Proceeding of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 38 - Evidence - Meeting of February 6, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 6, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:06 a.m. to study the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system.
Senator Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome. I would like to begin by acknowledging, for the sake of reconciliation, that we are meeting on the unceded traditional lands of the Algonquin peoples.
My name is Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing this committee. I now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer from Ontario.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate from Ontario.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you.
Our committee has been studying the human rights of federally sentenced persons. During this study, the committee has held public hearings in Ottawa, as well as in various regions, and has conducted fact-finding visits to 29 facilities. As we draw our study to a close, we are focusing on subjects that have not been fully explored in our earlier meetings.
In our first panel today, we are hearing, again, from national organizations that work with prisoners. Let me introduce Diana Majury, President, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; and Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada.
Welcome back, Ms. Majury. You have the floor.
Diana Majury, President, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: Thank you for this opportunity to come back to you toward the end of this very important process. I know that you have heard a lot and learned a lot, and I commend you for your thorough and rigorous investigation, particularly including going into the prisons and talking to the women and the men inside.
There are three issues that I want to raise with you in my few minutes: Bill C-83, routine strip searches, and the reliability clearance requirement. But I want to start by emphasizing the importance of recognizing and responding to the specific gendered realities and needs of criminalized women. We wish we did not have to keep saying this, but clearly we do, because we are constantly met with evidence that CSC does not seem to take women’s specificities into consideration in framing and implementing correctional policy and practice. This is contrary to our Charter and its commitment to substantive equality for women in all our intersectional complexity.
As a recent example, CAEFS representatives attended CSC’s round table on the implementation of Bill C-83. The deputy commissioner for women was not in attendance at that meeting, and the CSC people who were there were not able to answer our questions about the impact of the bill on women or respond to our concerns about the bill in relationship to women. In fact, they demonstrated a disturbing lack of knowledge about how women’s prisons are set up and how they operate. So, criminalized women continue to be ignored and neglected, and the consequences for these women exacerbate the gendered inequalities that contributed to their criminalization in the first place.
Regarding Bill C-83, our long-standing position is that segregation is not about the name or necessarily about the specific space; it is about the practice of segregating — that is, isolating — a prisoner from the rest of the prison population wherever and however that is done. So we are deeply concerned by the name shell game that we see happening with Bill C-83. The summary provided at the beginning of the bill makes the name shift pretty clear, and here, I’m quoting. The amendments are to: (a) eliminate the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation; (b) authorize the commissioner to designate a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary as a structured intervention unit for the confinement of inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons.
In other words, SIUs are to serve the same purpose as segregation. There is nothing new in the bill relating to the SIUs that could not now be done with administrative segregation, so really there is no difference. Structured intervention units are another name for segregation.
Things that may look like a kinder, gentler segregation really aren’t.
The slight improvement of four rather than two hours out of the cell, if actually adhered to, will not mitigate the devastating mental health effects of 20 hours of segregation.
There is no guidance in the bill with respect to what constitutes meaningful human contact, the opportunity for which every effort is to be made. Our experience is that CSC has a seriously minimalist interpretation of each of those words — meaningful human contact.
There is no independent oversight mechanism.
Duration of segregation in an SIU is indefinite.
And procedural safeguards such as right to counsel and oral hearings are not in place.
We fear that SIUs may, in practice, be even more oppressive and harmful than administrative segregation.
On a different issue, we are concerned that Bill C-83 is moving in absolutely the wrong direction with respect to the application of sections 29, 81 and 84. Rather than facilitating the movement of Indigenous prisoners out of prison into Indigenous communities, rather than expanding the groups to whom these options apply, particularly to Black and transgender prisoners, and rather than transferring prisoners with mental health issues to mental health services out of the prison, that is, rather than expand and facilitate methods to get people out of prison, Bill C-83 would narrow and restrict these opportunities.
That is contrary to the legislative intent articulated with respect to these options in 1992, and it fails to promote and protect the human rights of these prisoners who are subject to systemic discrimination within the prison setting.
With regard to strip searches, women in federal prisons are routinely subjected to invasive, degrading and triggering strip searches in the absence of cause or suspicion, following temporary absences, family visits and, in some places, movement within the prison.
We understand that a new strip search protocol has been introduced whereby a computer application randomly selects for a strip search one of every three women returning from a conditional release. Women are actually declining these opportunities in order to avoid the possibility of the trauma of a strip search. It is unconscionable that mothers are put in the position of not seeing their children because they cannot face the prospect of a random strip search.
Routine strip searches are allowed under the CCRA, but the language is discretionary — “may”; certainly “not required.”
According to the Mandela Rules, strip searches should be a measure of last resort, which, in our view, would mean no strip searches, and certainly not routine strip searches. Our position is there should be no strip searches; there are always other, better, alternatives. There absolutely has to be.
We have heard reports from a number of prisons that staff are telling women that the routine strip searches are CAEFS’s fault. We have raised our concerns with strip-searching with national headquarters and this has been flipped around to undermine us with women by blaming us for the increase in strip-searching because we’ve brought attention to the issue.
Finally, I want to mention the reliability clearance. CSC has recently issued a directive requiring volunteers to obtain reliability status clearance. Volunteers are now subject to the same scrutiny and screening as staff. Why? To our knowledge, there has been no problem with volunteers that this new policy has been introduced to address, and many volunteers have stopped going into the prisons because they feel anxious, vulnerable or humiliated, or they fear not passing the credit check component of the screening, so these are clearly discriminatory effects.
We do not describe CAEFS’s prison visits as volunteer work; we go in as advocates for the women. But our regional advocates are being told that they will be denied access if they do not get the reliability clearance. We think this is totally unnecessary for both advocates and volunteers, and we know that it is already having a negative impact on the prisoners.
In conclusion, I know that you, as a committee, cannot maintain the level of scrutiny that you have subjected our prisons to over the past couple of years, but I hope that once you have submitted your final report, you will continue to turn your watchful human rights eye to our prisoners in order to reinforce, for both the prisoners and politicians, the importance of vigilance over the human rights of our most marginalized and most vulnerable citizens.
Thank you for your hard work, your commitment and your courage to date on this front, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you on behalf of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Latimer, you have the floor.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: Thank you very much. It really is a great pleasure to be before the committee again. I can’t tell you how much the John Howard Society appreciates the work of the Human Rights Committee in going into prisons and talking to prisoners and listening to their concerns.
As you know, the John Howard Society is committed to effective, just and humane corrections practices. We first appeared before this committee when you were launching your study maybe two years ago. I think there has been a general growing awareness of some of the problems that are lurking behind prison bars, but I think it’s extremely important that there continue to be vigilance. Your input and ongoing interest in this area will be so important in terms of realizing some of the gains that we see happening.
I think as Howard Sapers pointed out at your last session, it is well-settled law that prisoners retain all the rights that are not inconsistent with the administration of their sentences. Courts have recognized Charter-protected rights for prisoners, like voting rights, due process and protection against discrimination.
They have also recognized residual liberty interests that cannot be eroded except in compliance with fundamental principles of justice. In fact, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which came into effect more than 25 years ago, was really premised on the notion of recognizing the rights and protecting the rights of prisoners. It served as a model for many countries, but what we have been seeing is it no longer delivers the promise of a human rights protecting regime.
I’m sure that your conversations with prisoners and former prisoners and your visits to prisons may have shown that some of the hard-won victories and the codified rights in the Charter and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act do not translate into prisoners having their rights in practice. Individual rights may be seen to be contrary to efficient prison management and to security interests. Prison is not a rights-affirming culture.
Since you began your study, the courts in British Columbia and Ontario have spoken on administrative segregation and solitary confinement and found the current provisions and practices violate the Charter. The federal government resisted recognizing this reality for years. In fact, the government argued in the B.C. case that the legislation is Charter compliant, but it is simply the misapplication of the law at the institutional level that is the problem.
This argument, I think, reveals a significant challenge for ensuring that human rights are respected in prisons. The laws and policies presented to the public and to parliamentarians do not necessarily reflect what is happening in the institutions. Judges and parliamentarians can visit institutions, talk to prisoners and assess whether prisoners are receiving their statutory and Charter rights, but few others are entitled to do so. The John Howard Society has an active interest in this, and we hear from prisoners and their families about concerns they have.
There are many allegations and findings by the Correctional Investigator about human rights abuses, and it is difficult to pursue them all. Aside from administrative segregation, there are three priority areas of concern for the John Howard Society in terms of prisoners’ rights and their protections.
One is health. We feel that they’re jeopardizing the security of the person by failing to provide adequate and timely health care. What we’re seeing often is a denial of prescribed medications, and this can happen when prisoners are transferred from one institution to another or when they’re transferred into the federal system. The prescriptions they have been on for years may have been eliminated by the institution that is receiving them, and a new regime will be put into place.
Often, when they’re transferred from security levels, this will happen as well. We receive many complaints about a denial of pain medication when people are placed in administrative segregation, which really can be understood as inflicting unnecessary pain as a form of punishment on these people.
Another problem is the slow access to specialists for chronic diseases, and this would include oncologists. There is a petition going around in relation to a prisoner by the name of Huxtable who died of cancer in prison. It was diagnosed very late and he had an unfortunate and difficult time with that. I have had this echoed by family members about the problems they have getting serious chronic diseases effectively dealt with by the prison health system.
I think there’s also generally inadequate physical and mental health care. I have spoken to prisoners who were Type 1 diabetics whose blood sugar levels were dealt with by keeping them at a very high level despite the known downstream risk for complications when diabetes is treated in that manner.
There’s also a terrible failure to recognize the mental illnesses of people behind bars, particularly those who may be self-harming. I sat on a consultation on Bill C-83 recently beside a woman who was representing a person in Saskatchewan Penitentiary. She finally got an external medical assessment. He basically excoriated the health care services at Saskatchewan Penitentiary for their failure to recognize the mental health problems that this prisoner was facing, that were pretty clear in terms of his self-injury and a variety of other things.
There’s also a problem that prisoners have pointed out and been concerned about for years, which is the fact that people have to line up outside despite the weather to get their medications. So if your sister or parent were in a care facility and were suffering from pneumonia, you wouldn’t expect they would have to line up outside to get their antibiotics in the winter, and this is what’s happening to prisoners. So it’s simple things, but clearly there is a disproportionate response and not what you would expect care would be.
We think a response to that is the need to have comparable community-standard health services for both those that are in and outside of prison. Some provincial governments have already made health care for prisoners a ministry of health responsibility rather than a correctional ministry responsibility. This is consistent with the Nelson Mandela Rules, and we think this is something that should be implemented at the federal level.
I think the health care that’s provided to prisoners through CSC is not the same quality and access to health care that people would receive in the community, and therefore it’s not adequate.
Number two, we’re also concerned about excessive and inappropriate force being applied to prisoners. This jeopardizes the security of the person by using excessive force and exposing them to harm. We see, particularly, the inappropriate use of pepper spray. The death of Matthew Hines at Dorchester Penitentiary, I think, is a clear example of how this can be a problem.
I think the Office of the Correctional Investigator has done a very good job in reporting the increased use of pepper spray and the problems with videotaping use of force when that is required to be done. This is a significant problem. I think there’s a need to reduce the amount of violence in prisons generally, and starting with the use and excessive use of violence that may be perpetrated by correctional staff is an excellent way to start.
Another concern raised by a number of prisoners is incompatible inmates being exposed to each other where violence is likely to result. They call this double-dooring. It is really using prisoners as weapons against each other, and it is not something that should be tolerated in any way.
I have recently been sent videotapes of prisoners from an incompatible range being released into another range, a fight breaking out, which was inevitable, and charges being brought to bear against those prisoners who were defending themselves against the aggression of people coming onto their range. But there is no way that prisoners who are incompatible should have been released onto a range with other incompatible prisoners, and I think that’s something we need to look into very seriously.
The other concern that we have is the inadequate redress for rights violations. Rights without remedies are no rights at all. I think it’s easy to say that prisoners have rights, they’re protected in the Charter and reflected in the CCRA, but prisoners have limited access to remedies if they experience rights violations. The grievance system is broken, and often completing the process is a condition precedent to going to the courts, which denies them access to the courts.
The Correctional Investigator’s recommendations are advisory and will not directly fix any human rights violations they find.
The Citizen Advisory Committees, if they see a problem, their advice is given to CSC only and doesn’t necessarily lead to corrective action being taken.
Exercising habeas corpus rights to challenge unlawful detention is extremely difficult for prisoners and is poorly understood. Even access to counsel, and access to legal materials so that prisoners can represent themselves, is limited. So I think there is a really significant problem in terms of redress for human rights abuses in prisons, and I think it’s something we need to take into account.
The John Howard Society hears many rights abuses stemming from loss of residual liberties due to transfers, placements in segregation, parole suspensions and revocations or placements in higher security levels that do not respect fundamental principles of justice. I think there are some fundamental concerns with how all of the decisions are taken by CSC and whether they respect the necessary due process protections.
I would like to congratulate the committee on taking an active interest in the human rights of federal prisoners and for visiting institutions and speaking with prisoners. I would also like to commend all the prisoners who spoke with you. I think this is an act of courage that might have consequences for them in the institutions. Prisons are harsh environments with structural power imbalances that make prisoners vulnerable to human rights violations with little opportunity for redress.
We look forward to your report that will hopefully shine a light on human rights issues in our prisons and recommend solutions that benefit all prisoners regardless of race, gender, religion or culture. I sincerely hope that the committee will retain an ongoing interest in the plight of prisoners and their human rights protections, and I wish you all the best as you conclude your study.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you both.
Senator Pate: Thank you to both of you for appearing again, and for all of the work that your respective organizations do in and around the areas that we’ve been studying.
I have a question for each of you.
Ms. Latimer, Ms. Majury talked about the implications of Bill C-83, a bill that’s been introduced and is billed as eliminating segregation, and she mentioned a number of issues. It’s a most simple question: Would you disagree with anything Ms. Majury raised and how would you see it as different for men?
Related to that, when we went into the maximum security prisons for men in this country, we saw a whole series of segregated units in every prison, and nobody really living in what would be characterized as general population, which to me sounds like the definition at the beginning of Bill C-83 that Ms. Majury outlined, where, say, an entire maximum security prison could be designated an SIU.
During our visits, we also heard evidence and significant concern about lockdowns, the number of lockdowns and the length of time they’re occurring, and they’re not being characterized as essentially putting prisoners in conditions of solitary confinement or segregation. If you could comment on that, I think the committee would benefit from that information.
As well, Ms. Majury, one of the things you mentioned —
The Chair: Excuse me, Senator Pate. Why don’t you let Ms. Latimer answer that question, and then you can pose the second question. Thank you.
Ms. Latimer: We had the opportunity to comment on Bill C-83 before the House of Commons committee, and there are significant problems with Bill C-83 in terms of the way it was initially presented. It doesn’t actually afford the prisoners any rights or any protections against indeterminate segregation. I think it would have been much better had there been a definition of what we mean by prolonged or any kind of administrative segregation, because what you’re saying is absolutely true. Many other forms of confinement conform with what we’re trying to prevent, which is a lack of human contact, a certain measure of indeterminacy and basically locked in the cell alone for long periods of time without adequate human contact.
So the absence of a clear definition, which could be applied beyond the SIUs, I think, is very important in order to figure out whether or not there are adequate protections in place.
One of the big concerns we have is the absence of an independent external decision maker that would look to see, first, why people are being placed in these structured intervention units and being maintained in the structured intervention units. I think that’s absolutely critical to making this work, along with some sort of oversight and decision-making capacity on the part of those individuals concerning various durations of time that people have spent in the structured intervention units. So that’s a critical component to getting an effective bill.
When I first read the bill, I absolutely had the impression that this all depends on how this is implemented, and there are really no legislative safeguards against this simply being a name change and reflecting exactly what’s happening in the administrative segregation units now.
I think there needs to be incredible oversight if they move forward with Bill C-83 to make sure that it is a transformative change and that people are getting the benefits of the programming.
Something that happened in the duration before I first appeared on the bill and before it came out was the announcement of the level of resources that are going to be applied to try to provide meaningful activities and meaningful contact to prisoners who are in the structured intervention units. That’s a good thing. I think it does have a problem in that it will be far more programming and activity in the structured intervention units than you will get on the normal ranges in the maximum-security facilities and some other facilities. So it may well create an incentive for people to want to be in the structured intervention units so they can get access to programs they otherwise would not have had, which is not the idea for why you want to have those structured intervention units.
I think it’s important that there be some parity in terms of the level of programming that’s made available to the general population as well as to those in the structured intervention units, or we’ll end up with a significant problem.
Lockdowns are a very serious issue. There’s not a very serious review as to why lockdowns have been put into place and why they have lasted for as long as they have. They’re very trying on individuals. Prisoners have told me that it is more damaging to them to be on a lockdown than it is to be in an administrative segregation unit. So I think the impact of the lockdowns is not to be underestimated. I think those need to be seriously looked at.
