Proceeding of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 40 - Evidence - Meeting of March 20, 2019
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 20, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:30 a.m. to study issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft report.
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 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 Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate from Ontario.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling from New Brunswick.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer from Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: 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 hearing from some witnesses with whom we met early in our study. In this first hour, we are hearing again from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, UCCO-SACC-CSN. Let me introduce Jason Godin, National President, and Éric Thibault, National Vice-President.
Senator Ngo has just joined us, welcome.
Mr. Godin, welcome back. You have the floor.
Jason Godin, National President, UCCO-SACC-CSN: I would like to thank the committee for inviting us. It’s a pleasure to be here today to speak to you on a number of issues. Today,I will primarily focus most of my comments on Bill C-83. I have also submitted some briefs at the request of the committee around prison needle exchange, as well as the high-risk women offenders proposal that was tabled back in 2005. I will stick to Bill C-83. I am certainly open to any questions afterward.
The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers represents over 7,300 federal correctional officers working in all institutions across the country. As law enforcement professionals, we represent a critical component of Correctional Service of Canada, enabling the service to achieve its public safety mandate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Recently much consideration has been given to the role segregation plays within Canada’s correctional system, both provincially and federally. It has been thoroughly studied and its effects analyzed and debated both by academics and by critics of justice systems globally.
With the recent introduction of Bill C-83, CSC will be forced to significantly change the manner in which it manages offender populations. The passage of Bill C-83 will result in changes to operational policies that will markedly affect the operations of our federal penitentiaries, impacting staff and inmates alike.
Accordingly, UCCO-SACC-CSN, whose members represent a significant partner in the discharge of effective corrections, seeks to participate in the discussions about these changes. As such, the goal of this report is to provide perspective on the potential impact of these changes from a correctional officer’s perspective.
Should Bill C-83 be successful, CSC will be forced to implement policy that will drastically alter the manner in which the most difficult segments of its population are managed. As we have seen through recent CSC policy changes to CD 709, by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations.
We are concerned about policy revisions that appear to be reducing the ability to isolate an inmate, either for their safety or safety of staff, subsection 37.3. This is not to suggest that Bill C-83 is not without its merits. Tools such as body scanners provided for in Bill C-83 will enhance the abilities of correctional officers to reduce the various types of contraband that threaten the safety of those working and living in federal institutions. However, in order to implement the bill in its entirety, there will be a much greater commitment required from the federal government to ensure its success.
While the bill seeks to amend several key components of the CSC framework, perhaps the most significant in relation to security operations is the elimination of segregation units within federal institutions. While UCCO-SACC-CSN recognizes that effective corrections require the ability to adapt, our members are also tasked with ensuring the safety of all offenders and staff in our institutions. By eliminating disciplinary and administrative segregation, the ability to maintain control over diverse populations will be significantly impacted. We accept that an overreliance on segregation as a disciplinary consequence may lead to negative outcomes. However, there are instances where swift and immediate responses to dangerous behaviour is a necessary option.
In 2017, we witnessed the unintended impact of changes to correctional policy, namely, CD 709, administrative segregation, and CD 843, the interventions to preserve life and prevent serious bodily harm. These policies significantly reduced CSC’s ability to manage its institutions through the use of segregation. Although well intended, this quickly led to a sharp increase in violence within federal penitentiaries. Early data released through the Office of the Correctional Investigator on the impact of these amendments provided some indication of the operational outcomes of these changes. An analysis of the numbers found a clear correlation between release back into regulation population and violent incidents. The releases declined to 4,025 from 5,501 from 2012 to 2017, while the number of those leaving segregation who are implicated in assault rose to 321 from 244.
Furthermore, Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger stated that the new strategy to limit prolonged segregation has had the unintended consequences of more violent attacks behind bars. He is urging the Correctional Service of Canada to strengthen risk assessments to improve safety for inmates. While Mr. Zinger may suggest that these changes led to unintended consequences, UCCO-SACC-CSN has been unequivocal in its position that this outcome would occur. In the last two years, we have seen institutions that despite shrinking populations are becoming more violent due to organizational repose that reduced control measures which appeared to be correlated further with increases in assaults. While UCCO-SACC-CSN does not advocate for unnecessary segregation of inmates, it does strive to ensure its continued availability as a population management tool without unreasonable policy-based restrictions or outright elimination.
