by law, it could be used for any security level of prisoner, and we know about, as you already mentioned, the over-classification of indigenous prisoners. I'm wondering if you can comment on some of those, of where corrections is from that point.
Picking up on Senator Omidvar's question in terms of Gladue reports, it's the law that the judges and now corrections, based on case law, are supposed to be looking at those factors in section 718.2(e), and the law since then has evolved to say at every stage.
One of the concerns — and I want to ask you to clarify, please — is if corrections puts it in policy and it diminishes the responsibility they have legally now, my view would be that's consistent with what they have done in sections 81 and 84. And I would be interested in your view on that in terms of whether that would open them up to further potential challenges on their breaches of their legal and fiduciary obligations, particularly to indigenous prisoners.
Ms. Mann-Rempel: I'll start with some comments on sections 81 and 84.
Senator Pate: That would be great.
Ms. Mann-Rempel: Back in 2009 when I did my report for the Office of the Correctional Investigator, they were being underutilized. They certainly are still underutilized, and yet there's also this anomalous situation where there are also empty beds. I think when they do snapshot studies, sometimes there are empty beds. Why are there empty beds in the section 81 healing lodges, particularly for men? Part of that would be because, yes, they are limited to minimum security. That would also be because Aboriginal offenders are classified at a higher security classification. The ideal would at least be that they are working their way down in terms of security classification. We don't see that happening as much as one would think perhaps we should be seeing it happening, from max to medium and then, ideally, also from medium to minimum.
Certainly in part of the training that I delivered, we did work on actual offender files. They use these tools and they spit out numbers and then the number tells you what security classification someone should receive. Within a certain numeric value, they have the discretion to do an override. One of the things that I was training people to do was how to have, say, an indigenous offender and the system sort of spits this person out as medium, but if you look at it and use your discretion, it might be that this is somebody who would do well in a healing lodge. So how do you use the application of Gladue to sometimes exercise that discretion to take someone from medium to minimum to put them in a healing lodge.
Certainly, if that was happening more often, we would see more people going to the healing lodges. Also, of course, if we expanded them to be available to at least some offenders who were classified as medium, then there would also be more clientele ending up in those healing lodges.
Of course there aren't very many of them, and most of them are government-run healing lodges. Why that is? I guess it goes to whether you think something is developed as an add-on approach versus a transformative approach. Perhaps the 81s and the 84s have been more add-ons rather than being treated as being potentially transformative.
Especially with the section 84s, I'm not sure that communities necessarily know that's even an option that's available to them. I have often thought that CSC should have handbooks and somebody who goes around and talks to national organizations and also communities about what's possible under section 84 so that the communities know that this is something that's an option and something they might do and so they're prepared.
I just coincidentally sat in on a Parole Board hearing at Collins Bay at least four or five years ago where there was a community that for the very first time was actually stepping up and saying, "We want to supervise this individual.'' It was a reserve community. It got adjourned. It got put over because basically no one knew what to put before the Parole Board. No one knew what the Parole Board would be looking for from the community. So the Parole Board, in fairness, was asking: Do you have programs in the community? What's the approach going to be? Is it a band council thing? Is there a band council resolution? So it was adjourned in order for them to try and put that together, but it seems to me that that should be something that communities can readily access before there's a hearing. Maybe if they are put on notice that this person is coming up for parole and whether or not they want some involvement and what would that look like.
Of course we would have to take a culturally appropriate lens, and that means that in a small community, it doesn't mean there's going to be a big sophisticated drug program. I have heard stories where the drug program is an elder comes to visit you every day and sits with you, and that's the drug program. Also having the openness to knowing that approaches will look different in different communities.
There has, perhaps, been an outreach or public education gap with respect to particularly section 84. I'm really not sure how many communities know it's available.
There are issues of resources in some communities, so some communities may not be interested. They may not have the capacity, financial or otherwise. There are some communities that it may not be the top of their priority list to take offenders back on parole. Those are some of the issues.
It has the potential to be transformative. Way back in my career, in 2000, I was a table lawyer for self-government negotiations on the administration of justice, so I was representing Justice, the federal government, at various self- government tables pertaining to justice. Certainly, section 81 and section 84 from that perspective could have tremendous capacity-building components in terms of moving towards self-government in different communities. I think it has been treated more as an add-on than as something that could be foundationally transformative, would be my answer to that.
I'm trying now to think about the other parts of your question.
Senator Pate: You have definitely touched on it. Section 81 isn't required to be an institution by law.