The Chair: Ms. Latimer, in the interests of time, if I could ask you to just wrap up your response, please, and then we’ll go to the next question. We have a full day.
Ms. Latimer: Okay, fine. Senator Pate always has a lot of components to her questions, and it’s hard to cover them all.
I think I’ll leave it there. There are concerns about Bill C-83 and how it will be implemented.
Senator Pate: I’m very sorry, Madam Chair, but I have a supplementary based on what has been raised.
When the Correctional Investigator, Dr. Zinger, was before the committee, he talked about the resources to be applied with Bill C-83 going more into security than into programming, which seems to be contrary to what you’ve described. His view was, if I recall correctly, that we’d see exactly what corrections said, that the problem is administration or implementation of the provisions at the institutional level. My understanding of his evidence was that we aren’t going to see any specific change and that, in fact, most of the resources seem to be going into security. So do you have different information?
Ms. Latimer: He may have seen a clearer breakdown of the resources than I have. There is a lot of money there, and it would be nice if it was used prudently and wisely to achieve the policy objectives.
What they will say, for example, is the provision in the proposed amendment that they should not be dealing with medical issues through a food slot means that the people will have to be taken out of their cells, which will require two correctional officers to be present as they’re opening the cell so that they can have a face-to-face discussion with the health care provider.
So there are lots of elements of the bill that they think are going to increase their security costs, but I haven’t actually seen the breakdown on what that does in terms of other programming costs or programming opportunities.
Senator Pate: That may be something we need to get more information about. Thank you very much.
Ms. Majury, you mentioned a number of issues with respect to Bill C-83 as well. You mentioned that, in fact, we haven’t seen a full implementation of some of the provisions. If you want to elaborate, I would be interested in hearing more about that.
I also wanted to ask you about what Amanda George testified to before this committee. She mentioned that when she was doing a study here in Canada, she was advised by one of the then deputy wardens, who later became a warden and now is in a different position within Correctional Service Canada, that all of the deputy wardens responsible for security in the prisons for women had argued in 2005 that they should get rid of strip-searching for women, except when it was for cause. They actually petitioned the executive committee of Correctional Service Canada and were denied.
I’m wondering if you’re aware or have a copy of that report, if your organization was ever consulted about that, and if you could comment on that.
Also, how many regional advocates have actually been denied access because of the reliability screening? It sounds as though some have. I’m sure the committee would be interested in that information as well, because if these are people going in to provide support who are now being denied access, it’s something the committee should know about.
Ms. Majury: I’ll try to be brief, but I do want to make a couple of comments about segregation as well.
As you know, I’m sure, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies’ position is we should not have segregation for women under any circumstances and that it’s unnecessary. It breaks my heart to think we’re putting more resources into supporting segregation instead of looking for creative alternatives.
If we keep having segregation, whatever we are calling it, we will not put the money, time, energy and commitment into thinking about how to solve the problems that are now made worse by putting people in isolation and segregating them from the rest of the population. It’s a devastating double whammy if it’s getting more resources.
And that’s a reference, for example, to the issues that we can see are going to arise out of Bill C-83. So now we have two. So it’s better that they open the cell, but now it requires two officers instead of one to be present when talking to the health professional face to face. How likely is it that somebody with serious mental health issues is going to feel better about talking to the health professional with two guards present in that setting? It’s give with one hand and take away with the other, so it creates serious problems.
I’m not aware that the deputy warden has recommended no strip-searching without cause, so that’s a very positive thing to learn about. We would definitely want to go back to that study and their recommendations and support them.
The strip-searching issue is getting worse. As you would know, many of these are women who have terrible histories of sexual abuse, and the strip search is devastating for those women. To the extent we are able to, we should be stopping them altogether, but reducing the strip-searching would certainly be great. To my knowledge, we weren’t consulted, and we keep raising the issue.
In terms of the access and reliability clearance, we are feeling very conflicted because we want to support those who are resisting the reliability clearance and stand firm to say that this is not necessary. In the meantime, that may mean we are not getting our advocates into the prisons to work with the women. What do we do?
I’m not sure how many of our regional advocates have actually been refused. We have been told they will be refused. Out in B.C. I think they have actually been refused, but I’ll get back to you with the numbers in that context.
Senator Pate: Some of the regional advocates actually are women who have been through the prison system. I would be interested, when we get the numbers, to see if it is disproportionately some of the women who have gone through the prison system and now are living in the community, are contributing in pro-social ways, and then are being denied access because of records, as well.
Ms. Majury: We have wonderful regional advocates going into the prisons because the women trust them and talk to them and tell them what’s going on. So, yes, they have been particular issues, not just on the reliability clearance, but on clearance generally and getting those women back into the prisons to do the work.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Boyer: I originally had a question about Bill C-83, but I think I’ll move on to a different one.
Ms. Majury, I have a question about Indigenous women. I know that CAEFS has done a lot of good work in the area, particularly the 2015 Sallows Fry Conference. Part of that focused on the criminalization and imprisonment of Indigenous women. What, in your view, can be done to assist Indigenous women in their rehabilitation and reintegration back into society?
Ms. Majury: The first thing I’d say is don’t send them into the prison in the first place. It’s just that with the histories of colonization, residential schools and the Sixties Scoop, and the impact of those things on our Indigenous women, to criminalize them and send them into a setting very reminiscent, in lots of ways, of the residential schools, is horrific. It seems to me we should start long before reintegration out of prison and really focus on not putting Indigenous women into prisons in the first place.
And then we need to support their communities in order to help them come back into those communities. Again, this is a good place to put resources, not into segregation but into supporting Indigenous communities to welcome back and support women and men from their communities who have been sent to prisons.
Senator Boyer: Would a community-driven approach be an alternative?
Ms. Majury: Absolutely, both before and as part of integration. That’s true for Indigenous peoples, but it’s also our approach for all criminalized people. In the communities is where the work needs to be done, the resources need to be put and the support can really have an impact.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
Senator White: I apologize for being a couple of minutes late. I’m glad to see both of you here.
I am going to follow up with Ms. Latimer, if I may, about engagement between correctional officers, or staff, and inmates and whether there have been any pilot projects in Canada on body-worn video for staff at any of the facilities. Policing across the country is either piloting or rolling out body-worn video, currently, for some of the same concerns that are being raised from people about the manner in which they’re being treated.
Second, when using capsicum spray or other tools, is that automatically videotaped for review by supervisors and outside agencies.
Ms. Latimer: The policy is that use-of-force incidents are to be videotaped, but I think the Correctional Investigator indicated that in three quarters of the cases there was a problem with the videoing; it didn’t take place, which I think is a problem in and of itself.
Some of the prisoners have told me that there are certain warning signs. For example, if a prisoner has assaulted a correctional officer, there’s often, from what I hear, some sort of informal reprisal. They will be taken to a place in the prison where there are no cameras and then be beaten and usually placed in segregation at that point.
Obviously, they are sensitive to the fact that there should be cameras, and if they’re doing something that is inappropriate, the cameras are not usually on or they’re in a spot where the cameras aren’t.
Senator White: I understand that from a camera capacity perspective, but with body-worn video, each of the staff wears them, and each and every engagement they actually turn them on. It’s not like you have to be in a hallway. It’s continuous as long as you’re engaging a staff member, and if you fail to do that, then you’re up for discipline. But you don’t know of any use of body-worn video?
Ms. Latimer: I don’t, but I think it sounds like an excellent idea. It would also be interesting if it had an audio component as well.
Senator White: It does.
Ms. Latimer: A lot of prisoners feel they have been goaded into violence or provoked by the comments that they’re hearing from the guards. One prisoner said to me: “Every day I wake up and say I’m not going to let them get under my skin,” and he said inevitably they do. It’s not a nice atmosphere. I think it would be an excellent idea to have a pilot of that nature.
Senator Cormier: I will ask my questions in French.
[Translation]
I would like to thank you for your presentations. I’m not a member of the committee, but I’m replacing Senator Hartling. I apologize to my colleagues because I may have to ask questions that have already been addressed as part of your study.
You spoke about issues related to prisoners’ health. My question is very specific. Can you tell us about patients with HIV? In prison settings, there are issues, as elsewhere in our society, regarding confidentiality, discrimination and protection for people living with HIV. Do you have any information you could share with me on this subject? This is my first question for you.
[English]
Ms. Latimer: What I hear is that prisoners who have HIV do not want other prisoners to know. It puts them at risk. So for them to be getting appropriate treatment, it has to be done in a very confidential manner. Any kind of contagious, blood-borne disease can spread very quickly in prisons, so it’s very important that there be adequate and confidential ways of treating people with HIV infection.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: You don’t have specific information on the concerns of people living with HIV in prison settings. I’m obviously no expert, but I often hear about issues related to HIV carriers in particular. What are the administrations doing to support these patients?
[English]
Ms. Latimer: I’m not the best person to speak to it in the federal system. I did have dealings with someone in the provincial system who remained in administrative segregation through most of his sentence in order to protect him from what he perceived to be likely danger from other prisoners. I think if the knowledge that someone is an HIV carrier gets out, it creates real problems in terms of their integration into the general population. I can look into it and see if I can find more information if you’re interested.
The Chair: Thank you. If you could send that to the committee clerk, that would be helpful.
Senator Pate: Supplementary to the issue of HIV, Ms. Majury — and Ms. Latimer may want to speak to this as well — is the death of a woman named Pamela Payette at Grand Valley Institution. One of the issues raised was that she was HIV positive and staff failed to intervene because of fear or lack of education. Even the breathing apparatus available to perform CPR was not utilized.
In that process, one of the discussions was whether section 29 could have been used to transfer someone like Ms. Payette or others with HIV.
We’ve seen people with dementia and all kinds of long-term health issues, and there is the question of whether they could pose a risk to the public at that stage. Have you seen the use of section 29 in that fashion? Would you have any recommendations for the committee about that and how Bill C-83 may further restrict the application of a section of the law that hasn’t actually been used much?
Ms. Latimer: I think there is a real failure to recognize the inability to treat people with ailments in the prison effectively. I think any strategy that helps to get them out or get them into a circumstance where their health is being adequately addressed is extremely important. At a certain point, being a patient trumps being a prisoner, and we need to take that into account. Because they can designate just about anything in a prison, it would be quite possible for them to designate certain hospices or a variety of other places where people suffering from certain conditions could be dealt with outside of the necessary security requirements of a full-blown prison, and if we can use section 29, great, we should do it.
Senator Pate: My understanding is you wouldn’t actually require even a designation of a place as a penitentiary. Sections 29, 81 and 84 could be used for people serving a sentence as well as those being paroled to be in community-based settings as the law currently stands, not as being proposed in Bill C-83.
Ms. Latimer: That’s my understanding, and I don’t understand the reluctance to use section 29 more. It may be that the receiving institutions aren’t pleased about it.
An alternative might be to have something in a community that is designated a penitentiary but doesn’t look anything like a penitentiary. If that would facilitate the transfers, that’s something else to be considered.
Ms. Majury: I would add that section 29 is seriously underutilized and is something that we should be paying a lot of attention to. The AIDS situation is a great example of where putting somebody out into the community would be extremely helpful. It is the same with so many of the people with different mental health issues. They should be out in the community, not in a prison setting.
Again, to hear instead that we’re putting them in segregation — segregation is the default for anything that they can’t cope with — instead of back into the community where all sorts of people are trained, skilled and committed to working with mental health issues and AIDS issues, it’s so backwards to what would be effective, reasonable and useful.
I wouldn’t be in favour of designating any facility in a community under a prison label just for fear of what apparatus might accompany that designation, whether intentional or not.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I have one last little question that isn’t related to health. In general, do you have any suggestions for ensuring better respect for the rights of marginalized and vulnerable individuals and groups, particularly those of the LGBTQ community in prisons? These people often face discrimination both inside and outside prisons. I’m thinking of transgender people, members of the LGBTQ community in general, but particularly transgender people in prisons.
[English]
Ms. Majury: Yes, those are huge issues, and there are all of the social discriminations that occur in the community and are exacerbated in the prison setting, both within the populations and from staff.
The transgender issue presents extremely complicated and very difficult questions in terms of our prison settings. Our prisons are based on a very stark, clear gender binary, and “transgender” opens up that category in complicated ways. We need to be sure that we are protecting the rights and safety of transgender people in this context, as well as women prisoners in the settings in women’s prisons. So it is an issue that needs a lot of difficult thought and work. In some visionary world in the future, we hopefully won’t be in these rigid gender categories that we live in now, but that is the reality of what we live in at the moment given the premise of our bifurcated prison system. So it’s complicated.
The Chair: Both of you have alluded to suggesting that this committee maintain an ongoing interest in the plight of prisoners. It sounds to me like you’re talking about oversight, but I’m wondering if you have a specific recommendation to make to the committee.
Ms. Majury: That’s a great question. To be honest with you, I haven’t thought about a specific recommendation. I would like to think about it and come back.
But to the extent that you are willing and able to maintain jurisdiction and ongoing investigation into the situation in prisons, follow-up is so important. As you know, these issues are all behind closed doors. Unless we are bringing lights on what’s going on in the prisons, we lose the ability to make things better, change things and be creative in thinking about going forward. But I would be happy to think about it and your own structure, which I don’t know, about what might work.
Ms. Latimer: From my perspective, any external eye on the prisons is extremely important. Senators have a very unique ability in the legislation to go and enter prisons. I would highly recommend that you do it without a lot of advance warning. You go in and you talk to the inmate committee. You go and talk to the people in the structured intervention units, and you basically talk to any prisoners who would like to talk to you. I think that would be extremely helpful in terms of keeping an eye, even a deterrent effect. If people know that you’re going to come by, I think you will see a different set of procedures.
Senator Pate: One of the recommendations from one of the parliamentary committees is that a parliamentary committee or, in this case, a Senate committee, or this Senate committee, conduct a review every five years of how policy and legislation are actually being enacted. As you’re considering the options to recommend, if that’s one that you think might be useful, it would be helpful to hear your perspectives on that.
Ms. Latimer: From my perspective, there is an unbelievable gap between what’s on the paper and written in the policies and what’s actually taking place in the institutions. You’re expecting correctional officers to know all of the laws, regulations and policy procedures, and they don’t. So they’re not following them.
The rule of law does not run through the institutions. So some sort of oversight that looks to see how things are actually being applied at the institutional level would be extremely useful. I think that would be very beneficial.
Ms. Majury: I would agree with that, although I really do hope we can be more creative about coming up with other alternatives than trying to monitor and oversee a system that is broken.
The Chair: Thank you.
For the record, in response to Senator Cormier’s question around HIV, I want to note that the committee did receive a submission from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network on June 22, 2017. So we have that as part of our official record.
Thank you both for being with us today to share your testimony and respond to our questions.
In our second panel, we are looking at the reintegration and rehabilitation of federally sentenced persons, and we are going to hear about one program. Shoshana Pollack, Coordinator of the Walls to Bridges Program, was scheduled to be a witness on this panel, but she unfortunately is unwell and had to cancel. With us today, we have Peggy Shaughnessy, Founder, WhitePath Consulting, and developer of RedPath Programs.
Ms. Shaughnessy, you have the floor.
Peggy Shaughnessy, Founder, WhitePath Consulting: Thank you. I want to thank each and every one of you for allowing me to come in front of this committee today and to all our ancestors for allowing us to come together and to recognize the territory of the Algonquin that we rest our feet upon.
If the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples within the justice system is ever to be better understood and realistically addressed, a more expansive and imaginative agenda is required. The huge, dusty pile of reports on the over-representation of Aboriginal offenders and the persistent rise in these numbers speaks to the lack of any concrete and effective policy action to address the root causes of incarceration.
A focus on numbers enables the marking of the Aboriginal body as having a social problem that needs to be solved. Promoting community justice models to address these rates obscures the onus incumbent upon the state to address the relationship between historical injustices and contemporary incarceration. This obscurity highlights the realization that even as the state attempts to address the state’s responsibility in law through this sentencing provision, the state remains committed to an understanding of the over-representation rates.
This result reveals the limitation and the ability of the criminal justice process to attend to the forms of marginalization and structural violence. It also highlights the underlying problems of ways that appeal to tradition and/or culturally appropriate sanctions which result in nothing more than the creation of certain practices dictated by the state.
For over a decade, RedPath Healing and Wellness programs have been used within the judicial system across Canada. They were originally piloted in the then Kingston Penitentiary and Warkworth Institution. This paper will give a brief overview of the development of the RedPath model and give some examples of the outcomes of its success.
