Proceeding of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 39 - Evidence - Meeting of February 20, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 20, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:30 a.m. to study the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system; and, in camera, to examine and monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada’s international and national human rights obligations.
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 East Preston, Nova Scotia, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing this committee. I now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy. I’m a senator also from Nova Scotia and I am deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin from British Columbia. Welcome.
Senator Hartling: Good morning. I’m Nancy Hartling from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Good morning. Patrick Brazeau from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Pate: I’m Kim Pate, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
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 the 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, we are hearing again from national organizations that work with prisoners.
Let me introduce Mitch Taillon, President of the Canadian Dental Association; and Ajay Pandhi, Vice President of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, accompanied by Fred Phelps, executive director.
Let me explain that the President of the Canadian Police Association was scheduled to be the third panellist today but unfortunately he is ill.
Each of our panellists has been asked to make a brief opening statement, and then we shall have questions from the senators. Dr. Taillon, you have the floor.
Mitch Taillon, President, Canadian Dental Association: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. My name is Dr. Mitch Taillon and I am the President of the Canadian Dental Association. I am also a dentist from Assiniboia, Saskatchewan. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to present to you today as part of your study on the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners.
The issues surrounding the care of prisoners in Canada’s federally managed correctional institutions have been raised to the Canadian Dental Association over the years. We do not have research on the state of oral health for this specific incarcerated population, so we rely on the insight of those dentists who enter these institutions to provide care.
Care is provided by contract dentists, and they follow the guidance in the National Essential Health Services Framework. This framework establishes that essential dental care focuses on relieving pain and infection, managing disease and providing education on preventive oral hygiene. This dental care is intended to relieve pain and infection, restore function, especially in the ability to chew food, and to manage acute and chronic oral disease.
The majority of services that are authorized by Correctional Service Canada are emergency services, including tooth extractions and draining of infections. Preventive services like tooth cleanings are only allowed with special authorization.
What we hear from dentists is that the work in these institutions is a significant challenge, with wait lists for services and a growing prison population. Most notably, we heard from several dentists in 2014, around the time of the introduction of program changes and budget restrictions that fundamentally changed the way dentists were able to work in prisons. These budgetary cuts were made at the same time as those made throughout government as part of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan.
The cuts to the contracts provided to dentists who work in prisons reduced services from several visits per week by the dentists to once per month in some cases. This only served to aggravate the existing issues with wait times for services.
What the cuts meant is very limited clinical time is available for dentists to come to the prison to provide care. When dentists are present less frequently, it means that only the most acute care is addressed, and some ongoing dental issues are dropped down the priority list.
It also means that basic preventive services, which could ultimately help to reduce the number of acute dental visits, are very rarely undertaken. These services are eligible to be offered with the approval of Correctional Service Canada, though some dentists have been told outright that they would not be approved.
We recognize that providing health care in these federal correctional institutions poses many challenges. The concern that is raised to us is that the combination of fewer resources and a limited ability to provide the basic level of care to prisoners may be exacerbating some of the oral health issues that exist in Canada’s prisons.
The dentists who take on this work in Canada’s federal correctional facilities are providing an important service, and they do this because they genuinely care about these patients. But they increasingly feel as though the changes made to how they can provide this care are arbitrary and do not respect their professional knowledge or previous dedication to caring for these inmates.
I thank you for your time and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Ajay Pandhi, Vice President, Canadian Association of Social Workers: Good morning and thank you for inviting the perspective of social workers to this important consultation. As the Vice President of the Canadian Association of Social Workers, I bring the profession’s collective voice, but I also speak from a place of professional experience as a registered social worker with over 20 years of experience and practice, including my current role as trauma specialist at the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre. I also run a free private clinic where I take care of the mental needs of folks with a criminal history.
Today I will offer a perspective on how to make the justice system fairer for everyone and how to make it better serve its intended purpose of rehabilitation.
The first question posed by this committee is about the factors that lead to criminal justice system involvement, but I think it is important to take a moment to reframe that question. What factors protect many people from becoming involved in the criminal justice system?
I’d like to consider the many factors that protect a person from criminal justice involvement: opportunity for quality education, employment and income security; a stable culturally appropriate home in a supportive and loving environment; access to health care and support services; consistent nutritious food and drinking water, to name a few.
As social workers, we emphasize the importance of addressing the social determinants of health and of a public health approach in creating communities and conditions that support folks to live the happiest and healthiest lives.
We are also deeply interested in a person’s holistic well-being, and we know that labels create shame and contribute to negative social and economic outcomes. It is not productive to label individuals as criminals, as it only leads to stigma, which we know is both socially and financially costly. It also limits our ability to appreciate and give credence to an individual’s unique background and context.
First, because we know that substance misuse is not a criminal problem but a health concern, CASW supports safe injection sites and harm reduction approaches, and calls for the decriminalization of the personal use of psychoactive substances. A quote that resonates with me a lot is addiction is not a problem. It’s a solution of dealing or not dealing with trauma.
We also know that folks with issues related to substance misuse are less likely to reoffend when offered community-based treatment options. Countries such as Portugal have successfully incorporated a public health approach to substance use, showing that decriminalization is possible, and it has the ability to reduce incarceration rates and deaths associated with overdose.
We need to have a model that supports people and saves lives.
Second, we support the removal of mandatory minimum sentences in accordance with the TRC’s Call to Action No. 32. This would best facilitate the use of Gladue reports and encourage individualized plans for each unique individual.
CASW acknowledges that the criminal justice system is founded on a colonial model similar to other systems, including child welfare. The overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system, both in terms of victimization and incarceration, is invariably linked with Canada’s colonial history of discriminatory policies and practices, including the residential school systems.
Instead of focusing on why Indigenous people are so overrepresented in the criminal justice system, it is imperative to ask what is wrong with the criminal justice system that it involves Indigenous people so frequently. We support the principle of “nothing about us without us” and believe that, in the journey of reconciliation, Indigenous approaches to criminal justice are critical. We encourage the ongoing funding for holistic programs that acknowledge and honour the distinct nations and cultures of the First Nations, Inuit and Metis people.