Consideration also needs to be given to the transitional nature of Bill C-83. Should this bill be implemented, all inmates who are subject to disciplinary segregation will no longer be the subject of the sanction, sections 39 and 40. This will result in immediate changes to the management of violent offenders in institutional populations without apparent consideration for how they will be managed moving forward.
The bill seeks to replace segregation with the implementation of structured intervention units, the details of which are still vague. This bill would allow 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, section 31.
Furthermore, within Bill C-83, references to segregation have been eradicated and replaced throughout by structured intervention units. As it currently stands, UCCO-SACC-CSN is of the opinion that the only units suitable for managing inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream population, for security or other reasons, are CSC’s existing segregation units. It remains unclear whether this bill will result in actual closure of segregation units or, more simply, their renaming with something more politically appropriate.
Regardless of where the structured intervention units are situated within federal institutions, Bill C-83 also seeks to amend the manner in which the most difficult portions of institutional populations are managed. Structured intervention unit inmates will be provided with the opportunity to interact with other inmates for at least two hours, as well as the right to spend four hours outside of their cells. While these changes are undoubtedly well intended, they are not feasible under current staffing and infrastructure models.
Many of the inmates currently managed within segregation units are highly vulnerable and are segregated for their own protection. In order to provide them with the amount of interaction prescribed within the new bill, they will require direct and constant supervision from already limited numbers of correctional officers. Conversely, the inability to adequately manage incompatible inmates will lead to consequences like those seen in Archambault and Millhaven institutions where inmates were murdered in separate incidents in early 2018.
In general, should we proceed to the SIU model as a replacement for segregation, it is our hope that these changes will be implemented gradually so that they can be properly assessed and amended as necessary. It is promising to note that discretionary powers remain with the commissioner to extend the proposed SIU status over 30 days, allowing correctional officers the ability to manage high-risk, volatile or self-harming offenders without hard capped time frames, subsection 37.4 of the bill.
As with the implementation of SIUs, the ability for CSC to repurpose existing infrastructure to meet the criteria of Bill C-83 is unclear. Policy changes resulting from the passage of the bill will restrict an institution’s ability to respond to the needs of specific inmates, the broader population to meet its current mandate, and to provide a safe work environment for its staff. Should the changes occur, significant infrastructural changes at the institutional level are necessary in order to continue to meet critical strategic priorities effectively.
Changes proposed by the bill would allow the commissioner to assign the security classification of minimum security, medium security, maximum security, multi-level security or any other prescribed security classifications to each penitentiary or to any area in the penitentiary, section 29.
From an operational standpoint, this wording appears quite vague. Historically, CSC institutions have been constructed with a security standard in mind. To attempt to retroactively change the security ratings of individual institutions and areas within those institutions seems to be at odds with the original vision of them. This would significantly complicate population management strategies.
The powers of the commissioner are also broadened in relation to transferring inmates within the various security levels of their institutions. It will reinforce the power of the commissioner to transfer inmates to different security levels; for example, transferring a maximum security level inmate to a medium security area. Given the security implications of these transfers, we feel it is prudent to solicit the input correctional officers into these decisions, as we are most familiar with the behaviour and the potential outcomes.
Additionally UCCO-SACC-CSN has been calling for the creation of a special handling unit for female offenders since 2005. Despite every effort, some female inmates exhibit behaviour that simply cannot be safely controlled in regular institutions within the current infrastructure model. In similar instances involving male offenders, CSC has the ability to transfer otherwise unmanageable inmates to the special handling unit in Quebec.