In September of 2003, I was hired by Correctional Service Canada’s Aboriginal Initiatives Department, Ontario Region, in response to a number of chronic problems occurring within the maximum federal institutions in Ontario. There had been complaints from correctional staff on the behaviours of Aboriginal offenders and grievances from the correctional staff voicing concerns about the behaviour of the Aboriginal offenders. Aboriginal offenders complained about the inability to access elders and culturally specific programming.
As a result of this reciprocal discordance, it was decided that an assessment on the needs of Aboriginal offenders should be conducted to determine what could be done to resolve some of these problems. Until this present study, there has never been an in-depth investigation in the Ontario federal correctional system specifically directed at Aboriginal offenders’ needs. This study provided an overview of the needs expressed by Aboriginal offenders who participated in the study. It was hoped that through this examination of Aboriginal-specific needs that the problems unique to this group would be more effectively addressed.
I do not have the time today to go into the outcomes of this assessment, but what is important is that section 76 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act states that:
The Service shall provide a range of programs designed to address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the community.
This is then furthered in section 80, which refers to Aboriginal offenders and states that:
Without limiting the generality of section 76, the Service shall provide programs designed particularly to address the needs of aboriginal offenders.
The correctional staff was complaining about the behaviour of the Aboriginal offenders, yet the Aboriginal offenders were trying to exercise their rights as outlined within the CCRA.
What was found within this needs assessment was that the Aboriginal population in Ontario was at about 17 per cent of the general population and that the highest percentage of those offenders were part of the Sixties Scoop. We are all aware of the effects of residential school, and we were not surprised by what we found within the criminal records of those Aboriginal offenders who partook in this study. They were not only survivors of the Sixties Scoop era but also carried the phantom trauma of five generations of residential schools.
So why is this important? It’s important because the last time I asked for the statistics from the Ontario region of Correctional Service Canada, which was in 2018, they reported that the Aboriginal offender population in the federal system in Ontario represents 35 per cent of the population.
In 2017, Statistics Canada reported that the Indigenous population in Canada continues to rapidly outpace the growth of the rest of the country. The data paints a picture of a young and growing Indigenous population.
Between 2006 and 2016, the Indigenous population has grown by 425 per cent. That means more opportunities for removal. As Minister Philpott stated, the over-representation of Indigenous children and youth in government care is a humanitarian crisis.
For those of us who have invested our time advocating for Aboriginal rights, it is evident to us that the government does not want to invest in the rehabilitation of Indigenous populations. As a result of this inaction, a high percentage of these youths will find themselves behind prison walls at some point in their lives.
The Government of Canada has known about the injustice against Indigenous people and their community at every step of the game. What has now become known as the Millennium Scoop is showing that more Aboriginal children are in custody than at the height of the residential school era.
As Cindy Blackstock emphasizes, “Ottawa is not doing everything they can to make sure that this isn’t another generation of First Nations kids that don’t have to recover from their childhood.”
So, then, when do the rights of Indigenous people within the justice system begin? When are the laws that have been put in place, directed especially at Aboriginal people, going to be enforced?
I have a program, RedPath, that has been proven a best practice, yet the Government of Canada, along with the Province of Ontario, continues to resist, and not embrace something that has proven successful.
Rupert Ross was a Crown attorney for 26 years before retiring in 2011. Most of his prosecution duties involved flying into remote First Nations in northwestern Ontario. In 2014, he wrote a book called Indigenous Healing: Exploring Traditional Paths, in which he devoted an entire chapter to what he explained as “. . . Peggy’s groundbreaking work in understanding and then responding to that violence within Indigenous communities.”
The Honourable Madam Justice Deborah Austin reports “that there is a disproportionate representation of Aboriginal offenders in the Criminal Courts in Sarnia. . . . based not only upon the content of the program, but also upon the feedback and results from participants, Probation Officers and others working with offenders, I am confident that the RedPath Program is an outstanding and important program serving Aboriginal persons involved in the Court system. In a very real and positive way, the program helps participants to think differently about themselves and to make positive changes in their lives. I have been most impressed with the enthusiasm of participants and the positive reports from Probation Officers, the Gladue Court Worker, lawyers and others who work with offenders who attend this program.”
A facilitator from British Columbia working with Aboriginal women coming out of prison stated that:
Every group has been different and amazing as the women are empowered to have a voice, create safety and connection within the group, making choices of what they would like to experience culturally. RedPath has brought big insight to understanding why they feel the way they do. I have seen a few women heal very deep pain just from understanding the impact of residential schools and the effects it has had on their lives. The self-awareness it has brought to each and every one who has participated is wonderful and fulfilling to watch. I am honoured and grateful to be part of their journey.
This same facilitator also runs programs for a male halfway house. One particular offender had a BCR, a band council resolution, where you can be banned from your community for so long. After the RedPath Program, he had the skills to sit in front of his chief and council, and because he had learned to use his voice instead of his fist, he was welcomed back into the community and now is working as a mentor with youth in his community.
There are other success stories that have been sent to me by facilitators running the RedPath Programs, and I’ll quickly share three that she sent me.
The Chair: Excuse me, Ms. Shaughnessy. I know in the invitation you asked to speak for five to seven minutes. We’re now at 10 minutes, and we do have a copy of your brief.
Ms. Shaughnessy: I’ll just end it.
The Chair: There may be an opportunity to share the stories through questions and responses.
Ms. Shaughnessy: The RedPath Program is a great tool that this facilitator ends with. It is up to the individual to participate and integrate the knowledge into their lives, and these are just some of the stories from her first time co-facilitating.
I will end with this. It is not hard to predict the future in regard to Aboriginal people within the justice system. We have been talking about the overrepresentation since 1967 in the Laing report, Indians and the Law. Unless we stop and realize that if programs such as RedPath are not put in place to get to underlying problems of these Aboriginal offenders, then we better start the construction of new facilities now.
So let’s take a step back and think for a moment. What will our grandchildren, yours and mine, talk about when they meet at these same tables that we sit behind now? Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you.
We have senators who are ready to ask questions.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Ms. Shaughnessy, for being here today and sharing details about the RedPath Program and the success it is having.
This committee had the opportunity to visit prisons across the country, and it was the first time that I had ever been in a prison. When the door slams behind you the first time, it’s sort of a jarring experience. It’s also a jarring experience when you realize that this is where people are 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is their home.
We’re studying the human rights of prisoners, and it’s important that just because you’re locked up, you still have the human rights that are available to all Canadians. Unfortunately, we didn’t see that in some cases.
I was struck wherever I went by the high percentage of Indigenous population within the prison system. I’m from Nova Scotia. It started in my home province, where the percentage was much higher than it should have been. But you really noticed it when we went to the Western provinces, the Prairie provinces. The percentage was much higher than it should have been.
We did see some Indigenous healing centres, and people who were there spoke very highly of them. You spoke about your RedPath Program and how it is helping people who had significant trauma within their lives.
As a former elementary school teacher, I’m wondering if it can even start earlier than that. What are we doing or not doing to young Indigenous children so that they have the same opportunities that are available to many other Canadians and so that they don’t end up in the judicial system?
Ms. Shaughnessy: I think when you’ve been surrounded with a repetition of the colonial violence that continues through colonialism, which is a historical thing, the continuation of it through policy, until we can get to the underlying issues that affect one’s life as a result of what they’re carrying, each person is different. That’s what we at RedPath try to do. We have programs for youth, and we go to First Nation communities and try to work with the youth. But the problem also goes to the fact that there’s never a purse string attached to anything related to Indigenous people. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about getting to the youth or getting whatever. It always comes down to nothing can be a continuous thing because there’s never money tied to any of the things that they say they’re going to do for Indigenous populations.
Senator Cordy: It seems that we’ve been talking about this for quite a long time, and yet maybe you have better numbers. What I’m reading and seeing is that there doesn’t seem to be significant change. Are we not putting in the right amount of money? Are we putting it in the wrong places? Something has to change, because this is Canada and this shouldn’t be happening.
Ms. Shaughnessy: It might require a whole day to have further discussions, but if you look at sections 81 or 84 of the CCRA, coming out into a community, no money is put forth like there is for a halfway house, for instance. So if I went into a discussion with corrections that I want to bring somebody out on a section 84 or an 81, assume that because of the word “culture,” it’s similar to a religion, and religion doesn’t ask for money. So for the Indigenous person, they’re coming out because somehow they got tied to culture, and there’s no money attached to it because there’s no rehabilitation. That’s where the problem is. It’s how one can talk about culture and get away without having to pay for it.
Senator Boyer: Thank you, Ms. Shaughnessy, for coming today and giving us that great overview.
I have a question about the program itself. How do people access the RedPath Program and what is involved to do that? How do you actually help participants to think differently about themselves and to make the positive changes you have described?
Ms. Shaughnessy: Currently we train people within communities as facilitators. The community itself puts forth proposals, usually to wherever the departments are located in Canada, in order to get the money for us to come and train. Often they might be an ADAP worker or a child worker within their communities. They run the program within their community.
We have several different programs. Let’s say for addictions or living without violence, they go through a “process,” we call it, which is the RedPath model. We work with them to get to the underlying issue. Just like any other program, it’s sessions in a module, but what we’re looking at is not the behaviour but the underlying issues as to why the behaviour occurred.
Often people will go through the program more than once because they’re starting to uncover certain things about why they’re behaving the way they are. There go through many different things in order to, at the end, come out realizing why they were doing that behaviour in the first place. That’s the biggest thing: “My grandma didn’t hate me because it was the residential school,” or whatever it may be. All your life you’re thinking it’s something that it wasn’t. Often we’ll see participants not only go through it more than once, but because of their own journey, they want to then become facilitators within the program.
One of the biggest problems we’re having is that the government won’t pay. Let’s say there’s a place in Sarnia, The Inn Of The Good Shepherd, but the government won’t pay. The county comes along and sees how great the participants are who come from the courts and do not go to prison, so the county then puts money in, but the province or the federal government won’t. So our office is always helping them try to get money from somewhere. It continues. Presently we have 50 communities that want to be trained in RedPath, but they’re having difficulty at the federal government level getting it passed so they can be trained.
Senator Boyer: Have you had evaluations done on the program?
Ms. Shaughnessy: Recently, Lakehead University did an evaluation. I can send you that. RedPath is one of them. Actually, RedPath is the only program out of their whole report that Suboxone isn’t tied to it.
Senator Boyer: Has the recidivism rate changed at all?
Ms. Shaughnessy: It has never really been evaluated to that depth. I could say yes, but that part hasn’t been evaluated. The program itself has been, though.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Ms. Shaughnessy, for attending and for the work you’ve been doing for many years in this area.
You mentioned section 76 in your presentation, the requirement for programming to be provided, and section 80. When we talk about Indigenous women in particular, who are the fastest-growing portion of the prison population, as you’re no doubt aware, section 77 also puts an added obligation on corrections to provide services specific to Indigenous women to assist with their community release. You mentioned that you’ve been advised by corrections that no money is available for section 81 and section 84 arrangements, yet when the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was being brought into place, the clear legislative intent of those provisions was to actually decrease the number of Indigenous people in prison. That sounds to me like a policy decision to not allow individuals like yourself and groups like yours to provide these sorts of services.
Have you looked at what Bill C-83, the new bill, will do in terms of actually further limiting the application of sections 81 and 84. Are you able to comment on what the implications of that are for you ever getting resources from corrections through those provisions if the bill is passed?
Ms. Shaughnessy: I can’t really answer to section 83, but it makes me smile when I hear you talk about sections 81 to 84, even 80, because the program within corrections itself is usually the elder coming in to do a sweat. Why is that called a program?
You look at Gladue, which was brought in under section 718.2(e) to reduce the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people. We all know that number has increased.
We also wonder why section 718.2(e) was even put into the sentencing section of the Criminal Code, because an Indigenous offender has to plead guilty prior to even going into a Gladue. So he or she will always be a statistic under “overrepresentation” just by pleading guilty.
With respect to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people, the laws that have been put in place for Aboriginal people have only helped to increase that.
I don’t know enough about section 83 to comment here today, but I will be looking into it more deeply.
I brought out the second section 84 in Ontario, and it had been in place for a lot of years prior to that. I tried to get money for an elder for a fast and all that kind of stuff, and I was always told, “Well, we don’t have enough money.” There has never been money tied to policy in relation to Indigenous people, I would argue.
So is it going to restrict us? Not much more than it already has before.
Senator Pate: Just to be clear, the new legislation, Bill C-83, will actually make it harder for individuals like you to access resources. If I’m hearing accurately, it’s already difficult, in fact impossible, to access those services even when the law right now allows you to.
Ms. Shaughnessy: Yes.
Senator Pate: It’s the policies that have prevented you. Now, if the law changes, it will even prevent you legally from doing it. Am I understanding you correctly?
Ms. Shaughnessy: Correct.
Senator Pate: In terms of opportunities that would be available, Senator Cordy asked you about the need for early intervention and Senator Boyer talked about the work you’ve been doing.
We know what the cost is to keep people in prison, but what is the relative cost for you to provide optimum support if you had all of the resources? To assist elders and adequately compensate them for their time and that sort of thing, what would be the relative cost per person of the types of interventions you provide?
My apologies for interrupting you before you start. I don’t mean to diminish this to a fiscal thing. Certainly you have covered the human and social costs very well. What would be the fiscal difference?
Ms. Shaughnessy: We just did training in Sioux Lookout for five First Nation communities. We’re working with an obstetrician who is going to do a study for two years, looking at women who are pregnant and on Suboxone. They are going to try to use RedPath to get to the underlying problems to get the women off Suboxone.
I know about training. Just getting those women who were being trained out of their communities to Sioux Lookout, their cost for food and all of those types of things, for five communities, that training cost them about $80,000. Now, that didn’t come to me, but that was just for the training itself. They already have that physician. They’re going back into their community.
The proposals in front of Health Canada and Indigenous Services right now that communities have put in, that is $50,000 per community, where we would train them to be facilitators. My staff would, via camera, go in and run two programs for them throughout the year to give them the support they need for that one year.
Senator Pate: You may know the figures already, but the most recent figures from the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that for those who are in segregation, women in particular, so Indigenous women who are overrepresented, as we know from the numbers that the Correctional Investigator and CSC have gathered, it costs somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000 per woman per year to keep them in custody. What kinds of services and how many people could you provide support to for that kind of resource?
Ms. Shaughnessy: I would probably run out of numbers for what you could do, for what’s being done inside a prison. We all know it would be much less than that.
I don’t want to just say off the top of my head, but I know that that’s an awful lot of money for those women who aren’t going to come out rehabilitated.
We talked before that if you brought a section 81 or 84, you’re probably looking at $100,000 for all the care needed for that person, but again, that’s just a ballpark figure.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you, Ms. Shaughnessy, for being here and for your presentation. I have a quick question with respect to something that jumped out at me when you referred to advocates of Aboriginal peoples and their rights, and in this particular case, prisoners’ rights, that governments don’t want to invest in the rehabilitation of Indigenous peoples.
In your opinion and regardless of political stripe and colour in terms of governments, why do you think that is?
Ms. Shaughnessy: I have to be polite here.
Senator Brazeau: Please don’t.
Ms. Shaughnessy: Well, you go right back to the Indian Act and the construct of what one was called, an “Indian,” to policies that now we have a race within the law. The law was supposed to be colourless to begin with, and now we’re putting “Aboriginal” right in the law, the only race that has ever been identified under the law, which was the Indian Act, and continues to be identified under the law through every other part forward.
So you tell me why that is. Why do Aboriginal people continue to be mentioned within the law, when you look at a lot of lawyers around this table, proportionality and all of those things?
If you’re going to put it in the law, then it goes back to the ladies prior to me: Who is the watchdog when you have jurisdictional problems to begin with?
You have somebody in front of the courts in the province of Ontario. The Supreme Court in Gladue and Ipeelee and everything that followed it, how was that applied across the country? If you’re from the Northwest Territories, the Baffin region or anywhere, it takes on a different meaning. But it’s in the law. So if it’s in the law and it’s coming down to the Supreme Court, the federal government, then who is the watchdog? It goes back to that. Who is the watchdog that makes sure?
And where does the law stop? If the court says in Gladue that there have to be alternatives to programming, is it up to a parole officer to continue the law? Who decides what is an alternative to what’s put down by the court?
So where does the law start? Who watches it, especially with Indigenous populations, which is the federal government under section 91(24)? Who is the watchdog? Are you the watchdog? Who is the watchdog when you’re going to mention a race within the law? And the only race that’s mentioned in the law is Indigenous people.
Senator Brazeau: Obviously there are programs out there that are effective; they work.
Ms. Shaughnessy: I have one.
Senator Brazeau: You have success stories. Why is there reluctance on the part of governments to implement these things for the benefit of Aboriginal peoples? Do you believe there’s racism still?
Ms. Shaughnessy: Of course there is.