Fundamentally, social workers support self-determination and believe that services for Indigenous people are best created and delivered by Indigenous people and communities with adequate funding and supports.
Finally, we believe in continuity of care to facilitate successful reintegration into society. As a right, incarcerated individuals must be paid for their labour and should be provided with opportunities for certification and education while serving sentences in preparation for returning to society. Reintegration plans should be implemented between correction institutions and community services to address the social determinants of health, including access to housing, income assistance, health care and employment.
Specifically, research has shown that inmates with mental illness benefit from access to treatment programs and are less likely, as a result, to reoffend. This requires that the availability of mental health services be made a priority. Participation in community-based programs that address skills aimed at increasing social capital has the potential to enhance an individual’s support system and will decrease the likelihood of reoffending.
This brings me back to my opening statement: What supports would you want for yourself or your loved ones if you were starting over?
Thank you for including the Canadian Association of Social Workers in this study. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now turn to question from senators.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. It’s important that Canadians understand the role that the Canadian Dental Association and the Canadian Association of Social Workers play and should be playing in our penal system.
I spent this morning at an open caucus dealing with the opioid crisis. What we heard — which wasn’t a surprise — is that many of the people who go into the prison system have an addiction problem. If they’re going to have successful reintegration into society, then that has to be dealt with in the prison system and, upon their re-entry, there must be a support system in place. How do we do that?
There’s definitely a stigma attached to those with addictions. You see it when communities are trying to set up safe injection sites. The petitions start, and people don’t want it. The “not in my backyard” syndrome comes into full force, because people tend to think that those who are addicted belong to a certain class within society, which is absolutely wrong. It spans all of society in terms of education, the amount of money you have and those kinds of things.
Our committee has been to a lot of prisons, and it seems that some of these programs within the prisons are not as successful. You referred to the amount of money that was cut back in 2014. Maybe you did, Mr. Taillon. It’s all the same thing. How do we instill in Corrections Canada that if we don’t start solving some of these issues, we’re just going to have a revolving door and people are in and out?
Mr. Pandhi: Thank you for the question. If you look at the prison population, I would say we would reduce a large number of people who are in federal and provincial correctional facilities if we took away the people who have addiction issues, poverty and mental health reasons for being there. If we decriminalize instead of criminalizing people with addictions, that would be a huge start, I would say.
Gabor Maté, an expert in trauma from British Columbia, says that we are asking the wrong question. We’re asking why people have the addiction. We should be asking the question: “Why the pain?” If we don’t go back into the roots of what causes people to develop addictions — I would say as a solution to deal or not deal with the pain they’re going through — we’re spinning our wheels and providing Band-Aid solutions.
The corrective facilities that we have today do not have, as far as I see, the importance of a transition program, where once you leave the facility, what happens? A lot of folks will go back to familiar ways of understanding their identity, and part of that is through the eyes of addiction.
The question really is: What does addiction serve for them? It stimulates their dopamine, their endorphin release system inside them, and makes them feel normal, motivates them, gives them balance as to how to function in a society that has stigmatized them, and helps them not cope with a lot of the serious trauma a lot of them have had at an early age in their life.
I used to work in the school system as a mental health practitioner, and in my own personal experience, the vast majority of kids who would come to me were kids who had problems back home such as broken families and so on and so forth. I’m not saying broken families lead to addiction. I’m just saying that one of the key things I noticed was the mental health issues back home that were not being addressed were leading to the mental health issues of the kids themselves, which then led, in the future, to an unsupportive environment; potential trauma: sexual, physical, emotional; and then the addictive behaviour that helped them cope and fill up that space.
I think our jail facilities need to be more rehabilitative. Decriminalization needs to be looked at. Restorative justice is used in many different countries, and that could be used. A lot more shame and guilt needs to be reduced, and a lot more normalcy, giving people humility and stop treating people like they’ve done something wrong, but how do we support ourselves as a system, to answer your question.
Mr. Taillon: Where the dental community fits into prisons is we provide oral health care, which, in our opinion, is a key component of overall health. When we look at the ability to provide basic oral health care in these environments, it is very supportive of overall general health, including mental health and dealing with addictions and problems like that. When oral health issues arise for our general population or our incarcerated population, they need access to dental care. In the prison environment that we’re speaking about today, we need to be able to provide them with that access because, speaking to the opioids issue, the only other treatment that’s available for them if they cannot access dental care is, quite often, prescription medication. Prescription medication is not a solution to an oral health problem. The solution to an oral health problem is timely access to a dentist so they can move that forward for them to provide better care.
Senator Cordy: One of the things that you mentioned was that good oral health goes hand-in-hand with good general overall health. If your oral health deteriorates, it follows that your personal health often deteriorates as well. When we travel to the prisons, one of the major concerns expressed to us by prisoners was, in fact, the rarity that dentists came to the facility and it was only emergencies and it was only to pull a tooth, not to fix a tooth. Was that always the case, or did that get worse after 2014 with the cuts in budgets?
Mr. Taillon: Well, in speaking with the dentists who provide that care in your institutions, they shared with me that there was always a significant demand in this population. They were dealing with it the best they could. Then the cut came to the budget, and the time that they were actually visible and present in those communities was drastically changed. The one example I gave was in the one institution, they were there two or three times a week, and that went to once a month. Once a month, in their words, was providing emergency care. That’s all they could do.
First and foremost, these dentists are health care providers. They provide health care. Their biggest concern was, the next day, when someone had an emergency, they had to wait and/or access other services through either a physician or a nurse with prescription medications, be they antibiotics or painkillers, both of which do not address the actual problem. That is heartbreaking for them because they know that if they could be there to provide the care, they could actually resolve that pain and infection issue.
As I’m sure all of you are very aware, pain and infection have an incredible impact on one’s well-being, on how one feels about themselves, on how comfortable they are, how they sleep, how they eat and how they socially interact. All of those things are part of the type of care that we’re trying to provide for them.
If we can provide them with a more comfortable oral health environment, quite often they can eat better. If they can eat better, they can feel better. If they can feel better, they can sleep better. If they can sleep better, maybe they can have some mental health counselling and all those different things. It’s all so intertwined that it really has to be a larger wellness approach, including social work and their participation, as well as all the other health disciplines that can help in this environment, I think.