Ms. Mann-Rempel: Right.
Senator Pate: But corrections policy has eventually channelled it into being institutions, many of which are either governed by corrections or contracted, as the one we saw two weeks ago.
There is also the whole issue of the legal and fiduciary responsibility that corrections, as part of government, has towards indigenous peoples to breathe life into those provisions in a way that — and I like the term you used — is transformative as opposed to add-on. Do you care to comment more on that?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: I'm not sure that off the top of my head I'm prepared to go into the fiduciary aspect. I've done a lot of work on the fiduciary relationship and fiduciary responsibilities and duties, but I'm not sure that I'm comfortable to go there. I don't want to misspeak myself without having thought about it further.
Senator Pate: All right, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Pate.
We'll have brief closing remarks, gentlemen. Do you have a closing remark?
Ms. Mann-Rempel, if you wanted to say a few words, and then we have to wrap this up. This has been very informative.
Mr. Beaudin: I wanted to close with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples believes that the Charter should apply to people who are incarcerated, whether it is federally or provincially. I know that prisoners can vote, so I don't know why it wouldn't apply.
The other issue that comes to mind is a concern I have with the work that you are embarking on in terms of the committee. For example, INAC, and I don't know if you're familiar with Bill C-31, Bill C-3 and also Bill S-3 as regards to human rights issues pertaining to indigenous people under the Indian Act under registry, registering as a status Indian. They are fighting that. I find that quite interesting that on one hand you have the government who supported it when they were in opposition and now they are fighting these legislation changes. They don't seem to want to follow that.
I'm concerned that you do the work, there are recommendations, and whether the government will follow through in terms of human rights for prisoners as well. I believe that it should happen. We live in Canada, this is 2017, and I believe we can be a better country in terms of how we treat our people. They are human beings.
Another point with respect to segregation, and you have probably heard the term "out of sight out of mind,'' and one of the things we worry about is whether there are people presently incarcerated today that we are not aware of. We don't know whether they are there and if they have disappeared. Adam Capay was a good example. His human rights were not applied when he was in segregation for almost five years. Those are the kind of concerns that we have.
One other thing with respect to our children. We have a huge social services system that is taking our children in record numbers. That's a huge issue for us with respect to human rights as well.
I believe that we have a lot of work to do and I certainly am hopeful with respect to the committee's work and that we have an opportunity to speak as well.
I don't know if you would ever consider this, but I made a note here. We have somebody here on the other side with me. Being a former inmate, what would be the possibility of hearing from other former inmates and what they would have to say and perhaps meeting with them as well? I don't know if they would come, but I have a feeling they will. They probably want their voice heard. I wanted to throw that out.
Thank you for your invitation.
The Chair: We have heard from former inmates already in our hearings here, and we plan to hear from a lot more. This is not a snapshot study. We will have an interim report hopefully in September on what we have heard, basically observations, but this will be going on for a year or so. We will make sure that we hear from other former inmates. I can assure you of that. We certainly will take note of what you just told us.
Mr. Partridge, would you have a very brief closing remark?
Mr. Partridge: Absolutely. Thank you very much on behalf of myself and all the other STR8 UP members for allowing me to be a part of this very important discussion. I also want to thank you for keeping an open mind. I know that sometimes it's easier to leave prisoners in jail and forget about them than it is to deal with their rights and no less to fight for those rights. We as STR8 UP members appreciate it. Thank you again for this opportunity and for your time.
The Chair: And thank you. We certainly won't forget what we have heard and seen in the last two weeks in the institutions in the east and also when we go west and further east. I guess we're in the centre.
Ms. Mann-Rempel, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Mann-Rempel: Thank you very much for having me here. I had one last thing to mention. There have been a lot of conversations around gangs. I sit on the board of Crime Prevention Ottawa, and I would refer you to a gang exit strategy we put in place about two years ago in association with the Ottawa Police Department. It is obviously different from the more organic model that they've been talking about, but it's also novel in the sense that it's a city program that isn't just focused on suppression but is actually focused on exit. We have partnered with John Howard as well as many social service providers in the community. It's a real bringing together of different resources to facilitate exit from gangs. That would be Crime Prevention Ottawa and the city's police force.
The Chair: Could you send us a little note on that so we don't forget? That's really important.
Ms. Mann-Rempel: Sure.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Next week, honourable senators, Senator Ataullahjan will be sitting in this chair. I'm off on Senate business, but I'll be back.
This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)