I will tell you a quick story. I was commissioned by the national headquarters of Canada to write the National Aboriginal High Intensity Family Violence Program in Canada. So I start writing it. First they give me this program. I said, “I can’t just tidy this up. I have to start over.” It’s a 72-day program. There’s a high intensity family violence program for non-Aboriginal offenders, which has a psychologist and a facilitator.
They asked me at the national level, “What will you need for this?” “Well, I’ll need an elder and a facilitator.” “Oh, we can’t afford that.” “What can’t you afford?” A psychologist and an elder, I’m sure there is a bit of pay difference there. I didn’t say that.
So they gathered elders from across Canada. We went to Winnipeg. Joe Couture was alive then, and he was overseeing it. They brought the bundle in and we had three days.
The elders blessed what I did. All of us smoked the pipe. We went our own ways. Corrections goes back to Ottawa and puts their cognitive base skills in it, and that’s the program that’s here today.
We smoked a pipe. The elders okayed what we smoked the pipe for. So that’s where the difference is.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for that. I wish you luck with your candidacy.
Ms. Shaughnessy: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: I’m going to ask my question in French. Thank you very much for your presentation.
[Translation]
You mentioned cultural issues. You talked about funding issues related to the fact that First Nations rights were exclusively associated with a culture. My question has to do with your program. Perhaps it isn’t appropriate because I haven’t had the opportunity to learn more about your program.
We know that the arts and culture are tools, means to build bridges between cultural communities and to promote rehabilitation, prevention and reintegration into all kinds of communities. As part of your program or any other initiative, could you tell us about the role that arts and culture can play in helping us to better understand the issues affecting First Nations in Canada?
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy: Thank you. I’m going to try to say this and hopefully you understand it, because often I think the biggest problem we experience is that we think the cultural component is what is needed, but it’s much deeper than that.
Rupert Ross wrote in a paper that there are two scientists in a meadow. One is a non-Native and the other is an Indigenous scientist. There is a plant in the meadow, and the non-Native needs to take that plant out of the meadow and take it back to the institution so he or she can dissect it and find the names maybe or create the names and look at what that plant is. But the Indigenous scientist sees where that plant is in the meadow, the responsibility of that plant, and the relationship that plant has with everything around it, such as what comes to that plant and what it takes away.
For RedPath, if you look at Indigenous people, they were taken out of the meadow individually and placed in an institution. And they might have been named something different, and their culture eventually eroded. We’re trying to put them back in the meadow so that they know what they bring to the meadow and take from the meadow, what their relationship is to each thing and the responsibility they have in the meadow.
I know that is an analogy, but because of that cultural difference, it’s the easiest way for me to explain. But it isn’t what people understand as culture, per se. I think that is where the confusion starts. Because of the communication and that it’s so hard to explain, you can’t understand it. Do you see what I mean?
So in the long run, we’re trying to get through exercises and storytelling. Everything that you would have in your program, I have in mine also, but we’re going at it from a different angle, just like those two scientists.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: So if I understand correctly, the solution is to help the general public better understand the First Nations approach to culture, but how can we do that?
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy: We just got through the era of apology, I think, and we’re trying to get into an era of reconciliation. So I think it gets to the point of the responsibility each side has.
I’ve given a presentation at every single level of government, such as when Minister Philpott was the head of Health Canada. Minister Bennett applauds all of my work and has tried to get me in many things over the years. It has become so frustrating because they’ll say, “Do you have social workers and psychologists working for you?” And you want to yell and scream.
My last comprehensive exam was on professionalism, trying to figure out why the government thinks all those things are so wonderful, because we’re still in a lot of trouble. I know a lot more about professionalism now. They say, “We’ll put you over here in culture if they need you.” But culture is like religion. There is no money. “We’ll send you there if they ask for you.” So it’s our program over here and this program over there. When do we become qualified? When will they listen? Even when you have something for 12 years that is best practice and judges and everybody wants it, the government doesn’t seem to listen.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Shaughnessy, for being here and sharing with us information about your program. It’s clear from what you’ve shared that you’ve highlighted the need for action and change. That is probably most clearly articulated in your closing remarks, and I’m going to quote you:
So let’s take a step back and think for a moment. What will our grandchildren, yours and mine, talk about when they meet at these same tables that we sit behind now?
That statement in itself has had a profound impact on me and I’m sure on my colleagues. I want to thank you for being here with us today.
In our third panel today, we are going to hear again from two unions that represent persons working in the correctional system. Let me introduce, from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Debi Daviau, President; and Éric Massey, Union Steward and Nurse at Archambault Institution in Quebec. And from the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, Stan Stapleton, National President; and Nancy Peckford, Special Advisor. Welcome.
Ms. Daviau, you have the floor.
Debi Daviau, President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada: Good afternoon. I want to thank the senators for inviting me to speak at this important hearing this afternoon.
I am joined here by Éric Massey, nurse at the Archambault Institution in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines in Quebec. He is available to answer questions and speak to the concerns of his colleagues and our members.
The institute represents approximately 60,000 public sector professionals across the country, most of them employed by the federal government. PIPSC is Canada’s largest union of professionals.
Our members make vital contributions to Canada and Canadians every day. Canadians rely on public services to make their lives safer, healthier and more prosperous. Our members are the ones who provide these services.
I have been invited here today to speak with you about the issues faced by our members who work in federal correctional facilities, and in particular our health care services members, which belong to the SH Group. These are nurses, physicians, pharmacists, psychiatrists, psychologists, occupational therapists, social workers, dentists and other relevant specialists. They provide vital health care services to inmates, or patients as they are to them.
I understand your committee has toured a number of federal institutions. I myself had the chance to tour the Kingston Penitentiary before it closed. I appreciate the opportunity to speak further about my members’ concerns, as their representative.
Working in a federal correctional institution can be both rewarding and challenging. Our members choose this career path because they want to contribute and make a difference. They want to be able to provide vital public services to an under-serviced community.
When I consult with my members working at Correctional Service Canada, I hear that they are often frustrated by the lack of resources available to provide the quality of care they are trained and mandated by their professions to provide. They have shared with me experiences whereby they make recommendations for care and those recommendations are not able to be followed due to operational or security concerns. This would mean that they recommend observation for a patient at risk or self-harm but, due to a lack of resources, the facility is not able to follow that recommendation. They feel, then, that their ability to provide quality care can be compromised, as operational or security concerns supersede other health care considerations, meaning another course of action is taken and their professional recommendations are not followed. This is both deeply troubling and demoralizing for the health care providers.
They have also expressed to me that when new programs and policies are developed by Correctional Service Canada, they need to consider the staffing plan to match. New drug reduction programs, mental health programs or changes to segregation are good, forward-looking policies to improve conditions for inmates, but without adequate human resources, they risk being less effective or successful.
In addition, the working conditions in federal institutions can be very difficult. Staff can be exposed to a great deal of violence, both as victims and as witnesses. They are serving a difficult population with complex physical and mental health needs and, as I just pointed out, they often lack the resources to help them. Issues like poor air quality can be taxing on one’s everyday work experience, as headaches and nosebleeds are commonplace.
For many, seemingly small things can make a big difference for quality of life at work. For instance, I have heard from my members that in some correctional facilities our health care providers do not have access to break rooms or a staff lunchroom to even heat up their lunch, or enough toilet paper or office supplies to do their job.
When leaving your workstation to get to your car, it can take over 15 minutes through security. Leaving work for a lunch break is not an option. They point out they don’t even have a place to retreat to or a space to discuss patient care issues with other colleagues. These are all things their counterparts working in hospitals or other health facilities would have as a given.
Simply put, staffing is an issue. We know there are recruitment and retention issues for the federal government when it comes to health care providers in the correctional system. Attracting nurses and retaining them in particular is a challenge.
As I have outlined already, the working conditions are challenging. In recognition of this, we have negotiated that employees receive a Correctional Service Specific Duty Allowance, the CSSDA. This is an annual allowance paid to employees working in correctional facilities with inmates. Nevertheless, we are seeing situations where the total pay package for nurses and other professionals is not keeping pace with those of provincial health authorities.
The salaries are often at par with provincial providers, so when a qualified nurse or psychologist is choosing between working in a provincial hospital or a federal institution, they are not seeing a difference in pay. This, as one can only imagine, makes recruitment and retention an issue, given the conditions employees face working in a corrections facility. It’s not always all about the money, but it is undeniably a determining factor when one is making a career choice.
We’re pleased to see that CSC recognizes that more nursing and health care staff are required to provide quality care. However, we are deeply concerned that if recruitment and retention issues are not addressed, we will sadly not be in a better position to address the health care needs of our federal inmates.
In closing, to ensure quality health care for federal inmates, issues of retention and recruitment of health care professionals at CSC must be taken very seriously. Special attention must be given to their working conditions. In addition, when programs and new policies are put in place, CSC must consider that adequate health care staff are available to make them a success.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. Mr. Massey and I are both here and available to answer questions, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Massey’s shift ended at midnight last night in his institution, and he had to drive here this morning to be available for your questions. But you’ll really enjoy speaking to a health care provider first-hand. He is a union steward, but first and foremost, he’s a nurse working in a corrections facility with first-hand experience of the things that we want to talk about today. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Stapleton, you have the floor.
Stan Stapleton, National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees: Thank you so much for your interest today and for making space for the Union of Safety and Justice Employees to shed light on the arena of federal corrections. I started in 1980 in Drumheller, still employed with Corrections Canada and my substantive position is in Edmonton Maximum Security Institution.
As you likely know, USJE represents over 7,000 CSC employees, both in the institution and in the community. Consequently, we bring a holistic perspective to the federal correctional system given the crucial role we play at every stage of the process: from intake and assessment to the development of correctional plans, the deployment of offenders into programs, education or training opportunities, the actual delivery of those programs, and to the preparations and planning for offenders’ release into the community.
To this end, USJE includes all of Canada’s federal parole officers, approximately 1,500, as well as managers of assessment and intervention, program officers, Aboriginal liaison officers, Aboriginal community development officers, food services employees, maintenance workers, and many more.
At the community level, CSC employees that USJE represents are directly involved in monitoring and supporting the reintegration of offenders into the community.
There is no doubt that most CSC employees take their roles and responsibilities within federal corrections very seriously. However, what sets USJE apart is that the vast majority of employees USJE represents are involved in supporting the ongoing rehabilitation of federal offenders from the minute they enter the system so that they can be reintegrated safely back into the community.
Just last week, USJE convened a groundbreaking round table with Minister Goodale and 12 parole officers from across the country. I saw this round table as critically important because USJE believes that our federal corrections system is extremely stressed, nearing a breaking point. Why is that?
Well, one of the main reasons is due to the cuts made under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan in 2012. There was a streamlining process within corrections that have had serious and cascading effects ever since. These consequences directly affect the quality of the work correctional employees undertake every day in support of the rehabilitation of federal offenders.
Three issues dominated last week’s round table with Minister Goodale. We have a ratio problem in our institutions and in the community. Parole officers have too many offenders on their caseload and do not have sufficient time or resources to give so that offenders, especially high-needs ones, get the attention they deserve. DRAP increased ratios in federal prisons from 1 to 25 at minimum security, 1 to 28 at medium and 1 to 30 at maximum security.
Further, there is chronic understaffing of federal parole officers and Aboriginal liaison officers throughout the country. In order to save money year after year, CSC does not always fully staff many positions, including parole officers. What does this mean? It means that when a parole officer is on annual leave, stress leave, urgent family or medical leave, there is rarely anyone dedicated to the management of the offenders this individual supervises. Parole officers have to ask for personal favours from their colleagues to cover their caseloads while they’re gone.
At Kent Institution in B.C. this past summer, this approach meant that there were nearly 90 offenders that had not been assigned a parole officer for a period of time. This presents insurmountable challenges when it comes to managing risk that offenders pose and maximizing rehabilitative opportunities while they are in custody.
In the community, we are seeing significantly higher numbers of offenders being released with parole conditions but with no adjustment to the workload formula of parole officers to ensure they have the sufficient time to meet with offenders. Just over 6 per cent of CSC’s overall budget is spent in the community.
Further access to supervised housing and halfway houses is totally insufficient, especially when it comes to community correctional centres, which houses the highest-risk and highest-need offenders. This means that offenders are often warehoused in institutions as they wait for a bed in the community. Community supports, including for things as basic as elders or substance abuse supports, are not funded by CSC and many offenders fall through the cracks.
Further, due to significant changes to key rehabilitation programs within corrections, which are now the Integrated Correctional Program Model and the Aboriginal Integrated Correctional Program Model, many program officers feel that the effectiveness of these programs has been compromised, and offenders are not getting what they need to address the reasons that led them to commit a federal crime in the first place.
The mental and physical health of the CSC employees that we represent is declining, which directly affects the quality of the interaction between offenders and staff. Stress leave is pervasive among our members due to the fact that caseloads are too high and the resources to manage complex offenders with multiple needs simply are not there.
Finally, I would say that there is a culture of fear within CSC. CSC employees that USJE represent see a management style throughout the country that is more interested in numbers than it is in hearing and acting on information from the front-line experiences of the employees who are directly or indirectly supporting the rehabilitation of offenders.
Whether the issue is harassment between and among employees, or harassment between employees and offenders, harassment has exploded, and CSC is still struggling to find external supports to turn the tide.
While we applaud the appointment of a new commissioner, someone we believe brings a notably different style and approach, the fear among CSC employees of pushing back against CSC management is so deeply entrenched, be it the warden, region headquarters or national headquarters, it is difficult to know how to overcome it.
We see these as some of the main issues as dominating the conditions under which we work, which in turn directly affects the quality of work we do with offenders.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: We have senators with questions for you.
Senator Boyer: Éric, in your opinion, what is the most pressing issue that you are dealing with as a shop steward and as a nurse delivering health care? And has the Phoenix system affected you at all?
Éric Massey, PIPSC Steward, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada: I’ll answer in French, if it’s no problem for you.
[Translation]
Yes, indeed, it has a significant impact for me as a steward, as well as an employee of CSC, because we have different shifts; we receive evening, night, day and weekend premiums. With the Phoenix pay system, these bonuses are not currently calculated correctly; sometimes we aren’t paid at all. The same is true for the workload allocation for the offender clientele; not all bonuses are necessarily paid.
When time off is requested or my help is required as a shop steward to make representations or meet with members, if the employer lacks staff, I cannot be released so that I can do my union duty. I get along very well with the employer, but the problem is the lack of staff. There is a shortage of labour to provide care, to follow up and to ensure that when offenders leave our institution, they will have their medication and their appointments will be arranged.
If I have time off from my position to work on union files, there is one less person. People all have different roles on the team, so the employer is sometimes caught in the crossfire. When you can plan everything, it’s easier, but there are always emergencies that can happen. You can’t guess what’s going to happen in a day. You can go to work at 8 a.m. and then leave at midnight because there has been a hostage-taking or hanging, for instance.
Through this, people face violence, stressors and, often, they need a shop steward to understand what is happening and help them verbalize what they are experiencing. Even if there is a special team within the institution, it is not always available immediately. So I will meet with them and refer them to the right people. This is a common problem. The employer is doing everything it can to support us, but it is a difficult situation, both for time off for union duties and for my colleagues who are frustrated because I am not at my post.
For example, last night, I was alone at the institution to respond to certain emergencies; I had an appointment today to meet with you and answer your questions, but the employer couldn’t let me go because of a lack of staff. So I took the responsibility to stay. I am strong enough to do it, mentally and physically, but it could lead to problems if the situation persists.
The employer does everything possible to ensure that we can enjoy a family-work balance, which is not always easy. In addition to dealing with violence because of our type of work, we also have pay problems. Stress is not always easy to manage. Some members do not necessarily have good mental strength, good balance, and it is even more difficult for them. I try to help them find solutions. We are all working in the same direction. I tell them that the government is trying to help us, that it is not responsible for the Phoenix situation and that we must try to get through this ordeal. Sometimes the answers I give them are not the ones they want to hear. However, there is nothing we can do about it; it’s part of the job. We are facing problems right now, and we are trying to get through it in as healthy a way as possible.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Thank you, Mr. Massey.
Senator Pate: Thank you all for attending and for the work you do on a daily basis in the prisons throughout the country and in providing support to those who do work within the prisons. I have questions for both Mr. Massey and Mr. Stapleton.
Shall I ask them all at once, Madam Chair?
The Chair: One at a time, please. I think it’s easier, because sometimes people lose track.
Senator Pate: Sure. Thank you.
I’ll start with Mr. Massey.
[Translation]
I apologize; I’m not bilingual yet, but I’m working on it.
[English]
One of the things that we’ve observed going into the prisons is that not all of the prisons have 24-hour health care. In fact, the situation you’re in of working until midnight is unusual in most prisons. Do you have the numbers of how many institutions currently provide 24-hour health care? That’s one.