Senator Boyer: This question is for you, Dr. Taillon. You have painted a bit of a grim picture for us of what’s going on in the prison system in relation to dental health. We know that when you have a toothache, everything stops. What you’re saying is that it’s so tied to general health and well-being.
You’ve also stated that the corrections system is able to approve the preventive services, but they’re not. Do you have any idea why? The second part of the question is, what kind of system could provide good dental care in the prison system?
Mr. Taillon: Thank you, senator, for that question.
First, what would help to that person who is having oral health pain is access to a dentist in a more timely fashion, so more time and more days to access dental services.
With regard to the preventive services, you asked what we could do to incorporate that. I think there are two aspects to that. The majority of the rest of us have benefited from preventive oral health services. In a lot of ways, we would like to provide the same similar level of care to the people in the prison system as well, because that’s good oral health care.
The challenge is that when you walk into an environment where you haven’t been for a month, you aspire to provide that preventive oral health service, but you have to deal with the even more emergent urgent issues that have come up since.
The solution would be two things: More time, and then the proper approval process to make sure that not only are you able to provide emergency care, but you can start to institute a preventive oral health care program. That would have to come through the institution, the setup and the support system in there. I’m not an expert on the environment within a correctional facility. I would think that there needs to be a lot more study of the people who provide health care services in that environment.
The other thing I heard from the dentists when I was talking to them is that if you want to improve the oral health care system within the prisons, ask the dentists.
Senator Boyer: Don’t assume that you know what’s best?
Mr. Taillon: Pardon me?
Senator Boyer: What you’re saying is Correctional Service Canada needs to ask the dentists how to improve the care?
Mr. Taillon: They’re very knowledgeable and I’m sure they’re very qualified people, but providing oral health care services, to be quite honest, is our specialty, and we don’t get consulted about it very much.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you for appearing. My question has a couple of parts, which they often do. I’d like each of you to answer, if you will.
We’ve heard, going into the prisons, from both staff and prisoners about concerns about health care and social work and the inability to get some preventive care. That certainly buttresses the evidence you’ve provided today.
We’ve also certainly been privy to conversations with professionals who talk about the fact that they are routinely required within the Correctional Service of Canada environment to violate their professional standards and codes of conduct to which they are expected to adhere as dentists, doctors or social workers. I’d like to ask your comment on that, in terms of how dentists and social workers are dealing with that, because of your respective expertise, and the fact that I’ve also been privy to information that reporting that could result in you losing your contract, if you have any information about that or could obtain it for us.
The second part of my question picks up on the response you just gave to Senator Boyer’s question. How often are you consulted about the policies that would impact the work that your professional members are conducting within the prison? As part of that, how often is that advice, if you are consulted, followed? And what knowledge do your members have of the provisions in the current corrections legislation that would allow you to actually refer people out to the community for community-based services pursuant to section 29 and then for particular areas to other sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act? Thank you.
Mr. Taillon: Professional requirement. So for most of us — not most of us, all of us in Canada, we all must meet licensing requirements that have obligations that are based in provincial legislation. For the most part, they’re very similar — not identical, but they’re very similar coast to coast to coast. They’re getting more and more prescriptive of the requirements on providing oral health care for whoever the patient is, in whatever environment it is. It doesn’t matter. Your role as the dentist is to fulfil those requirements that are stated under the legislation that you get a licence with.
In speaking with a few of the dentists who operate in Correctional Service Canada facilities, they are concerned about that. They are concerned because, to put it bluntly, they’re not sure the level of the environment and the structure and the mechanisms that they operate within in those institutions would meet that standard. Nothing more was shared with me as far as to verify that such as specific examples, anything like that. That would need to be investigated or studied. It’s a concern, though, because, at the end of the day, for us as licensed dentists, it’s our responsibility. So that makes them feel vulnerable. Not a good spot to be in.
Your second question was reporting issues around that and what impact that would have on that contract. Nobody shared that with me, and I can’t comment on that one way or the other because I’m not aware if that exists or not.
How often are they consulted? Rarely. The one individual I spoke with thought that their immediate superior that they worked with within the institution was supportive, but the rest of the institution much less. Another individual felt that the consultation with dentists was severely lacking, if taken at all, or even if given at all, they wouldn’t be consulted and/or acted on.
With regard to the services being able to be referred out to outside agencies, outside health care providers, we didn’t get into that discussion either so I’m not aware of what their views are on that. I know anecdotally I heard that that was an option. How practical that is, I’m not sure. I can’t comment.
Mr. Pandhi: Thank you, Senator Pate, for that question. In many ways when we look at — from time to time the media will show that there have been violations that have happened, and I know you’re a champion when it comes to dealing with a lot of these or addressing them across the nation. I would reiterate what I said before. I think the system itself creates perpetuation of injustices. So if we just look at it singularly as this has happened there and this has happened there, I think we’re going to keep repeating that cycle and it’s going to continue to happen as long as we don’t look upon what needs to change within the system that perpetuates that kind of way of interaction between staff and inmates, clients, customers, citizens, depending on which way you look at it.
I think for ourselves as social workers, and I know psychologists inside and dentists, we are bound by our code of ethics, our standards of practice. And based on our code of ethics and standards of practice, we have to report or stand up against any form of injustice. A lot of folks who do come into jail are there because of mental health reasons, because of poverty and are probably the most stigmatized, ostracized, discriminated against people that our society has. The Highway of Tears and the murdered and missing Indigenous women, they all come within that population itself. That gives us that much more of a responsibility to make sure we have an ethical justice system and an ethical corrections system that really work towards rehabilitation and not punitive sanctions.
Again, that to me is a larger question of our Canadian society. What do we want as a society? Do we want to take people who are marginalized and put them inside these facilities and take away the keys and then not deal with them after that, not provide them the services — we’ve had a serious cutback in services over the years right now — and then expect that they are going to come out and not basically go back to the life of crime, drugs and all that kind of stuff? I think that’s a very unrealistic way of looking at rehabilitation.