Historically, due to a lack of alternative options, this has resulted in female inmates being placed in segregation for exceedingly long periods of time. However, under the new guidelines in Bill C-83, CSC may be forced to involuntarily transfer these inmates on a regular and ongoing basis in order to be in compliance with the law. The same set of circumstances that marked Ashley Smith’s incarceration will become even more prevalent. This will serve neither the inmate nor CSC’s legislative mandate. Until changes to existing infrastructure are realized, they will be a necessary reality.
As a result of eliminating the segregation tool, CSC will be forced to rely on managing groups of inmates through the creation of subpopulations. Effectively, they are segregating inmates without actually physically placing them in segregation. This is already occurring through the use of a variety of alternative measures. For instance, inmates are increasingly restricted to their cell or range during the day. Additionally, restrictions on when different groups of inmates are eligible to use recreation yards will become more prevalent.
While these options are certainly viable, they are entirely dependent upon the existence of physical infrastructure to support them. To implement these options in physical spaces, never originally designed for such purposes, elevates risk and places an unnecessary strain on staff and inmates who are living within those units.
Further to the issue of infrastructure is CSC’s ongoing inability to manage inmates with serious psychological issues. The ability to manage severe mental health cases out of regional psychiatric centres was already severely limited prior to the changes put forth in Bill C-83. In a 2008 report, UCCO-SACC-CSN projected a 32 per cent increase in assaults on staff in coincidence with a 15 per cent decrease in segregation bed use during the same period.
More specifically, CSC is also projecting increased staff assaults at both Millhaven Regional Treatment Centre and the Prairies Regional Psychiatric Centre, which represent two of the most statistically dangerous institutions in the country. The reduction in our ability to manage the most difficult cases securely through segregation when necessary will only further exacerbate already dangerous work environments for correctional officers. I mentioned earlier two inmates were murdered in 2018 in treatment centres. I have not seen that in 27 years.
As we’ve seen in the past, difficulties effectively managing diverse populations due to lack of appropriate infrastructure can quickly turn tragic. The cases of Ashley Smith and Marlene Carter highlight the difficulties of supervising inmates with severe mental disorders and the consequences that can occur when existing policy and infrastructure fail to meet the needs of inmates and the staff who supervise them.
As provincial psychiatric hospital resources continue to dwindle, along with CSC’s inability to refer cases to them, federal penitentiaries across the country will be increasingly required to absorb these individuals into a system poorly prepared to address the complex health issues. This reality, coupled with the elimination of administrative segregation, will require that CSC be proactive in addressing issues around population management. Given the policy changes that have already occurred in CD 843 and CD 709, and imminently in the passing of Bill C-83, we are certain that CSC will struggle financially with the necessary infrastructure changes to manage these complex offender cases.
For many years now, UCCO-SACC-CSN has been lobbying CSC for an increased commitment to health care and mental health care needs. Bill C-83 recognizes the importance of health care professionals in managing inmates in that their recommendations are considered in the SIU assessment process, while maintaining the warden as the ultimate decision maker, subsections 37.2 and 37.3.
Unfortunately, while Bill C-83 recognizes the importance of health care staff in the process of managing inmates in the structured interventions unit, it falls short of specifically allocating for 24-hour-a-day health care services. We have been advocating for that for a number of years. This often places the burden of these specialized responsibilities on front-line correctional officers. Until recommendations for 24-hour health care made by various parliamentarian inquiries and UCCO-SACC-CSN are implemented, CSC will continue to fail to meet its responsibilities and place correctional officers in precarious situations.
With regard to UCCO-SACC-CSN members, while correctional officers are trained as medical first responders, we still lack access to curriculum necessary to be considered proficient in responding to individuals in a mental health state crisis. CSC has committed to expanding training to address these shortcomings. However, front-line officers have yet to see any significant changes to our national training standards.
When dealing with individuals in a state of mental health crisis, de-escalation is always the primary goal for correctional officers. However, there are incidents where this is not feasible when risk is assessed. Thus, immediate resolutions are required. Despite having use-of-force response options include physical handling or chemical agents, we lack access to chemical restraints that are available to psychiatric hospitals dealing with the clientele whose behaviour is directly comparable to that of CSC inmates. While having to use chemical restraints is not necessarily ideal or to be relied upon as the only option, their inclusion as a response option could preclude using physical force, thus allowing safer resolutions for staff and inmates.