Certainly, there’s more information coming out now about other issues. I was just reading this morning about some studies on women prisoners and the fact that 65 per cent of women in prison now are likely suffering from brain injuries. Often it correlates with the extent of abuse that many of them have experienced. What kind of training and in-servicing is being provided on an ongoing basis to address those sorts of issues? Of course, the manner in which brain injury can manifest itself is all kinds of things that may get labelled as other problems, like behavioural problems, mental health issues and the like. This is really one question, but it doesn’t sound like one question.
Linked to that, how often are you seeing section 29 transfers being used for health reasons, where individuals could be better served by resources in the community?
I also have a question about Bill C-83.
The Chair: We will let Mr. Massey respond.
[Translation]
Mr. Massey: To answer your first question, not all institutions are accessible 24 hours a day, indeed. In Quebec, only two institutions are, those with regional treatment centres. So those who need care and are hospitalized within our walls must have access to care at all times.
Otherwise, other federal institutions close at 11 p.m. This requires a rotation. When there is a shortage of staff, in order to provide this service 24 hours a day, employees have no choice but to stay for the next shift to fill sick leave or annual leave. The employer shall, as far as possible, try to approve employees’ requests for leave. It’s an agreement within the team: We try to support each other so that everyone isn’t penalized. It’s important to be able to drop out from time to time, given the stress we face. This is for the 24-hour service.
With regard to Bill C-83 and transfers to avoid detention within the community, I can’t answer the question, because I don’t know the current situation. It hasn’t been done yet in Quebec. The government wants to implement a structured living environment for incarcerated offenders, which will also require 24-hour supervision. These people have mental health issues. Some people may also develop a mental health issue or a disorder, which requires care, attention and training. Not all employees are able to carry out this type of work. Additional resources will certainly give us a strong boost. We can train the appropriate people to provide the proper guidance and care to the right people, to ensure that everything runs smoothly in federal correctional facilities.
Regarding women, I don’t have the expertise to answer the question. I know that training courses are available to people who have brain injuries and to people who develop a mental, cognitive or physical health issue. I don’t know whether Debi can share her knowledge concerning women.
[English]
Ms. Daviau: Not really, but I could probably gather the information and share it with the committee afterwards. Certainly whatever training they receive in institutions that are for women is the same training they receive in institutions for men. So I don’t think there’s specialized training for brain injuries per se, other than the generalized training that’s given dealing with mental health and neurological issues. I don’t think there’s any specialized training, but I will definitely gather up some of the data for your consideration.
[Translation]
Mr. Massey: I want to add that a women’s institution is located in Joliette. It’s a good institution, from what I’ve heard. Some of my colleagues work there, in addition to a shop steward whom I know well. They tell me that things are going very well. The conditions are good and the employees are available for the women. If a health issue arises, the women are treated very quickly. The training provided is quite adequate. I haven’t heard any complaints or negative comments or seen any criticism in the media regarding this institution to date. Things seem to be going well, and I hope that this will continue.
[English]
Senator Pate: This is more of a commentary. I’m glad to hear it sounds like things are going better at Joliette, because it’s the site where with Ashley Smith was forcibly injected on the basis of incorrect information that was provided to and by health care professionals. It’s great if that’s been improved and hasn’t been replicated.
I would encourage it if we could get the information you’re talking about, because of the increasing research that’s being done. We heard some information and testimony already around brain injury and the different ways in which that manifests and isn’t necessarily known to folks working in corrections. I think that would be extremely helpful.
Ms. Daviau: I think where we may get the best sense of that is in speaking to our psychiatrist and psychologist members. They’re probably the ones that are more engaged.
We also represent MDs, but not very many are actually federal public servants. Éric would not necessarily be involved in diagnosis of those complex mental health issues because of his role, but I think we could probably draw on the expertise of other members for that.
Senator Pate: That’s great. If in fact it’s the type of training that’s provided for staff around the availability of section 29 transfers, because it sounds as though not as much information is being provided.
As well, where do you see the resources going under Bill C-83? We’ve heard evidence that the bulk of resources will be going to security. So when nurses, for instance, go to see patients in segregation, there will have to be two security officers which, as was suggested in the previous panel this morning, may actually interfere with the integrity of free and informed treatment.
Ms. Daviau: Can I sound in on that? A long-standing issue, particularly when they started to build new prisons with smaller footprints for prison cells, has been the availability of space for proper security and proper medical care. So if you’re having a medical emergency that requires more than one health care provider and a guard or more than one guard, there’s actually not enough space in many of the cells to provide that, which further exacerbates the problem. You don’t have enough physical space to provide care in the cells.
Senator Pate: That prompts me to feel the need to respond further. One of the challenges being raised by medical professionals is whether there can be true freedom to consent to medical treatment in the presence of security officers is whether, if that’s required, it’s in fact free and informed and valid consent.
Ms. Daviau: On the flip side of that, our members would be deeply concerned about having to give patient care in a dangerous environment without that protection.
Senator Pate: In which case, then, a section 29 transfer might be preferable to an armed intervention.
Ms. Daviau: Perhaps. I actually have no experience with the section 29s, but I will do some digging on your behalf.
Senator Pate: That’s great. That’s instructive in and of itself I think, Madam Chair.
Mr. Stapleton, thanks for all the work. We’ve known each other a long time, going back to Drumheller as well.
One of the things you mentioned was the explosion of harassment allegations and reporting. One suggestion has been made that we’re just hearing about them now, that it’s not necessarily that there’s a particular explosion of incidents; it’s more that we’re hearing more about them. Previously it was very difficult for people to come forward, still difficult as you’ve mentioned for people to come forward but even more so now.
We’ve heard about the work that parole officers have been doing — again, using provisions like sections 29, 81 and 84 — to try and engage people with health issues or mental health issues as well as terminal medical conditions. I’m curious as to how much support is provided if you’re looking at those kinds of options, as well as for things like parole by exception in situations where someone has significant health issues or other reasons where maybe they would be better placed. We’ve seen in some institutions people with dementia and seriously ill individuals still in custody and not being even examined for parole by exception. Could you comment on those?
Mr. Stapleton: One of the difficulties with parole officers is because different add-ons have been put on their plate, some are quite strange, such as having to find bus transportation for offenders in the Prairies, in particular, where there is very little bus traffic. This takes up their time. The opportunity for them to spend the time with the offenders, to really understand their needs, is diminishing, and that’s a real problem. They have very little opportunity anymore to have those face-to-face meetings with the offenders. Depending on the facility they’re working in, at a maximum it becomes more and more difficult to have that face time.
Another problem that fits into the mental health piece is the lack of psychologists. When I started, there were a number of psychologists at the institutions, and many of the offenders would have regular appointments with psychologists. Now it seems there’s more crisis management.
When we get into Bill C-83, if most of the resources are going to correctional officers — and I agree that we will need to have more correctional officers — we also need to have more program officers, more parole officers and more health care professionals to engage these men and women.
I have four years’ worth of accumulated time in working in administrative segregation, solitary confinement, and I saw the damage that did. I worked in men’s facilities. When those men did not even have the opportunity to engage in a normal situation, which sometimes was with a psychologist, sometimes in a program or sometimes with a parole officer, the damage done — and I’m not a professional — is likely irreparable. So when we let these men and women back out into society, we haven’t really fixed anything. In fact, in some cases we probably made things worse.
Senator Pate: Do you feel you have full leeway to use the provisions like sections 81 and 84 to get Indigenous people and other prisoners into the community where those supports may be available or may be better placed?
Also, Bill C-83 will actually create more of what we’ve seen across the country, which is more fully segregated institutions or institutions with segregated areas — intensive supervision units, as they’ll be called now — and increasing clusters of those units within an institution. It strikes me that the reductions in psychology and programming that you’ve talked about and the increased resourcing for security staff is likely not going to reduce the isolation but exacerbate it. Do you think I’m unfairly characterizing it?
Mr. Stapleton: It certainly could exacerbate it. It’s too early to tell. I think Bill C-83 is going in the right direction, but I think it’s a small step. As a government and as a society, we have a long way to go.
With regard to sections 81 and 84 and moving offenders down, because of the pressures to move the offenders out, sometimes we’re moving offenders to these facilities who probably shouldn’t go there, and that disrupts the facilities themselves. That is because, again, the ability to properly assess the offenders is limited given that the resources for parole officers in particular are not there.
Senator Pate: So you’re referring to healing lodges. But what about individualized assessments? I’m not aware that there are that many of them, despite the legislative intent of those provisions.
Nancy Peckford, Special Advisor, Union of Safety and Justice Employees: I don’t think we have an enabling environment within CSC that always allows for that just because of the degree to which parole officers and others are stretched both institutionally and in the community. You have to do a fairly active consultation in the community to identify some of those resources.
Last June, USJE convened an Indigenous round table with Indigenous staff and CSC employees represented by USJE who serve Indigenous offenders. There was a plethora of concern expressed about the fact that in the community CSC is not spending the money to properly facilitate access for Indigenous offenders to programs and supports from which offenders would benefit and are desperate for.
I think it would be smart of this committee to look at the budget allocations within CSC. What we hear is that when parole officers in the community are consulted about how to facilitate re-entry and make sure offenders have what they need, CSC is spending almost zero. So the conditions under which you could do some of those individualized assessments I don’t think is there. I think there has to be a significant rebalancing of the resourcing.
Obviously, given this current government — and I’m an occasional adviser to USJE, so I don’t always have the full picture — our understanding, and certainly given what we were told last week by parole officers, is that the pressures in the community are also very real now. There hasn’t been a meaningful recalibration that enables community parole officers to act in the best interests of those being released and reintegrated.
When you hear parole officers having to beg, borrow and steal from community partners to get someone into an employment program or to facilitate access to an elder, something very basic, to get things like ID, which I’m sure you’re very familiar with, obviously those are not conditions under which the offender or, I think, employees of CSC should be operating.
There is the 6 per cent stat on where resources are expended, particularly human resources and partnerships in the community, which I understand were far more robust at a certain point than they are now. We had an Indigenous community parole officer last week with Minister Goodale. She expressed her significant distress that she is disempowered in the community to make sure that high-needs offenders and Indigenous offenders are able to get what they need and that CSC has internalized this mantra of “We got it; we are the answer in the community and we’ve got the program.” So anything else is kind of like an extra. Whatever a community parole officer can do to tap into provincial, municipal or band-funded programs, that’s the add-on. I think many community and institutional parole officers would say that thinking is upside down.
So I think there are really hard limits to facilitating better access and getting offenders out into appropriate programming, especially in the community where they will be in the long term. I think there are hard limits to doing that well and doing it in numbers that I think this committee and others would expect.
Ms. Daviau: May I add one point, or maybe not add but echo, because we do represent the psychologists. We’ve heard from psychologists right across the country that they simply don’t have enough resources to do the job. In fact, when I visited Kingston Penitentiary, it was on exactly that issue, that the treatment centre was being broken up, and now there were very serious offenders who would no longer have access to that kind of specialized care. This did get worse during deficit reduction, for sure, because they put out some kind of false ratios that we didn’t think even met our standard professional codes.
But it’s always been a problem, and it’s always been a problem because recruitment and retention in Correctional Service Canada has always been a problem. That’s always been a problem because of the very difficult environment we’re asking people to work in without supplementary benefit. So it really becomes a labour of love if you choose to work in a prison versus some other type of facility.
Certainly the government’s own statistics will show that at times they were unable to actually recruit enough psychologists and nurse professionals in corrections and had to look internationally for those resources. We’ve had to say, “Fine, you can’t get blood from a stone.” There are just not enough people who are willing to make these types of sacrifices to work in federal institutions.
Ms. Peckford: I might add in terms of the conversation with Minister Goodale last week, we had another community parole officer from Newfoundland who said historically there was a full-time psychologist in St. John’s available to the offenders in CCC. It’s now a half-time position. It’s almost impossible to fill a half-time psychology position and there is no rhyme or reason. Why are we resourcing a half-time psychologist when it’s almost impossible to retain a full-time psychologist?
What we understand is CSC, within months of its fiscal year budget, is in deficit, and they’re constantly looking for savings. They can’t save on correctional officers and they have to pay overtime; we know that. So everywhere else in the system is pressured to give back.
If you go region by region or across the country, you will have RHQ tell you we’re looking to bring back into our budgets hundreds of thousands of dollars. The way they do that is by not filling positions, not hiring full time, not investing in the community. So I think you have a chronic human resourcing issue that no one has fully articulated, and I would invite you to talk to CSC about how they manage their resourcing.
What we heard in terms of Kent Institution from another parole officer with Minister Goodale last week is that 90 offenders are unassigned over a period of time in the summer. That’s very stressful on parole officers, but you can imagine the impact for offenders who are coming in, getting correctional planning and being assessed? What are the longer-term implications of that scenario?
We had a community parole officer, one of our Indigenous parole officers, says that what happens at the beginning has this cascading effect for what happens at the end. The reverberations never stop because the kind of risk assessment and programming that gets identified in the beginning is very hard to reverse. So when they come out into the community, if there hasn’t been a holistic or fulsome assessment of what the offender needs, the parole officer doesn’t have the benefit of what got missed. So I think all the way down the line it would be very useful for this committee to look at the implications of chronic understaffing.
The Chair: Thank you for that. We’ll have an opportunity to follow up with CSC around these questions. We’re going to move on now.
Senator Brazeau: Good afternoon to all of you.
[Translation]
My question is for Mr. Massey and is in line with Senator Boyer’s question. You talked about the issues and challenges. In your opinion, what should be done to improve working conditions? Is it just a money issue, or should we be looking at something else?
Mr. Massey: In terms of working conditions, the most complex aspect is working with an offender. There’s also a money issue, because in the provincial system, people earn more, but have enormous responsibilities. When the doctors are absent, we are their eyes and ears. We do what they can’t do when they aren’t there. Some procedures are very specific, when it comes to conducting an assessment or administering certain treatments, such as providing medication and certain prescriptions. There are a range of possibilities.
However, we can’t talk only about money, because there’s also a lack of resources. A person can earn $130,000 or $150,000 a year. That said, without a sufficient number of employees, the person won’t work at the Correctional Service of Canada, since the working conditions are more difficult than the conditions in hospitals on the outside.
I’m fortunate to be in a department called “post-suspension.” These offenders went back to the community after being released and reoffended or failed to comply with their conditions of release, so they’re returning to prison. They sometimes return with prescribed medication. Many of them are drug addicts. However, we can’t give them the medication because we can’t justify it. We need to look for alternatives. We’re then confronted with verbal and sometimes even physical violence. The offenders who return expect to receive the same medication, but we can’t always fulfill their wishes. Certain exception criteria must be met. If we don’t have the necessary resources, we can’t provide help. Sometimes, one or two people must be scheduled to meet with the offenders. A person who must process 10 incoming inmates alone won’t be able to meet with each inmate. The inmates are often on medication, and they want to receive their medication as soon as they arrive.
We also treat a number of mental health cases and people who take antidepressants. If we don’t meet with them or if we delay, these people will become disorderly. This leads to other issues, such as violence toward self or fellow inmates, correctional officers, parole officers or other members of the institution, such as the stewards who work in the food sector. The issue can then get worse.
Basically, if we don’t have the necessary resources or enough employees, issues will arise. The salary doesn’t matter. The issues are also related to the lack of staff, which is a very significant factor.
Senator Brazeau: We often talk about the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in our penitentiaries. I know that you don’t make diagnosis, so my question may be more for the other members of the group. Do you think that people who have mental health issues are also overrepresented in our correctional institutions?
Mr. Massey: There’s no overrepresentation, but many people have mental health issues in correctional institutions. We’re talking about people who suffer from depression and addiction and who took drugs on the outside that caused psychosis. We can’t say that these people are under-represented. On the contrary, their numbers are increasing.
We need the right workers, people and resources to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Once we can better coach and guide them, with the proper resources, we can expect positive results. Otherwise, the issues will remain. When these people are released, if there aren’t enough resources and follow-ups, they’ll lose their way. The parole officer isn’t aware of all the issues in correctional institutions, and communication is important. Without a key person to provide the information, the situation escalates, the inmates return, and the system gets worse.
Senator Brazeau: Do you think that the system lacks sufficient funding? My question is for all the witnesses.
[English]
The Chair: Senator, excuse me. I think Ms. Peckford wants to respond to your former question.
Ms. Peckford: Last January, Member of Parliament Pam Damoff came out to the institution to have a tour, obviously given the very difficult circumstances at Edmonton Institution in terms of harassment and criminal misconduct, as you know. What was interesting is she actually met with representatives of the mental health team.
One of their most significant frustrations — and it impacts all employees that work within federal institutions — is there’s such limited capacity to diagnose fetal alcohol syndrome, which is pervasive, unfortunately, among some of the offenders. Their frustration is that they often can’t get a diagnosis that allows them to further support offenders and potentially get them out of those institutions entirely.