We could look, as I said, across to the south of us. And I don’t want to point any fingers over here. They have a very successful corrective system, but it kind of depends on what kind of system you’re looking at and what kind of figures you’re looking at. They have very large burgeoning prison populations. But if we looked at, say, another system across on the other side, we have depleted prison numbers, better outcomes in mental health and more of a humane system. So we have examples. In the Canadian system, we have the ability to go towards an example.
For us ourselves, to answer your question, we haven’t directly been consulted as the Canadian Association of Social Workers. We work more with the NAACJ, National Associations Active in Criminal Justice. Senator Pate, you know about them.
Again, for us, I think it’s important. Personally myself, I might see some violations that happened here and there, but to me it’s very frustrating that they carry on, as I’m sure it is for a lot of senators out here, and that we don’t have the correct system and it keeps repeating the mistakes that happen time and time again. But I do have hope when we have esteemed folks like you helping and supporting Canada forward.
Fred is our national director of the Canadian Association of Social Workers. Would you like to add something?
Fred Phelps, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Social Workers: The only thing I would add in terms of the mental health and addictions piece is that we haven’t been consulted directly as a profession on how to better address that within the correctional system.
Senator Pate: So you haven’t been consulted. Are your members aware of section 29 of the CCRA that would allow them to transfer people out, and has it ever been used?
Mr. Pandhi: Has it been used?
Mr. Phelps: Not that I’m aware of.
Mr. Pandhi: Not that I’m aware of.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for being here and for telling us about your professions and what you’re doing. I’m a former social worker so I certainly appreciate what you’re saying.
One thing I’ve learned from our study and going into the prisons is how many of those folks have adverse childhood experiences, so I’m thinking about that and I’m thinking about two parts. First, I’ll ask about the dental part, and I think maybe many folks would not have even seen a dentist or, if they did, it might have been terrifying. I’m thinking oftentimes the quick thing is just pull the tooth instead of filling it. When the dentists go in, what do they bring? Do they have a little kit of things? How does it work to do the things they need to do? Can you talk about what would happen on a typical visit when they go in? What do they bring with them and how do they do that?
Mr. Taillon: My understanding is most of these institutions actually have a dental unit set up for them. They bring their skills as a licensed dentist, and they will bring a staff person, usually a dental assistant, with them. All the other resources are provided for them within that facility.
Senator Hartling: They would have the tools to pull or fill the teeth or whatever else?
Mr. Taillon: Yes.
Senator Hartling: What about cleaning? Do they get to clean the teeth?
Mr. Taillon: As I suggested to you earlier, the oral health demands of this population are significant. Oral health disease has a good stronghold within these institutions. When you add that to a decreased frequency that you can get there to provide this care, it’s almost like a triage operation where you have to meet the most urgent, emergent issue of the day. So in the amount of time that you’re there, that person in front of you will be the person who has an infected tooth, a painful tooth, some variety of that or a combination of those.
To provide them with care in a normal dental office setting, you would probably reach out to them and say, “Okay, you have different options for care to address this problem.” This speaks partly back to our professional obligation as a dentist working under a licence within a province or a territory. We’re obliged to provide our patient, who is in front of us, with their options for care. Their options for care for a tooth that’s infected could be removing it, prescription medications which don’t work that well, or something like endodontic treatment, root canal treatment to try to save the tooth.
When you offer those types of treatments, along with it comes a certain frequency of visits to make those other options happen. To do a root canal treatment on a person takes two or three visits. If you’re there once a month, and this is going to take two or three months, it gets a little impractical.
Another instance was shared with me of someone who placed some dentures for a person who was in the prison, placed them one day and they’ll see them in a month to see how they’re doing. Well, normally, in a practice like that, I would see them the next day and then the next week and then the week after that to help them get to a place where they’re comfortable with their care and comfortable with the work that I’ve done. It’s not possible to do that when you aren’t there often enough.
So then it starts to limit the list of what you’re going to do for them. When you suggest, “We’re just going to take the tooth out,” the decision ultimately falls with the patient, no matter whether that patient is within a prison. They always have the right to choose the treatment they would like within the system they exist in. If they chose to do the root canal treatment, they have to realize it has consequences, and “This is going to take me three months to get this done, and I’m going to have to live with this, this, this and this.”
So that’s the environment that these dentists who want to provide the standard of care that most of the rest of us have work in and they have to deal with.
The Chair: Before you carry on, Senator Pate had a supplementary question.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that. I don’t want the impression to be left that a root canal, a filling and a cleaning are actually all equally available options to the tooth being pulled that are provided to prisoner patients. My understanding is even if the dentist is recommending those treatment options, they might not be approved by the institution. If they are approved, they are approved with the understanding that the prisoner patient may have to pay for it themselves. Usually, the standard, certainly for an abscess or something that might otherwise involve a root canal, is to have the tooth pulled as the primary option that is funded and provided by the institution.
Mr. Taillon: Right. Under the schedule of services — it’s a document that I looked at and referred to in my presentation — there’s a good variety of dental services in there that would provide good care for the majority of the patients. That’s not the issue. The issue is having enough time to actually physically do those things during that time. When I was speaking with one of the providers, he said, “Yes, I do fillings, I do extractions, I do dentures, and I do all those different things,” but within that environment, always recognizing, when he shows up for his one day a month, that he will get to that kind of stuff after he’s dealt with the emergent issues that have come up since the last time he was there. So while there’s access to those services, there isn’t time necessarily to deliver them.
Senator Pate: So I’m hearing you say they’re on paper but not necessarily practically provided?
Mr. Taillon: That’s what they shared with me, yes.
Senator Pate: If you’re able to provide information about that, that would be great.
Also — and I’m looking to our wonderful analyst and clerk — perhaps we could be asking for that information to be brought in advance by Correctional Service Canada and provided to us, about how many times each of those procedures have been provided throughout the country and what has funded them.
Mr. Taillon: We don’t have data or information other than information that’s been shared with us by the dentists that work in those environments. To gather that information would take us some time and effort. It’s not that we’re opposed to doing it, but if you have access to that data electronically in a database somewhere, it would probably be more efficient.
Senator Pate: I think it would be better to get it from Corrections.
Mr. Taillon: We would be happy to work with you on something like this, and we are always happy to consult and improve the oral health of this population and the rest of the people who live in Canada.