Some of the mental health team explained why it’s so hard to get fetal alcohol syndrome diagnosed. It’s a very complex process. It wouldn’t be easy anywhere. But their frustrations, again on the mental health side in terms of being able to properly diagnose or support the resources to ensure a diagnosis when it’s obvious that something else is happening, are very real. I don’t know if we have a solution to that, but I did want to flag it because it’s something that comes up time and time again, especially among higher-needs offenders.
Mr. Stapleton: Just one thing with regard to men and women coming in with mental health problems. Yes, we have many come in, but we also, I believe, have many that develop problems while they’re inside because of the environment they’re in, and in particular at maximum security prisons because it’s so violent there. They might come in not too bad, but they certainly develop mental health problems while they’re inside.
Ms. Daviau: To be perfectly honest, some of our members, the employees at Correctional Service Canada, develop mental health issues while they’re there, whether it’s from overexposure to trauma or from violence that they’re either involved in or they witness.
There’s even a higher level of conflict between employees within the corrections environment that has devastated some of my members along the way as employees at corrections. I won’t get into some of these horror stories, but I’ve heard some pretty big horror stories that would lead me to say that I would never work in a prison.
I’m sure glad there are people like Éric who are so very committed to the work they do, because if not for that, things would be going a lot worse. You have public servants not knowing whether they’re going to be paid, working in the most difficult of environments, without any at-risk pay, if you will, or anything significant. I’m always incredibly impressed with the devotion and dedication these people have to get the job done over their whole careers, despite how truly difficult it is for them. So we really do appreciate the chance to tell their story. I know that they will be so happy to see some changes in the system that help them to do their jobs better.
Senator Brazeau: One quick final question. I guess the foundational question for me is this: If resources were put into the system, obviously it would work better and people would be less stressed. The entire system would be better. But the way I see it, obviously I think that many people — again, regardless of political stripe — in government, people who are elected, do not invest in this because we have sort of given up on these people, or they deserve to be there, or they have mental health challenges, or they’re Aboriginal — whatever the reason.
Wouldn’t you agree that maybe it’s because constituents of those people being elected are not knocking on their doors and demanding for money to be put into the system so that the focus is more on rehabilitation rather than punitive? That’s the way I see it. I see the solutions, but just a lack of will, isn’t it?
Ms. Daviau: Yes, probably a lack of political will, to be sure. Let’s face it; the decision makers answer to their constituents, and if their constituents aren’t making a fuss, then it’s an easy problem to ignore. But there have been some really high-profile cases that can’t be ignored. Hopefully that inspires them to do something about it. We don’t expect that changes happen overnight or that we fix all the problems in one fell swoop, but it’s the willingness to actually start to go down that road to making those changes.
If I could make one final pitch: All of those types of changes, whether they be policy changes or investment of resources, they need to be having conversations with their workers and with us, the people who represent or have oversight over those workers. They ought not to make those decisions in isolation of the facts and evidence coming from the ground. That’s, as I say, why we’re really pleased to be here. But as decisions get made around this, I think probably a lot more discussion ought to occur, and there’s a lot more information and evidence we can bring to the table on this discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Massey: The government certainly tends to believe that further investments in correctional services constitute spending and not revenue. However, we mustn’t forget that offenders steal and take drugs, for example, and that in order to take drugs, they need to find money. Therefore, they burglarize houses and kill people. This leads to many issues.
If we could improve the system in order to properly guide and support offenders, it would ultimately benefit the government. Spending on the outside would also decrease, since the offenders’ reintegration would be more successful. For example, we could ensure that the offenders don’t transmit HIV or hepatitis C to someone on the outside, since they’ll be cured. At the same time, we would ensure that the public is protected. This is priceless and essential.
Some offenders are incurable, if I may put it that way. However, other offenders, if they receive the proper support, manage to find work on the outside and successfully reintegrate into society. Unfortunately, all too often, we hear offenders say that they’re happy to be on the outside, but that their conditions are too limited. We try to help them get through this step.
Some offenders have never returned to the inside, because they’ve managed to find a job and they’re even in a relationship. They now have an income and make money for the government instead of making the government spend money. It’s a win-win investment, not only for public protection, but also to show government employees that they’re doing a good job. The government provides resources so that they can take better action to prevent people from returning to the inside, which involves additional spending.
I don’t see this as unnecessary spending. On the contrary, it’s an investment to improve our system and protect society.
[English]
The Chair: We have a few minutes left and one more senator to ask a question, Senator Cormier.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for Mr. Massey and perhaps for Ms. Daviau. It concerns your work, more specifically, and the support that you receive when you carry out your work. You talked a great deal about the lack of staff, and I know many people who work in the public health care system. There are staff shortages everywhere. However, do you have good training support and everything you need to make proper progress in your work?
There’s a lack of funding to hire additional staff, but do you have everything that you need to do your job? I’m thinking in particular of all the training that concerns the recognition of LGBTQ issues and other social issues. Is the training available?
Mr. Massey: At this time, our employer is very forward-thinking and provides all the training that we need to improve our work. As a result of the lack of resources and funding, the training is sometimes a bit delayed, as we wait for funding for more training on certain issues or to address multiculturalism issues on the inside.
The training is often adequate. However, given the lack of funding, we can’t be trained properly. We’re in this situation, but the employer is doing everything that it can to help us.
The social workers whom we represent lack training. They’re the people who support the offenders on the outside. They need training, but they’re on their own when it comes to obtaining and funding the training. For some employees, there are advantages, while for other employees, there are disadvantages, since they often don’t have the necessary funding to take the training that they need.
[English]
Ms. Daviau: What we’re hearing, by and large, is in many other federal organizations training pretty much disappeared for 10 years. It’s only now that we’re re-engaging in any kind of training. We’re at a training deficit across the public service.
When it comes to specialized departmental training, no problem. Our members are professionals, first of all, so they’re already certified with professional bodies; they’ve received university degrees and accreditations. Certainly, they are very well trained even from day one when they start on the job. Then they learn how it is to be that kind of professional within Correctional Service Canada. But they’re telling us that the resourcing, even the ratios that have been established, don’t allow them to meet their professional codes. So a nurse has a professional code, as does a doctor and a psychiatrist and psychologist, and in order to meet the requirements of the professional standards for that profession, you need a certain amount of resources. So if you’ve got one nurse instead of three, it makes it that much more difficult to meet the requirements of the profession.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Mr. Stapleton, you said that access to supportive housing and halfway houses is totally insufficient, especially when it comes to community correctional centres that house the highest-risk and highest-need offenders.
Is this situation similar across the country? Are there any differences from region to region? If so, how does the lack of access affect some regions compared to others? For example, I’m thinking of the more rural regions.
[English]
Mr. Stapleton: This is definitely a problem across the country, although cities would have more availability. However, prior to DRAP, there was funding, for example, of voluntary housing. So an offender getting out with nowhere to go could ask Correctional Service Canada to fund three months, maybe as long as six months, in a halfway house. So they had a place to go that was structured and they had to follow all the rules.
When that falls away, we are now in a position where offenders are being released to homeless shelters without ID and with maybe three days of medication. When you are released with three days of medication and you have no ID, you can’t get medication. So what will you do? You’ll go back to where you began.
The one thing I think we have to remember, and all citizens have to remember, is that almost every single one of these offenders, no matter what their crime, is going to get released to the street. So if we do not improve their circumstances inside and give them the tools to be successful outside, they’re simply going to come back in.
Ms. Peckford: Our Indigenous round table canvassed those serving Indigenous populations, and they overwhelmingly were Aboriginal liaison officers, Indigenous parole officers and other CSC employees within and outside of institutions. We would be happy to make the results of that available because I think that would also paint a community picture that you’re familiar with. Some of that might be enforced.
Overwhelmingly, as two House of Commons committees have delineated, an Indigenous deputy commissioner is something we have said we would wholeheartedly support to ensure that proper attention is paid to Indigenous offenders in all of their diversity. In addition to what Stan said, the chronic lack of backfilling and full staffing of positions within CSC that are rehabilitative is the massive weak link within the organization right now in terms of facilitating good and proper care of offenders.
I would strongly encourage you to ask CSC about their math, because I think that’s a big issue and totally under-explored. It’s not just a human resourcing issue when it has such severe implications on the time and attention offenders receive.
Ms. Daviau: I know we’re at the end of our time, but you brought up the medication. They release these offenders with a couple days’ worth of medication. The sad part about that is it takes so long to get to diagnosis and actually get to the treatment stage that some offenders are being released before their medication comes in. And guess what happens to that medication after they are released? It goes in the garbage, and some of these medications are highly expensive.
Éric brought a case to me where medication was required, four treatments in a year of over $100,000 per treatment, for a pretty common condition, epilepsy. That’s half a million dollars that literally went into the garbage because that offender was released before the treatment could begin. Those transitional measures need to be addressed in terms of release or transition to other parts of the system.
I can’t leave without thanking, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, the interpreters, because my friend Éric here speaks really fast. So thank you to the interpretation staff and thank you, of course, to the clerks, who are our members, and the honourable senators, for your time today. We really appreciate being heard on this issue.
The Chair: Let me say thank you to all of you. I know senators have other questions. I’m sorry, but I do have to shut this down because we have video conferencing in about 10 minutes.
Ms. Daviau: Call us any time.
The Chair: We appreciate all that you have shared. We’ve heard what you have shared, and we thank you for your testimony today.
In our final panel today, we are continuing to look at the reintegration and rehabilitation of federally sentenced persons, and we are going to hear about two other programs. In the room we should have representatives of Think 2wice. Their flight was delayed, so they will join us shortly.
By video conference, we have representatives of the Breakaway program. So we welcome Rick Sauvé, Facilitator; Leon Boswell, Participant; and Philip Atkins, Participant.
Thank you all for being here.
Rick Sauvé, Facilitator, Breakaway: Thank you. I’m here today with two of my colleagues. We all appreciate being invited to address the Senate.
I was thinking about this last night, and I think it might be appropriate that it takes place here. I think back over the years. Collins Bay has had a rich history of being engaged in trying to bring about positive change. We had the special people’s Olympiad for a number of years. Senator Hastings used to frequently come into the Lifers Group, and we had the sentencing commission. So I’m really pleased and proud of my two colleagues that have joined to take part in this presentation.
They have gone through the Breakaway group, but they’re also going to take part in training for peer mentors to be a support to other prisoners who want to engage in the Breakaway program. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Boswell or Mr. Atkins, do either one of you want to make opening comments? If not, the senators have questions that we’re prepared to ask. It’s up to you.
Philip Atkins, Participant, Breakaway: I’m okay. I’m just happy to be here today.
The Chair: We’ll start with questions; is that okay?
Mr. Atkins: That’s okay.
Senator Boyer: Thank you all for being here. We met a few months ago when I was able to go to Collins Bay with the group. One of the things that really struck me when we were there was the designation of STG and how it affects your life on the inside.
The Chair: Excuse me, senator, but for those who may be watching from home, please explain what STG is.
Senator Boyer: STG stands for Security Threat Group. What I was taken with was how it affected you when you went in with the label of STG and how it continues to affect you on the inside. Can you describe the effects on a daily basis of being labelled Security Threat Group, and what it is?
Mr. Atkins: STG started in about 2004. I don’t know who came up with it, but people from low-income housing were being labelled with this thing above our heads. So right away they tell you that you’re part of a gang with no acknowledgment of anything.
It starts like that, and it affects us down here where we’re limited to the things that we can do compared to the other inmates here, because they do not have the stigma of STG over their head. We’re limited to where we can move in the building, jobs, transfers. It affects a lot of things. Basically, they left us with no way to figure out ourselves when it comes to the STG and get it lifted off of us.
Senator Boyer: May I ask how you got it in the first place?
Mr. Atkins: It’s the system. The system just labelled you.
Leon Boswell, Participant, Breakaway: The police put it on our file, and once we come to CSC and they check our files, they see it and attach it to our CSC file. It comes from the police gangs and guns unit.
Mr. Atkins: It’s carding within institutions, in the institution, basically.
Senator Boyer: Is it difficult to get the label removed?
Mr. Atkins: Yes. There are a whole bunch of loops and lies you have to go through to hear that it’s not up to the jail system; it’s up to RCMP, OPP or TPS. Supposedly it’s all up to them to get it lifted.
Senator Boyer: How does that label actually affect your ability to connect with your family and your friends on the outside of prison?
Mr. Boswell: Say you have a couple brothers and they believe they might be part of this STG, for you to communicate with them, you would still be labelled as active or involved, when really it’s your brother and someone you love dearly and you have more dealings than STG dealing with families or loved ones.
Senator Boyer: So it restricts your ability to connect with them; is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Boswell: I wouldn’t say it restricts your ability, but it could be used against you to keep that STG designation there.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a quick supplemental to that. When you say your brothers, are you talking blood relatives, or would it extend even beyond your family to friends that may be labelled?
Mr. Boswell: Yes, it could extend to your friends as well. But yes, I was speaking about my relatives.
Senator Pate: Thank you for joining us. I thank you for welcoming some of us into your group when we visited, and I look forward to visiting you again in the future.
You mentioned that the STG designation came about 15 or more years ago, but my understanding is people like Mr. Sauvé, who has been out since well before that STG appeared, sometimes can attract the labels and that sometimes CSC applies the label.
Am I understanding that correctly? If so, how does that happen? Is it, then, still the police who have to agree to have the STG label taken off? How does it apply if someone isn’t actually involved in gang activity? Who has the onus of showing that you’re no longer part of the Security Threat Group that they’ve designated you to be part of?
Mr. Sauvé: I can address that. I recently had an assessment for a decision. So that’s a document. I applied to have some changes to my parole status. I’m in year 41 of a life sentence. The last 24-plus years I’ve been on full parole. So I was paroled long before that terminology came into effect.
In December, November, I received an assessment for a decision. On that file it designates me as STG, Security Threat Group. So part of the challenge for people who have that designation is I didn’t even realize that was going to be attached to my file. Now, it says further down that I’m inactive, but that label is still on there. In the work that I do, coming back in, I don’t know how that impacts me. But for prisoners who are trying to move forward, if they have that designation, I don’t know of any real process to have that designation removed.
That’s how we came up with the Breakaway group. For prisoners who want to make positive changes in their lives and try and move away from that culture, this was a way we could do it.
For many prisoners, there is no set policy or program to have that designation removed. As I just found out, as I say, being on parole in my twenty-fifth year, that designation is on my file now and becomes a permanent part of my file.
Senator Pate: Am I correct, then, that they’re talking about your behaviour over 40 years ago and that they’ve allocated the designation from some time when you were in your adolescence, maybe late teens, early 20s?
Mr. Sauvé: Yes. I used to be in a motorcycle club. I was sentenced to prison. I left the club. In fact, the club is no longer in existence. What is strange, I can remember having this conversation with my classification officer several years ago. I said that I was only in a motorcycle club for a short period of time but I’m being kept in it for the rest of my life.
Senator Pate: Has your parole officer indicated how you can have that designation removed?
Mr. Sauvé: No. I haven’t had that conversation. I only see my parole officer once every three months. It came as a surprise when I read it. On the other hand, it was a good lesson for me, because now when I talk to prisoners who are going through the group, I can sympathize with the struggles and the frustration of trying to have that designation removed.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Mr. Atkins and Mr. Boswell, I want to hear more about the program. From the sounds of it, it may be the only program provided that assists people in trying to work towards being designated as not affiliated with gangs, although it sounds like it doesn’t result in the STG label being removed. How did you first hear about the program, and what kinds of things happen in the program?
Then, Mr. Sauvé, maybe we can come back to you and talk about how you developed the program and how you got access to come back into the institution to provide it.
Sorry, I’m known for asking lots of questions in one.
Mr. Boswell: It’s all right.
I met Rick in 2014. We were aware of the program being brought to Warkworth Institution, and we did a survey to see if guys were interested in partaking in the program. I was interviewed by Rick, and he let me know that he has a program that’s aim was to help guys with the Security Threat Group status. He’s trying to find ways to show us that there life after prison, that we can change for the better while we’re in here and continue to be that person on the outside.
Being there with Rick feels good because we recognize that he has similar experiences as us when it comes to sentencing and being involved in activities prior to our incarceration. He understands and knows how to speak to us without us feeling judged or labelled. We can feel normal and open and have honest conversations on areas in our life we can improve on.
It helps other guys, because some guys are still young and still have a chip on their shoulder. When they see someone like us who is older and has been there and is trying to change for the better, it helps them change too, because they don’t have to hide who they really are anymore. We can have some constructive dialogue and talk about the areas we should address to be better people.
Senator Pate: Mr. Atkins, how did you find out about the program, and what makes you want to participate in it?