Senator Hartling: As I said, thank you for being here.
In our association, the association in Canada, how many members do we have, and what percentage of those members are working in prisons? Are we attracting people who are Indigenous, Black and other folks to work in prisons? Do you have any sense of that?
Mr. Phelps: It’s a difficult snapshot. Since 2005, we haven’t done a sector study on social work and where social workers are placed. Unfortunately, through the education system, when social workers graduate with a BSW or Masters, we don’t have a national tracking system of where they are placed and where they go to. Different regulatory bodies in different provinces may have a listing when they ask someone when they’re registering in the area of practice, but that is not nationalized. So it would have to be broken down province by province. Unfortunately, I can’t give you a specific number of individual social workers working within the corrections system, both federally and provincially.
Senator Hartling: Do you any sense if we’re attracting more Indigenous or Black or other people to go into our profession? Is that something that has been tracked at all?
Mr. Phelps: Again, the last sector study that we had was funded by CIHI, so this would be a point to try to do that again as a profession to be able to take a snapshot.
I think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations were clear that the schools of social work need to move towards reconciliation in terms of both teaching the history of Indigenous colonization in Canada as well as attracting other students that are students of colour and students from Indigenous populations into the programs. I think there’s been a concerted effort of schools of social work to do so, but there hasn’t been a national coordination of that.
Mr. Pandhi: I think oftentimes it’s based on the employer. We can advocate as a body to say let’s make sure that we have more Indigenous workers who match the population demographic, which is huge, but at the end of the day, it depends on the employer itself, health services and corrective services. I would say we need to have more than what we’ve got right now. It’s a very marginal amount of people who are over there for a very large population, and they’re not getting their needs met, for sure.
Senator Brazeau: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for being before this committee.
My question is essentially for information purposes only, and it’s directed to you, Mr. Taillon. In terms of the inmate population, are there any medications or past substance abuse issues or specific substances that could lead to poor dental health?
Mr. Taillon: Thank you for that question. At least in the dental community, we are aware of the adverse effects of certain medications, be they prescription medications, over-the-counter medications or drug abuse. It does and continues to have a significant impact on the oral health of Canadians, including the prison population.
The most classic example that comes to mind for me right now is there’s a condition called meth mouth. Those who are on the medication crack typically, within a very brief amount of time, will have a lot of oral health issues. A lot of other medications can do the same thing. Anything that upsets the normal balance within the mouth will cause damage to teeth and gums quite quickly.
The challenge with that is once that starts to happen, there aren’t really any easy solutions. It’s not a quick fix. It often involves a fair amount of fairly intensive work that needs to rehabilitate that mouth back to something that’s comfortable, that you can chew and eat with. When it all boils down, the mouth is very important for all kinds of things, but if you can’t eat and if you can’t eat comfortably, the rest of your health deteriorates quickly: mental health, physical health, general health. All that just deteriorates.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Senator Hartling asked some of the questions I wanted to inquire about the social workers in the system, because in your brief you talk about how important it is to deliver the services for Indigenous people by members of the community and that sort of cultural sensitivity and how important that is. I know you said it hasn’t been tracked and whether or not more people are being encouraged to enter the profession and whether they are being employed on the other end.
Whether that is happening or not, I’m just curious, then, about the kind of training that would be undertaken to work with persons of marginalized and vulnerable groups in the federal correctional system. Would you say the training and the programming that are provided to social workers allow social workers of all backgrounds to be able to work in those systems effectively? Could you speak a bit about that?
Mr. Pandhi: I can probably say something. Fred, you can jump in too.
I think from the schools of social work we come from, there is not just social work schools which are non-Indigenous. There’s been a push for a while to incorporate that understanding because our demographic is very Indigenous. We look at anti-oppressive practice. We look at how to involve the First Nation Indigenous folks in what we do.
Also, there are unique social work schools that are primarily Indigenous by themselves, so they give that worldview itself, and there are Indigenous social workers who come out who actually practice on and off the reserves, too.
Again, to me, from the social work front, I would say that it’s very important for us to make sure that we work towards reconciliation and we work with our Indigenous brothers and sisters and support them the way they would like us to support them.
But it’s different when it comes to the employers. I don’t know if there’s a mandated number that employers should be looking at when it comes to what should be a percentage in terms of employment equity or whatever that is. If there is, I don’t think it’s been incorporated fully.
To me, the question really becomes: Do we put more people inside the facilities, or do we change the facilities so that we don’t need to put more people inside the facilities so that we’re dealing with and helping people outside so we reduce the burden we have on the criminal justice system, which is hard financially and emotionally all across the board?
Senator Martin: That is a good question. I should have started by saying that I have the greatest of respect for social workers. I have experienced their central role, not quite the quarterback but the person who is able to really navigate back and forth between sectors when there are so many parts involved. That’s in the health system, which is very, very complex, but I know corrections is equally complex. So I just think about how your role would be very important and how integrated social workers are. Some changes could be made, because I think you play a very central role. It’s just my observation from the health sector, and I would think that in any crisis situation dealing with people, social workers will make a difference.
Mr. Pandhi: Thank you very much. We believe so too.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I’m sorry, we’re not going to have time for a second round but, as the chair, I do have one question I’m going to sneak in here.
Mr. Pandhi, you talked a lot about the need to address the root causes of crime, and I’m wondering if there was a specific recommendation that you would make to our committee around that whole issue.
Mr. Pandhi: Thank you for the question. I always think that if we’re just dealing with the leaves and the branches when we look at a tree, per se, then we’re missing the point. We’ve got to go down to the root causes of what does cause addiction.
We have the fentanyl crisis ongoing right now. It’s mind-boggling why somebody would want to put fentanyl inside their system when it’s so harsh on the system. There’s a guarantee, oftentimes — well, not a guarantee, but a near guarantee — that you will overdose and there is a chance that you will die.
I’ve heard from a lot of people who’ve used fentanyl that it’s the ability to restart again. That’s the addiction. You take the Narcan, you boost yourself up, you’re alive for 10 or 15 minutes, and you take another Narcan shot. The question I have is, why do people subject themselves to this and go through doing this to their body? I wouldn’t do that. I’m sure all the people in this room wouldn’t do that. Maybe some would, but the vast majority of people who live in healthy environments have those social determinants taken care of and would not do that and would not have the need to actually restart again and again and again.
I think mental health across Canada has never been given the kind of attention it needs to be given, and it comes right down to something we’ve been talking about for years. If you look at the women I work with, if I wanted to throw in a number — please don’t quote it — I would say about 90 per cent of women have been sexually and physically oppressed at young ages, and it’s coming out more and more that a lot of guys have been like that too. A very large number is opening up and coming out with that. I think we need to put in more people who are dealing with the pain and suffering that has happened before. Trauma has the ability to perpetuate itself. It’s like that sticky blob next to you wherever you go, and it takes on more and more trauma, and now they’re dealing with the anger, the pain, the rejection and the suffering. It’s coming out in these defence mechanisms, either where they’re attacking themselves or others. We need to put more money and resources into that.
Senator Pate: As a follow-up to that, I’m curious as to whether either of your organizations has looked at things like guaranteed livable incomes, national Pharmacare, dental care and those kinds of initiatives, and if you have, if that’s information you could also provide or make some recommendations to the committee.
Mr. Phelps: Yes, from our perspective, the Canadian Association of Social Workers has adopted a position of universal basic income as advancing a floor for all Canadians to stand on. That’s one of the fundamental social determinants of health. We certainly want to afford that to you, as well.
We’ve proposed a social care act, similar to the Health Act, that looks at and makes the accountability of the social transfer. Right now, the social transfer is sent to the provinces and territories with no accountability of where it’s spent, so we’re looking for that accountability in that.
On the other end of things, Ajay has mentioned the decriminalization of all psychoactive substances, and we very much advocate for the elimination of the mandatory minimums, specifically when it comes to drug possessions.
This government has begun to move in a public health approach, and Senator Cordy began with the stigmatization of addictions. In the short term, a clean drug supply and the decriminalization of psychoactive substances is going to save money. Eliminating mandatory minimums will keep people out of prison and will start moving to an actual public health approach to alcohol and drugs and, therefore, people being able to actually deal with their health issues.
Just to throw in one more piece, and this is a piece that we continue to advocate and will continue to advocate, is a concept of a mental health parity act, a concept that physical and mental health be treated and funded equally across Canada, and that the provinces, territories and the federal government put in the resources to actually address mental health on par with physical health.
Mr. Taillon: The dental community for the last several years has been advocating for targeted sustainable funding of public oral health programs. What we mean by that is basically that there are public oral health programs from coast to coast to coast. Most of them are provincial, a few of them are federally mandated, and they must be sustainably funded to meet the basic needs of the population that you’re trying to serve.
The vast majority of Canadians do have access to dental care and use it. Basically, we need to fill the gaps for those people who don’t have the access, and there are several of those vulnerable groups. It really turns into a community effort to meet their oral health needs. That’s local communities, provincial governments and the federal government, together with the oral health professionals within those communities to meet their needs. That’s our point of view on that.
The Chair: Thank you all very much.
Senators, I remind you that, if you have questions you weren’t able to ask of these panellists, if you get them to the chair, we can send them for a response and that will become part of the report.
Thank you very much for your time today. We appreciate all of what you have shared with us.
Our next witness is Dianne Grenier, a lawyer and partner of a former prisoner. Ms. Grenier has worked in criminal defence law in private practice for 20 years and also worked for 13 years with Legal Aid Ontario.
Ms. Grenier, we will hear your opening statement as soon as we have you established there with the technology. This is our first time meeting in this room in our new Senate of Canada Building.
Dianne Grenier, Lawyer and partner of former prisoner, as an individual: Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, senators and guests.
Thank you for this significant opportunity to address this committee on behalf of family members. I thank the prior speakers as well. Their information was significant to me.
I am a lawyer of 34 years, practising criminal and family law. I became victimized by a very serious attack by my partner, and so my real experience with our federal prisons began. When I decided I needed to visit Rich to further my recovery, I learned of the true level of the draconian nature of our prisons and the guards who control them. Our prison system is not a reflection of Canadian values whatsoever. It actually does not work for anyone.
Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially section 7, is entirely suspended at the prison gates. These breaches of section 7 occur beyond the oversight of our courts, as arbitrary and personality-driven decisions and conduct are made by guards toward both families and prisoners. I was personally ridiculed, laughed at and targeted by prison guards at both Warkworth and Bath institutions.
As a lawyer, I am an officer of the court and have dedicated my entire career to upholding the law. The report I wanted to refute at the parole hearing said the drug dog detected drugs. The dog actually jumped on me. The guard handling this dog made a false report. He is one and the same guard recently in the news, having tampered with another family member’s cellphone, and this guard was also investigated for pushing a disabled father, Paul Saliba, who authorized me to use his name.
On the occasion of arriving for a visit on Rich’s birthday, I was told in an aggressive and intimidating tone, manner, and in the presence of six or more waiting visitors, by two guards much taller than I, that I had “one second to get out of here.” I did receive a written letter of apology for this, but how is it that anyone is subjected to this treatment? There is no accountability and too much discretion and no proper level of education in applying such a complex piece of legislation as governs the CSC.
The grievance procedures do not work. The grievance regarding the guard dog was responded to a full seven months after Rich’s statutory release, 20 months after the incident occurred. The legislation provides timelines on grievances to be 30 to 90 days.
This kind of treatment of family members and other visitors is so negative that it literally scares many family members from visiting. Paul is one who said that to me. The ratio of visits to the prison population is declining, which speaks for itself. As for my own situation, I visited my partner for 16 months until the intimidating treatment of the guards escalated to these false accusations and my realization that I was at great risk of being falsely charged.
Rich felt a great deal of emotional pain by not being able to do more to defend my good character. Rich laughed at the assistant deputy warden upon being told, “We found drugs on her.” This but touches on my experiences and the impact on me.
I hope you see that the way families are treated is emotional and psychological abuse of prisoners who are powerless to help their loved ones in these situations. The guards hurt the prisoner when they hurt that person’s family. Prisoners need to be in a place where they are shown respect so they can learn it. Affording people their full humanity brings out the best in them — common humanity, rather than the “us” and “them” separation between guards and prisoners.