Mr. Atkins: I heard about the program a couple of years ago, the same as Mr. Boswell. Rick came to interview and told us about what it was, that we would maybe get into some deep feelings, maybe not. Deep feelings come out, you express yourself, who you were, where you came from and what you’re going through. Really it’s to better yourself, to get back out into the streets, because there is no other way to get the STG lifted unless you show the system what you really want.
Senator Pate: Do you know of people who have had the STG lifted?
Mr. Atkins: Yes. Tell them how many years it took you to do that.
Mr. Boswell: I was labelled in 2006, and I’ve been actively trying to find a way to get this status removed. In the beginning, there wasn’t any kind of real process, so we were just waiting for direction.
In 2015, I made another attempt at trying to get the status removed. I was told that I have to submit a letter stating why I’m no longer a part of it and why I would like it removed, so I did that. Then I was told about the Breakaway program and that it could help assist in that effort. I took the program, and the STG status was still there.
A couple of months ago, with the assistance of my case management team, I resubmitted this letter. It went to the SIO department. They called the Toronto police for confirmation on their current information and where I stood in their opinion on being STG. The police told them that I was no longer that kind of concern, in their opinion, so my status went from active to inactive.
But I’m pretty sure if you look at my file you’ll still see STG. It will just say “inactive.” I appreciate the fact that it was switched to inactive, but I think it can still have some kind of a prejudicial effect.
Senator Pate: So you can’t get it removed, just to be inactive in the same way that Mr. Sauvé’s has been designated as inactive 40 years later.
Mr. Boswell: I guess so. I mean, I know it’s a difficult process and it’s there for good reason. We just need to find a better way to —
Mr. Atkins: Use it properly.
Mr. Boswell: — to get it off as easy as it can go on. If they’re going to put it there, we believe there should at least be a program in place that CSC recognizes and a procedure that is the norm so the process can be fair. Because you feel like you’re living second rate with that label. It’s like you’re less than everybody else. We can be here for the same crimes, but because I’m from metro housing, I’m labelled with the STG status, and it limits me to the level of pay, the type of privileged jobs, the positions of trust until that designation is removed.
You don’t have a chance to prove that you’re capable of conducting yourself in the manner appropriate for the job until it’s removed. You don’t have a chance to prove it first. It has to be removed first.
Senator Pate: I’ll finish and let my colleagues have a chance as well.
You talked about it as a class issue in terms of living in public housing. It also seems to me — and I would be interested in comments from all three of you — that it’s a race issue. As we travelled across the country, it seems to be applied more to Indigenous and Black men than any other group that we’ve observed. I would be interested in your comments about that.
Also, Mr. Sauvé, it’s the only program that is for individuals. Case management teams are apparently telling men that it’s the only program available to help them get rid of the Security Threat Group designation, yet it doesn’t get rid of it. How difficult is it for you to come in and provide the program? How available is it? How did you manage to get this program into the institution in the first place? And is it something that is offered on an ongoing basis? How often is it offered? How many people can access it? Is it well resourced? All of those questions come to mind.
Mr. Sauvé: I used to work for an organization called LifeLine, and the LifeLine Program was cancelled. It was for St. Leonard’s Society of Windsor, Hamilton, Peterborough and Ottawa. They recognized the benefits of the Lifeline Program. They said they had more responsibility to know who was coming back into the community and that they went through rehabilitation. They believed that the peer mentoring we provided was one of the best resources for that.
When I was coming back in through PeerLife, there were some young Black prisoners who said, “We know you were in a motorcycle club. How did you break away from that lifestyle? How did you get away from it?” They wanted to become involved in their own rehabilitation. That’s how we came up with the idea of Breakaway.
We had very few resources to do it. In fact, I think I’m the only one that’s doing this in the Ontario region. What I’ve been doing is going into different institutions. I get permission from the warden. The wardens are supportive to allow me to come in to do this. Then I put the word out and guys sign up. It’s a voluntary thing. We’re starting a third group here now. We just started on Monday.
The guys who have gone through the group are the ambassadors for the group. That’s why we came up with the idea. The three of us here talked about setting up peer support because they can influence younger prisoners coming in so they can break away from that lifestyle as well.
It’s hard to get resources to do it. The prisons are spread out across Ontario. There’s a need for it. When we were doing the groups, we had guys coming up and knocking on the door and saying, “Hey, can I get into this group?” There really is nothing in place to assist guys who fall under the STG, the Security Threat Group label.
I learned so much from the guys in the group that they are so genuine and want to change their lives. When I come in here, I see thousands and thousands of hours of wasted opportunities. I see the positive impact that the guys who go through the program have in working with other prisoners, especially the younger prisoners, that they could be a positive influence on that.
I’ve been coming back in for over 20 years, and I’m shocked by how many young people of colour, especially from the GTA area, from low-income housing, end up in prison. I always question them. One of the young guys in the group said he had a hard time getting into school, but at the age of 13 he was able to get a gun. To me, that’s a tragedy.
What we’re hoping is that this will spill back out into the community. That’s the goal. We want to prevent crime. This isn’t just about addressing the after-effects of crime but to try to prevent further crime. And these guys are the ambassadors that encourage other people to take part. They don’t want to see somebody sitting, doing a life sentence who is not doing a life sentence now. They are the role models to try to prevent other tragedies from happening.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for being with us this afternoon, gentlemen. My question is for Mr. Atkins and Mr. Boswell. I want to better understand the impact of that program on your lives.
When you look at where you were at the beginning of the program and where you are today, what is the biggest change that you see in your lives? What impact do you think it will have on your future? What can you tell us about that?
Mr. Boswell: Prior to the program, I was on this mission to better myself, but with the program, you feel like you’re kind of at home because you’re around other people who are from similar backgrounds or neighbourhoods and we all understand each other. It’s easy to be open and honest about the areas of concern that we had in our life and how to talk to each other to address it, and methods we’ve each used in our journey towards the goal to better ourselves.
You feel welcomed in the group. It’s very helpful to accept what you’re being told, the constructive criticism without feeling judged and attacked. When you’re around someone who you feel doesn’t understand you or where you’re from or the reality of your life as opposed to yours, it’s easy to feel defensive and bottled in because you worry about what it might look like to someone who doesn’t understand.
With the group, you have a chance to be yourself, to express yourself in fullness and as honestly as you can, and know the guys are not there to judge you but to help you.
Senator Cormier: Mr. Atkins, do you have something to say?
Mr. Atkins: Yes. I came to jail when I was young. I was like everybody else. I’m sure we all were in a bad spot when we came to jail. Doing the program, it opens your eyes. It let’s you know that it’s not just these four walls that we’re in. It lets you know that there are people who care. Mr. Sauvé comes in. He didn’t have to come in after all these years to do this. But he comes in because we are the forgotten ones and he never forgot about this.
In the same way that he’s older than us, he’s talking and helping us and we just want to do the same thing. We all come from different walks. You can see it with these kids coming in now. There is no program here for them like this. There are programs if you’re on drugs or if you’re an alcoholic or if you assault people. There is no program to tell you to stay away from this or this is not right.
It makes us better. That’s exactly what it does: It makes us better to send us back out onto the streets.
Mr. Boswell: Also, it helps us to realize how our crimes affected ourselves, our families and the community, and why it’s important not to go back down that path or to be responsible for something so tragic again. We’re trying to help guys not go down that road because we know where that road can lead. We are trying to help them not make the same mistakes we made for the future.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
The Chair: Ms. Brown and Mr. Fraser, thank you very much for being with us. We hear that you had a flight delay. I hear there was some weather in the GTA. We’re really pleased that you’re able to be here.
We’ll ask you to make a few opening remarks, and then we’ll open it up for questions here in the room and continue, possibly, to have questions for those with us via video conference. Thank you.
Zya Brown, Founder, Think 2wice: I wrote a very long 12-page report, but I’m going to try to give you something very quick.
The Chair: We received a copy of that. Thank you.
Ms. Brown: I want to thank you all for inviting me to speak as a witness. I just wanted to start with saying that when I enter the federal institutions, I feel like I am going to different plantations. The level of oppression changes based on the management and the warden.
In the system as a whole, it’s oppressive for people of colour, without a doubt. But it changes from institution to institution depending on how that management is run.
One of those examples is what these young men are talking about: the lack of programming that addresses their needs and their issues. I have a saying where I say that oppression creates violence. So if we are locking up young people and we are not giving them the proper supports and programming they need, there’s no point. Young people go into prison gang-involved and leave gang-involved. Some of them go into prison not gang-involved and leave gang-involved. At the end of the day, we need to be touching on some of the issues they’re facing.
STG is one of those issues. They’re labelled from the community, which is oppressive in itself because you’re labelled STG if you come from a neighbourhood that is deemed a gang neighbourhood. That follows you all the way into the criminal justice and penal system; that takes away privileges they have as well.
There is a lack of culturally sensitive programming. There’s a lack of support for volunteers. There are barriers put up for volunteers, especially volunteers of colour, like Think 2wice. They recently changed policy where they’ve now added another element to it where you have to get a credit check and fingerprints on top of a regular CPIC police check. That’s an issue. That, in itself, is a barrier that will affect especially the Black inmates, the Black serving volunteers and the Black-led volunteers.
Some of the pressing issues that I mention in this document is a lack of culturally sensitive programming, the unequal treatment of Black inmates and volunteer groups providing services for Black inmates, the unjust complaints and grievance process, and the lack of diversity and training amongst CSC management and staff.
Just to touch on the complaints and grievance process, sometimes complaints and grievances take two years. Inmates and family members, volunteers and community members are treated differently or punished for the grievances or complaint they put in at times.
The maximum security unit: The Correctional Investigator points out that despite being rated as a population having a lower risk to reoffend and lower need overall, Black inmates are more likely to be placed in maximum security where programming, employment, education, and rehabilitative and social activities are limited.
I can attest to that. When we first started providing services, it was in the maximum security. It was in J unit and, afterwards, Collins Bay. We were there for four years before we expanded out to other institutions. Twenty-two, 23 hours locked up, predominantly Black young males. That’s an issue. No programming, no supports. It is, for a lack of better words, hell for us to get in and provide those services and supports for these young men.
Once again, 22 hours locked, and it is predominantly Black males. I believe that a big part of this has to do with the lack of diversity and understanding amongst CSC staff.
In my brief, I speak about stereotypes and the lack of programming for STG, which they mentioned; the unequal and unfair treatment of Black inmates who are less likely to get paroled, deemed aggressive and most likely to get a street charge. I’m not going to read all of them. I also mention the barriers for volunteers.
While there has been an increase of Black inmates in federal institutions, we have observed that the staff do not reflect the clients. There is a lack of diversity in CSC institutions amongst guards, program officers, management, counsellors, psychiatrists, case managers and wardens, just to name a few. The staff are primarily White with the exception of one Black staff in some of the sites. There’s also a lack of cultural understanding from the staff concerning Black inmates as a people, so as a race, but also as a person.
There’s also a lack of programming for young people who are coming in. We see the rates have drastically increased of young people who are now incarcerated. As they mentioned, there’s no programming that addresses their needs, not on a racial level, not on a cultural level, a street level, not on a youth level. That’s very concerning. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
We’ll take senators’ questions.
Senator Cormier: I just want to know a bit more about the culturally relevant programming. Could you give us examples of what would be needed when you think about one of the types of programs you talked about?
Ms. Brown: We have a program called the Kings to Kingz Prevention & Intervention Project. That’s where we bring young people 18 and over into the institutions, and we work on leadership and mentorship, building with the young men who are inside. They use their stories, their hardships, their mistakes to reach out to the young people to prevent them from criminal activity and reaching into the same position they’re in. That’s an example.
When I say culturally sensitive, I mean racial, ethnicity, youth culture and the street culture, so just understanding the elements of youth culture today. I think it’s most important that somebody who is running these programs understands their issues and what they’re going through.
Senator Cormier: Is it a matter of training in order for those people to be able to give those programs?
Ms. Brown: I think it’s a matter of both. I think there needs to be training. I think staff needs to be trained in understanding how to deal with their clients, but I also think people with lived experience need to be involved in this process, people who have lived experience and have reflected and changed their life.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for coming. I’m sorry you had the travel troubles, but we are very happy you’re able to join us.
For both Ms. Brown and Mr. Fraser, and also Mr. Atkins, Mr. Boswell and Mr. Sauvé, I don’t mean to sound crass at all when I ask this question. It’s clear that the human and social costs of the interventions you’re providing are significant. I’d like to know how much it costs to actually provide the services you do or, more to the point, what you’re paid, as well as how often you’re able to offer the programs, how many people are able to benefit, and how many people want to take the programs but aren’t able to get access because of insufficient resources, either time or money allocation.
Ms. Brown: For us, we’ve been volunteers since 2005. This is the first year we have received any arts-based funding for a play that we do for Black History Month.
The cost depends on the program. We have about five different programs. We have a spiritual program, a theatre program, and leadership and mentorship program. The cost varies depending on what we’re providing. Basically, we have to factor in how many people we’re bringing inside, and transportation. But we haven’t had any support, definitely not. We haven’t even had support from CSC when it comes to mileage. That’s something we’ve been doing voluntarily.
What was the next question you asked?
Senator Pate: How many people participate? How often you provide the program and are you able to keep up with the demand for the program?
Ms. Brown: The issue for us with Collins Bay is the barriers with the institution. They block us. It’s a fight to get in. We’ll do a theatre production for Black History Month for all the Black inmates, and then to do post-workshops is just a stress. I think the maximum number of young men they allow in is 12 to 15, but it’s not regular because it’s a fight.
With Beaver Creek, one of the programs has eight consistent young people; that’s for a documentary talking about their stories. Regular programming is up to 30. That’s once every two weeks. They’re more supportive at Beaver Creek than Collins Bay.
At Warkworth, Black History Month is the only time they’ve allowed us in. Anything else, they won’t take our calls, and then they’ve blocked us from Black History Month. Last year they didn’t take our calls. So it varies.
I think our biggest issue is the support of the institutions and the backing of CSC. CSC has backed us in one program where they’ve allowed us to do a documentary in one prison, but they don’t back us with the unfair treatment and barriers that we receive anywhere else.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Mr. Sauvé, Mr. Atkins and Mr. Boswell?
Mr. Sauvé: With PeerLife, I provide services at other institutions. We developed this project to address the needs of guys whose crimes were considered part of the gang culture. I also do one-on-ones at Beaver Creek, at minimum. I assist at parole hearings. Because I’m the only one doing this work now for PeerLife and our resources are so limited, like I said earlier, the four different St. Leonard’s Societies have pooled some resources to keep me coming in.
Doing group work allows me to have maximum benefit. I live northwest of Lindsay, Ontario, so it’s a three-and-a-half-hour drive for me to come down here. When I do come down, I try to get into Frontenac — Collins Bay minimum now — and Joyceville minimum to do some one-on-ones there. I’ve done this group work at Warkworth, but there are just no resources for travel and other things. So it’s limited in how many of these groups I can do because, like I say, I’m the only one doing it. We just don’t have the resources to be able to travel back and forth to all the different institutions.
Senator Pate: Do you have a budget for each of the groups you do or anything like that?
Mr. Sauvé: Not really. Some of it comes out of pocket. We take some of the resources from PeerLife. Some of the guys that have gone through the programs, through the Breakaway group, I’ve assisted them at parole hearings. That’s a service we provide. This gives me a good opportunity, because I’ve worked with some of the guys for years and years, and at different institutions. That’s why it’s so beneficial. They may go through numerous parole officers throughout their sentence, but we’ve provided a continuum of service right on into the community.
Senator Pate: Mr. Atkins and Mr. Boswell, if everybody who wanted to participate in Breakaway was able to, what numbers would there be and how often during the week could the program run?
Mr. Atkins: We hear Rick’s name every day when the program is around. I would say, in this institution, last time you wanted 20 guys for the one group, right? Probably well over a hundred guys. It all depends.
Mr. Boswell: It depends on the availability. Right now, the way it works is until we know a group is coming up, we don’t think it’s coming back. And then we see a posting of Breakaway groups, people who want to sign up, and the list is always full. He wouldn’t be able to give it to all the guys that are willing to sign up even if he wanted to, because you can only put so many people in a room at one time, right? The number of men with the designation of STG in the population are outnumbered. There are more guys here than the numbers permitted to the group.
Senator Pate: So once you’re trained as facilitators, would you have enough to be running a group every day in the prison, each of you or jointly?
Mr. Boswell: There are other programs and stuff that go on in the building, so I don’t know if we have the space to do it every day without disrupting the routine somewhat. That’s something I think we can work towards to make it happen, designate a specific area for that purpose, somewhere else in the jail or somewhere where it’s safe.
The Chair: I have a supplemental to that question, Senator Pate.