Canadian Families and Corrections Network is the only organization in Canada that assists families on a national level, and they bring together all these issues on their website.
It is critical for all to know and to remember that when a judge sentences an offender, the loss of freedom, as in section 7 of our Charter, is the penalty and not physically, emotionally and psychologically abusive techniques by those holding the keys to our prisons. This is not how safe streets are created. Safer streets are created when we release offenders who are better people than when they went in.
What Canada needs is a system for offenders based on an educational model, with a complete revamping and reeducation of guards, designed to create and enforce positive interactions with prisoners and to addressing the needs of the person victimized through restorative justice. There should be care-based units for offenders with mental health issues. This style of rehabilitation centre is what Canada should be known for. We can do better. I believe your committee work here can lead to this kind of overhaul.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak. It is not easy to come before you, and I am grateful to have been afforded this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Grenier, for your opening statements.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Grenier, thank you so much for coming. It’s much appreciated. After our committee has travelled to prisons, we’ve heard, unfortunately, many stories similar to yours. For you to come forward publicly is really very courageous. Thank you.
Ms. Grenier: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: I’m wondering, you are a lawyer, you are very articulate and well-educated. What about the partners who are not well-educated and who don’t wish to come before a Senate committee or their MP or anybody in public to express their story? What about them? They knew that you were somebody who could express your viewpoints publicly and articulately.
Ms. Grenier: Because I’ve encountered a number of families through CFCN and their meetings, and in the prison waiting room when I’m going in and in the visiting area, I tend to be — now I’m back to myself. Of course I’ve had a journey. I approach people, say hi and talk to them. It’s sort of odd, because no one talks to each other while standing in line and in the visiting room.
I have encountered, seen and spoken to other family members. My fear is for those people who do not have my background and are potentially treated much worse than I am and certainly have no recourse and don’t know how to deal with it and simply go home. That’s why they don’t come back.
I had no recourse either. However educated I am and however articulate I am, that didn’t do me any good in the prison. The first time the ion scanner triggered my glasses, I had no experience. I didn’t even know Canadian Families and Corrections Network. I knew nothing about the ion scanner. I was taken aside. I had seen this happen to another young woman, a young Black woman, and she was furious. I thought, she’s very angry. This was my first visit in a prison. Now it was my turn. It was happening to me on my second time. When I’m asked questions, when I began to answer and respond, I was told I was wasting time and I wasn’t allowed to respond to their questions. How could it be and why is it that we’ve triggered and we see you have some sort of narcotics? Not allowed to respond.
Senator Cordy: What recommendation do we make? You’re not the first person that we’ve heard these kinds of stories from. Many of the guards are doing a wonderful job, and prisoners have told us that, but all it takes is a couple.
Ms. Grenier: In fact, my partner Rich has a very specific recommendation, and that is that CSC should not be in charge of visits or visitors. Personally, I think they should not come near us. His thought was that he’d rather have our Canadian Armed Forces taking care of this rather than CSC. An independent organization — and certainly if the Armed Forces is an option — could manage approvals, comings and goings and visits. I can assure you that I have never been nor will I ever be a danger to any person, and certainly not a penal institution. Visits are not that hard to monitor. An independent organization is really the only solution. With the mindset that exists, from my personal experience, I don’t see it as being quickly changed. A new organization needs to come in and take this over.
Senator Cordy: You also speak about the mental health aspects of those who are incarcerated, and you said there should be care-based units. I recall walking into a prison in Saskatchewan for those who had poor mental health, and my reaction was, what are these people doing behind bars? This is not the place where they should be. How do you envision a care-based unit for those with mental health issues? Should it actually be within a prison setting, which is what I saw? And I still see the picture in my mind from when I first walked in.
Ms. Grenier: No. You might get the theme from me that I have no faith in the guards or the CSC system. No, it should not be. It should be stand-alone, hospital-style institutions that are meant to help people with mental health issues, because if that is what the guards are protecting themselves from — and the deaths that occur in prisons and jails, I do not know how anyone in a free and democratic society can justify that.
On one visit, they made me wait for an hour in the visiting room, alone. I have PTSD. I’m pretty well through the process, but at that time it was still fairly significant. I went to the booth — the bubble, they like to call it — no fewer than four times, asking, “Where is he?” They said, “We don’t know.” I said, “This is a federal prison. I hope you know where he is.”
So, yes, it needs to be for mental health persons. We heard from the previous speakers — who had a significant impact on me, and I’m pleased to have been here to hear them — that social workers and psychologists should be running and designing the programs needed for those who are incarcerated and sentenced.
Senator Cordy: Because we don’t want a revolving door; we want people actually rehabilitated. That should be the plan, shouldn’t it?
Ms. Grenier: It should absolutely be the only plan we have, given that loss of freedom is the penalty, not anything else. I’m afraid many good Canadians do not fully comprehend that concept because they’ve never had a brush or contact with the criminal justice system. I was fortunate enough to have grown up with fantastic parents. I had a great childhood. I became a lawyer because my parents said we could do anything we wanted, and I believed them. I have no background in that regard. I know that so much of the difficulties arise out of the difficulties in our society, societal issues.
The bottom line is that good Canadians often think: Lock them up and throw away the key. It’s out of a lack of education and understanding. They do not mean harm, but they don’t understand that loss of freedom, locking you up, is the penalty. Everything after that should be to benefit Canadian society and benefit, frankly, those good Canadians who may be their neighbour, or, even more tragic, you may be a family member of someone in prison.
I could have never believed, in my wildest dreams, that I would ever be going into a federal prison to visit someone I loved, nor that I would be here telling you about it. It happens, and sometimes you do not see it coming. I’ve talked to mothers and grandmothers who are heartbroken because their sons or grandsons are in prison. They don’t know how to comprehend that, because the circumstances that led to that person’s incarceration may have been a sudden and single incident, as is mine.
I live with the statistics about domestic abuse too, so I get a lot of sideward glances. It takes 16 times before a victim will come forward. I personally do not like the term “victim,” a person victimized by domestic violence. That’s not my case. This happened once, and once only. It was one of those situations that can never really be explained.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: Thank you for appearing.