I think, Mr. Boswell, in talking about the Breakaway group — and it may be the same thing with Think 2wice — you said that these are not CSC-approved programs. Can you elaborate on what that means? If it’s not a CSC-approved program but you still have this high demand for it, what does it mean to not have CSC approval of the program?
Mr. Boswell: It’s a voluntary program. It does help somewhat because it shows your initiative and eagerness and willingness to better yourself, take steps towards change. It does shed that light on your situation, but it doesn’t have to be recognized. You don’t get a certificate with the CSC recognition stamp on it, right? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. They will assess it to whatever level they deem necessary, right?
The Chair: Does it affect parole, though, to have programs that are not CSC approved? Does it have an impact on parole?
Mr. Boswell: I wouldn’t say it affects your parole. It shows you’re trying to address your concerns. But if it was CSC recognized — one of the reasons I say “CSC recognized” is so that it helps towards the removal of the status.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: One of the things you’re talking about is that there are certain programs in your correctional treatment plan, and CSC has expectations of what you do before they will recommend you for parole. If the Parole Board recognized the program, would that make a difference in your mind?
Mr. Boswell: I think it would make a big difference. It would show your commitment to changing your life. It would show that there’s a program that’s culturally relevant and responsive to address our STG status and the fears it might pose to the public. So at least CSC would feel satisfied to some extent that you took a program that addresses those areas, and it helps us, which in turn helps society and the community at large, right? Because if you help us be better people, we can fit back into society as law-abiding citizens and there’s less threat toward the public.
The Chair: Before the second round starts, I have a question for Mr. Fraser.
Mr. Fraser, you’re here with Ms. Brown, so I’m assuming that means you’re part of the Think 2wice program.
Jafari Fraser, Facilitator, Think 2wice: Correct.
The Chair: Can you tell us about your experience with the program and how you see that program in relation to the work that we’ve actually heard these two men talk about?
Mr. Fraser: To begin, I want to greet the chair lady and all the senators in the room right now.
My experience with Think 2wice is that it has been truly a blessing for me to take part in a program like this. I’ve been part of the program for about two years, and prior to that I was open to any stereotype that was given at the time. That means joining gangs. I could have been open to that, too. Selling drugs, I could have been open to that, too. Anything you can name, I could have been open to it, especially because I’m growing up in a community that’s prone to a certain lifestyle that people expect.
However, being in contact and actually working with Zya Brown and the Think 2wice community has opened my eyes. It has opened my eyes a lot, actually, especially when it comes to purpose. I am completely turned off by those things that were listed before, and I’ve actually found my new purpose. I’ve made the decision that I do want to go to school. I made the decision that I actually do want to study law. Right now, my ultimate goal is to actually be a judge in Ontario. I know it takes so many years, but at least I’ve found my purpose.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boyer: I have a question for you, Ms. Brown. I’m wondering if you ever go into the women’s prisons.
Ms. Brown: I’ve never been. I’ve wanted to, but I haven’t as of yet.
Senator Boyer: I’m also wondering if you have expansion plans for the Think 2wice program.
Ms. Brown: Definitely.
Senator Boyer: And what would that entail?
Ms. Brown: We would like to be CSC recognized. Right now, we’re advocating for volunteer programs to have support, especially culturally sensitive programs. That’s where we’re heading with this. We just want to get back in. Collins Bay — as I said, it’s barriers. We need those barriers to stop, and we need that support so we can expand and do more programming.
I’m not sure if we’re coming or going inside. One day, we’re here, and then at the blink of an eye, they can say we can’t go in anymore. We’re still in Beaver Creek. There are so many programs we’re implementing and expanding, but, as I said, we need the support. We need the physical support. We need the financial support as well. We need to know that we have a system that can allow us to continue what we’re doing and maybe be recognized so that we can really get some work done.
Other than that, we have been providing programming in the community for parents. We just started a program for parents of young people who are incarcerated, helping young people and their parents navigate the system. That’s one thing. Then we’ve started a girls program for young females from high-risk neighbourhoods in the community.
Senator Boyer: I wish you the very best.
Ms. Brown: Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: My question is for either Ms. Brown or Mr. Sauvé. In terms of the programs that you’re giving currently, once inmates leave the prison, is there follow-up with them in terms of what they’re doing with their lives, if they’ve re-offended, et cetera? To me, if a program is given and there is follow-up, to have that CSC recognition, if you’re able to demonstrate that your program is working and, let’s say, hypothetically, there’s a low recidivism rate, I think it would put you in a better position. But before that, is there a level of follow-up after somebody gets out of prison?
Ms. Brown: When young people do come out, if they want to continue to be involved in Think 2wice and give back to youth, those are the young people who keep in contact. We don’t have a program for reintegration other than the mentorship program. There are a lot of people who are released and are involved, but there are some we lose.
The problem is we don’t have the funding. If we had the funding, we would be able to evaluate, track and do so much more. Right now, only those who have the heart and want to continue working with youth and mentorship.
The problem is that they face so many issues when they come out. Programs like ours, especially for those who are going in, need to have that support so we can work with them once they come out, especially since we’ve already built the relationship inside.
Yes, it is important. It is something we would like to expand on. Once again, we need that financial support.
My whole being is running dry for what we’re doing. Even the travel, going out there — and with nothing, it takes its toll. There’s only so much. But yes, that is something we’re working toward and we hope that we can continue to achieve. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, again, to all of you for your work.
I’d like to switch gears. It sounds as though these are unique programs. Do you know of any other programs like this that are recognized by CSC that are culturally appropriate? And how have correctional programs, to your knowledge, been made culturally appropriate? That’s one question.
Then, linked to Senator Brazeau’s comment in terms of movement into the community, we know that investment of resources in community costs less financially but yields much more in terms of the human benefit. If you were given even, say, what it costs for one person to be incarcerated for a year, how would you invest those resources today? If you were given what CSC estimates for men is somewhere around $100,000 and for women is around $200,000? If you’re talking about people in maximum security — and I know Mr. Sauvé and Ms. Brown are trying to go into max units — for the women, it’s half a million dollars. I’m not sure what the current numbers are for men. What would you do with the money currently being devoted by CSC for one person to provide as much service as possible to meet their needs?
Ms. Brown: The first question was around culturally sensitive programming. There is nothing. There’s no culturally sensitive program. I’m not sure if you guys see anything else, but I haven’t seen anything. So CSC gives out a contract for one Black-led organization to focus on pre-release for Black inmates. That one organization they contracted with in the last few years did not have a good report with the young men, so in some of the prisons, they were not allowed in. For Collins Bay, I know they have no one.
And when I say “culturally sensitive,” I’m not talking about culturally sensitive for all inmates; I’m specifically talking about Black inmates. There’s no pre-release for Black inmates, and there’s nothing that’s culturally appropriate other than what they do at Black History Month, and that’s another issue as well.
In terms of culturally sensitive as a whole, I know you guys could speak to the programming for Indigenous inmates. That’s something else, and it touches on spirituality, on quite a lot of meat when it comes to that specific culture and range. But there’s nothing for the Black inmates, unless I’m wrong. Am I wrong?
Mr. Atkins: We don’t have anything.
Ms. Brown: I love you guys. Rick, we need to meet.
Mr. Sauvé: Absolutely.
If I could address a few things. Senator Brazeau asked about follow-up. Almost all the guys that go through the Breakaway group are going to be going into halfway houses. I’ve had a number of guys who have gone through the program, whom I’ve assisted at parole hearings. But also, I’ve become a resource for the halfway houses. I can present to them that they’ve gone through the Breakaway group. There are three guys in Windsor. There’s a guy in Toronto at Bunton Lodge. So I’m able to maintain some contact with them.
As far as extra resources, we would be able to have other people provide those services.
One of the key things, and I touched on it earlier, is that we know peer support works. I could escort either one of these two gentlemen back into the community to go into the schools and talk to youth. In fact, one of the sessions that we do, and the guys seem to really enjoy it, is near the end of the program. I ask them to have that conversation with their younger self. What would they be able to say to their younger self? That kind of message is so they can have that conversation with family members, with youth coming in, but also it is a self-reflection of what brought them into prisons.
When I was serving my sentence inside, I used to go and talk in schools. I have had chiefs of police ask me to come and talk to youth in schools. I think that’s something that’s been lost over the years.
When I talked earlier about thousands and thousands of hours of lost opportunity, we’re losing the opportunity for these young men to go back into the community and save other youth from coming into the prisons and from becoming involved in gang violence. It’s so important, and it works; I know it works.
They’re starting to do that kind of thing in some of the high-gang areas in the United States. We’ve been doing that for years up here. They’ve learned from us, and we’ve gotten away from that. I know it would work, to be able to take guys who have gone through the program, to go back into the community while they’re still in custody and start doing this kind of work.
One of the things that anyone inside prisons looks for is a safe sanctuary. We heard both of these guys say, “We feel safe being able to talk and share these kinds of things in the group,” and that is so beneficial.
For them to be able to go back into the community and into the schools where they came from and say, “Hey, this is where you could end up,” they’re giving back. But they’re also providing a sanctuary for youth in the community to say, “Yes, I can break away from this lifestyle because I don’t want to end up in prison.” It’s so beneficial to be able to provide that kind of service back into the community.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question that I would like to ask Ms. Brown. You used the term “culturally relevant,” “culturally appropriate,” speaking specifically about African Canadians or Black Canadians. A term that may be used is “Afrocentric” programming. Could you talk about what you see as some of the positive outcomes of providing such Afrocentric-based programs to African Canadians in the institutions?
Ms. Brown: I think “Afrocentric” is just one of the pieces to it. Positive self-image I think is one of the biggest outcomes. If someone thinks in their mind that they are what society or the media or people have told them they are, they’re going to act accordingly.
There’s a movie, a cartoon. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Megamind. It’s about a cartoon character who is told how bad he is, and because of that, he acts out.
It’s the same thing. If people think they’re bad, if people have a self-image about being bad — because that’s what TV shows do, that’s what the teachers have shown you, that’s what people have shown you — then they’re going to be the best at being bad. I think it’s about changing self-image. That’s one of the biggest impacts.
When I say “culturally relevant,” Afrocentric is one of those pieces. It’s also youth sensitive and street sensitive. To get all these three things together is very important, because some will have one piece and not know how to address the others. So it’s to be able to have an understanding of all three in one for this young population.
The Chair: I wonder, Mr. Fraser, if you could say a bit more about how race and racism affect your self-image, and also the kind of racial profiling that you talked about.
Ms. Brown was saying that self-image becomes really important, but we know that self-image is not something we develop on our own. For people of African descent, self-image is impacted by racism and racial profiling. I wonder if you could say a bit about that in terms of your own journey, how that may have affected your self-image prior to your connection with Think 2wice.
Mr. Fraser: To answer your question, I’m going to tell a story.
I remember going into one of the institutions. We were doing an interview in the institution. As the interviewer asked me certain questions, she was able to figure out what I want to become in life, my goals and my dreams and all that. I was dressed in all black — a black hoodie, black sweatpants, I had a pair of Js on my feet and I think I even had a doo-rag on. When we were leaving, they fell back and had a conversation. It was an interviewer and a few members of the organization.
When the interviewer left, some of the members came up and they were like, “Jafari, did you hear that?” I said, “No, I didn’t hear it.”
They began to tell me that when the lady heard me speak about my ambitions, she said to somebody, “Oh, I would never have thought.” I said, “Yeah, that’s the type of racism I have to deal with every single day, just because of my appearance alone — never mind my name, never mind what community I come from.” Do you understand?
The Chair: I do, but I’m thinking I want you to say this for the people who may not understand.
Mr. Fraser: It’s a real thing.
Can I just read something, though? You guys don’t have this, but can I read it, Madam Chair?
The Chair: How long is it?
Mr. Fraser: It’s not long.
The Chair: We’re already over our time.
Are senators okay if we stay a bit longer, and are you folks okay if we stay a bit longer?
Mr. Boswell: I’m going nowhere.
Mr. Fraser: Retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation, section 718 of the Criminal Code: Although these are fundamentals of sentencing and the goals of prisons, they are also fundamental to community organizations that wholeheartedly devote their time to the betterment and likelihood of an offender. Organizations like Think 2wice, which specializes in culturally sensitive — emphasis on culturally sensitive — programming, make it their objective to rehabilitate inmates and to assist their transition back into society.
A section of CSC’s website that hasn’t been modified since 2012 urges the involvement of community volunteers:
We cannot expect that offenders will take a successful return to the community alone; they need assistance. The contributions that volunteers make provide a vital link between the correctional system, the offenders within and the community. Knowing that there are individuals who care and who are willing to freely contribute their time on their behalf can go a long way in helping offenders realize their worth as members of the community and realize their potential for a successful reintegration.
From working alongside this group, I have seen the frequent mistreatment of not just the men who are serving time, but also individuals and groups who aid in their reintegration and rehabilitation. In previous years, I have seen representatives of CSC interfere with the growth of inmates that are minorities and the groups that would best assist their needs, whether being barred or more recent attempts at advance screening checks, that evidently challenge a particular group of volunteers. The deprivation of a culturally sensitive program like Think 2wice is a violation of the basic rights of an offender to a service that betters an offender and also limits the confidence of the statutory obligations correctional institutions have. Every inmate should be reserved the right to a program that best suits their needs and not be subjected to the pick-and-choose procedures of the institutions they are in.
The Chair: Thank you.
Just thinking about transitional services, what kind would you recommend that might be useful for prisoners who are trying to transition back into the community? Any of you could answer that.
Ms. Brown: I think these programs are an example of that. First of all, isolation from the community is an example of unsuccessful rehabilitation. The community support, community volunteers, programming, allowing young men to be able to see the change process and reflect and give back to the community, whether it’s going into schools, letter writing or young people coming in and speaking about their stories, I think that all plays a big part in the transition.
Then also addressing all the other needs that will play a part when they reintegrate into the community. But the first is really reflecting and getting some leadership and mentorship skills, allowing them to have a voice and use their hardships, pain, adversity and mistakes to help others. There are a whole lot of youth following in their footsteps.
When it comes to prevention in a community, they hold the key. No one else does. They hold the key because these young people are looking at them. They’re not looking at anyone else.
In regard to intervention, people like Rick, people like myself, we hold the key because we’re the ones who are working with them. It’s a stepping stone.
I think these are the programs that are needed for healthy reintegration and the transition process.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Atkins: I think Jafari said it best with the programs that we actually need instead of CSC giving them to us saying, “Here, take this; this is what we want you to have and this is what fits best.” That is what we’re here to correct. This is what we need; this is what we want.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: My question is to you, Ms. Brown. You talked about theatre plays and documentaries. I wonder if you have any partners in the community to help you achieve those kinds of works. I know you’re from the Toronto area. I’m thinking about the Little Black Afro Theatre Company and the Obsidian Theatre Company. They do specific work on Black culture. A lot of those companies are very involved in social issues; they do a lot of work outside their main stage. I wonder if you have ever worked with those partners. As transitional services, it could be a pathway to continue to work with the people you’re working with.
Ms. Brown: Up until this year, because we haven’t been funded, just little pockets, we didn’t have any partners. This year we took on a partner, but it wasn’t a Black-led organization. It was an organization called On Track, and she goes into the institutions. She did a play in Beaver Creek, so I took her on to bring ours to the next level. But our plays are more of a message.
Senator Cormier: I understand that.
Ms. Brown: It’s not about the professionalism of the play. It’s a message with a skit, and they really touch on intervention. They touch on gun violence and that lifestyle.
Senator Cormier: I was aware of that, but I wanted to say there are a lot of companies and cultural institutions that do that kind of work too.
Ms. Brown: That’s a good idea.
Senator Cormier: You could have partners there who could help you.
Ms. Brown: For sure. That’s something we would definitely look into. Thank you.
The Chair: First, let me say to Mr. Atkins and Mr. Boswell, thank you both for agreeing to participate in this. Of course, we know you have a mighty support person there with Mr. Sauvé. Thank you for joining us today and for sharing your truth with us. We appreciate hearing from you.
Mr. Atkins: Thank you.
Mr. Boswell: Thank you.
The Chair: And to Ms. Brown and Mr. Fraser, we also want to thank you very much for coming and sharing with us today. We have your full brief, which will become part of the materials for our study.
Ms. Brown: Thank you for having us.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you.
The Chair: You have all highlighted the serious need for prevention. You have highlighted some of the major issues in terms of the root causes of crime, racial profiling and the impacts of that. You’ve highlighted some of the systemic barriers that you’re dealing with every single day and then also the challenges to have very positive programs like the ones you’re involved with to be taken seriously within the organization. We thank you for bringing these situations to our attention, and we appreciate you giving us some of your time today.
To the senators, our next meeting is on February 20, and at that time we will be hearing from some national associations. Thank you all very much. We will see you when we next meet.
(The committee adjourned.)