I first want a supplemental to what Senator Cordy asked you. In terms of the process when you were ion scanned, the procedure that is supposed to be followed is a risk threat assessment. You’re supposed to be tested twice through different tests. If there’s still a concern that you’re a security risk to the institution, there’s supposed to be a risk threat assessment done by Corrections that is then supposed to be shared with you. Was that procedure ever followed in any of your visits? To your knowledge, was that procedure ever followed with any of the people you saw when you were visiting?
Ms. Grenier: Not that I saw.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
You mentioned having mental health facilities within the prisons. We’ve heard evidence and certainly seen lots of examples, as Senator Cordy pointed out, of situations where existing mental health services within the prison settings are always — staff within them talk about security always trumping therapeutic interventions, or, on almost all occasions, security trumping therapeutic needs.
One of the recommendations that has been made by some is that we actually look at using provisions like section 29 of the CCRA, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which allow people to be transferred out into appropriate health and mental health facilities. If those were available, if that provision was used, would you still be suggesting more services within prisons, or would you be suggesting that we look to more of those external services being provided?
Ms. Grenier: First of all, my position is that prisons should be abolished, so I think everything should be outside of the prison. Even with section 29 actually being used to transfer people out to the community for help, what is going on inside the prisons cannot be fixed, so a separate, outside, secure unit.
With regard to the issue of security trumping therapeutic needs, in fact, security trumps everything: section 7, your right as a person, everything is trumped by that concept of security. It is the conduct of the guards and the way they treat people. They dehumanize people. Richard was talked down to. He was treated badly. Other people were treated worse than he was. They cannot expect to be safe. Of course they’re looking over their shoulders. They know how they’re treating prisoners. They know the environment they’ve created. I don’t think they have the same problem in Norway.
Senator Pate: You mentioned you were going into the prison both as a victim and as a family member. How were you treated in terms of being a victim by Correctional Service Canada?
Ms. Grenier: They knew I was a victimized person because that’s the basis upon which my visitor status was approved, which, of course, you have a whole application to get that approved. They were aware that was the purpose and reason I was going in there and that Rich was the offender in my situation.
As disrespectfully as they could, they laughed at me. They have sneered at me. During one of the visits in the visiting room — of course, the visiting room with other families — a guard came up as close to me as he could without touching me. They have body armour on. He said, “I’m sick and tired of watching you.” Very aggressive, very demeaning.
I’ll admit that there are good persons employed and working with CSC, but I only encountered one while visiting. He was decent and was addressing an issue with me. I was very defensive because of my previous treatment, but we sorted it out. That’s my experience.
I went in for 16 months. I was going every other weekend, and then I was going for two days every other weekend. First it was one day. You can tabulate the number of times that I’ve been in and out of, first, Warkworth and then Bath institutions.
It was traumatic for me to go the first time. Just the building is intimidating — the wire, the gates, the doors. I have post-traumatic stress. I was going to see my partner for the first time. The first visit was a closed visit, behind glass, so it was very stressful going and just deciding to go. They knew I was a victim, and yet they locked me in a room similar to the room he’s in, with the thick glass door. I was locked in another cell, as it were. That’s when they walked by, looked in the window and laughed at me, because I was, at that point, very emotional just being there and seeing my partner. That was definitely the opposite to what I expected.
And they also did know that I was a lawyer as well, so I guess I thought there would be some professional recognition of some sort, but that seemed to be the opposite. It seems they have greater disdain for lawyers and persons victimized than —
I did meet many women going in who — mostly women, because we were going into a male institution — who had no issues going in and out at all. So it was my heightened awareness that I was being targeted.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: I don’t have any other senators on the list, but I do have one question I’d like to ask.
During our fact-finding visits to prisons, we were told on a number of occasions that the CSC cancels family visits for a range of reasons, including discipline, lockdowns or security concerns, for example. I’m wondering if you have any views on how cancelling family visits affects those federally sentenced persons and what the impact is on family members when a visit is cancelled.
Ms. Grenier: For instance, regarding the incident when I attended and was told I had one second to get out, I had driven four hours. I was sent away in one minute, with no basis whatsoever. There was no reason to make me leave. I had to drive four hours home.
Of course, my partner doesn’t know what happened. He knows there’s a visit scheduled. He’s waiting, waiting. He does see me come in, because he would be in the yard specifically waiting to see me arrive. Then he would leave, because he had a long walk to get back around so he could get back into the visiting room and not keep me waiting. Then he hears nothing. He knows nothing. He finds out when he phones so many hours later. That’s when he learns. And he figures out when he doesn’t get called down.
That has an emotional and a mental health effect on both of us that one has great difficulty describing. I can tell you I have had and still have a psychologist with whom I meet, and I’ve spent many hours of therapy just dealing with what I’ve been through in these situations with CSC.
So the prisoner is in there, sometimes not knowing what has happened and the status of their visit. We figure out that the visit is cancelled. From both sides, we both are anticipating this visit and are both anticipating seeing each other. It is an open visit, so we can hug, we can kiss hello, we can sit together and we can have eye contact. In good weather, we walk outside. And we spent a lot of time talking about some of the details, which you cannot do on the telephone, for me to come to grips with what had happened, what he had done to me, and it is important to get through those and understand them personally, together.
So the feeling of anticipating seeing a loved one and working through issues — by this time, we’ve made some progress, obviously — is, again, very destructive, mentally and emotionally. Needless to say, I didn’t get very far in my car before I had to stop because I was weeping, and I can’t drive that way.
I have to say my contact, my community officer with CSC, was the best person I could have encountered in this journey. I often did phone her and tell her of various treatments and what was going on. It was not CSC, I’m sorry; it was a Parole Board contact person I had as a victim when I signed up under their program. She was almost always there on the phone to talk to me and help me through these. She did, in fact, listen many times.
I hope that answers your question.
The Chair: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Grenier, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for coming and sharing with us your experience and making that public. We appreciate what you’ve shared with us today. Thank you for your time.
Ms. Grenier: Thank you.
The Chair: Committee members, we have some administrative matters to discuss. Is it agreed that we continue the meeting in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)