With regard to preventive security, we are encouraged to see the inclusion of body scanners. I mentioned that earlier. Again, we have supported that since day one.
There is ample evidence to support the detrimental effects of long-term segregation on inmates housed in such conditions. Some inmates may have pre-existing conditions where placement in segregation could further exacerbate their health issues. While UCCO-SACC-CSN recognizes these studies in their findings, our members work in an environment where mental health issues and self-injurious behaviours are exceeding common. The Office of the Correctional Investigator has estimated that mental health problems are two to three times more prevalent in federal institutions than in the general public.
In order to meet our mandates of safety, security and rehabilitation, we cannot be left to operate in a state of ambiguity. Should Bill C-83 pass, it is our sincere hope that careful consideration be given to how it will be implemented. As we have recently seen, too much change too quickly without consideration of impacts on our environment leads to people being seriously injured or worse.
We would make the following recommendations. We are asking for a more robust reassessment of policy changes that will influence Bill C-83; the implementation of a more robust incident tracking system to better understand the operational impacts of these changes; the reversion of language that now recommends response options be least restrictive to what was previously most appropriate; a commitment to supplementing existing infrastructure within federal institutions to address the impacts of elimination of administrative and disciplinary segregation; a review and augmentation of the disciplinary system prior to the elimination of disciplinary segregation to effectively respond to the most difficult behavioural inmate cases; a commitment to the availability of health care professionals 24 hours a day within all CSC institutions; the expansion of alternative response options, such as chemical restraints similar to those used within provincial psychiatric hospitals; the supplementation of existing training and the implementation of new training to provide correctional officers with additional tools to allow them to safely respond to the diverse needs of inmate populations. De-escalation training would be very useful, as would increased inclusion for UCCO-SACC-CSN in future discussions regarding structured intervention units; recognition of correctional officers as partners and subject matter experts; a more detailed explanation of the structured intervention units and the proposed operational guidelines; and the continued availability of existing segregation units until such time as it is mutually agreed upon to move forward with the other units.
In closing, UCCO-SACC-CSN recognizes that changes to strategic priorities, adapting to emerging trends in corrections and operational policies are realities of our work. However, including our members in conversations around these changes prior to their implementation is critical to ensuring their effectiveness.
CSC and the government issuing its mandates need to realize that changes to these policies can substantially increase the potential for volatile situations within its federal institutions, which will directly impact the safety of staff and inmates. Accordingly, we hope you will take our concerns into consideration and allow us to work as partners moving forward to ensure the best possible outcomes are achieved.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks. You did go over, but I gave you a bit of latitude.
Mr. Godin: I apologize. I had a lot of points to make.
The Chair: As agreed at our last meeting, we are dividing the time so that there is equal time for each senator. We have a long list, so each senator will have six minutes. We will ask the senators to be concise in their asking of questions, and we will ask the witnesses to be concise in their responses.
Senator Ataullahjan: I have a two-part question. When he appeared before the committee, the Correctional Investigator of Canada testified that there had already been a reduction in the use of administrative segregation over the past few years.
Could you explain whether the reduction in the use of segregation has affected rates of violence between federally sentenced persons and its correctional officers? If so, in what ways? Could you also share with the effects it has had on issues such as institutional safety and the use of forced interventions?
Mr. Godin: Absolutely. We’re seeing a direct link or correlation between the decline in the use of segregation and violent incidents in open population. The statistical data from the Office of the Correctional Investigator supports that, as do the statistics from the Correctional Service of Canada.
In particular, we are seeing a spike in violent incidents in treatment centres, which is very concerning because a treatment centre is designed or designated to treat inmates with mental health issues. That’s our goal, but unfortunately the two most violent institutions in the country are our treatment centres. I can provide a report from CSC on the number of assaults.
I’ll give you an example. The Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon had over 100 assaults on correctional staff in less than 12 months. Those numbers are staggering. The CSC statistical data right now is projecting a continued increase of assaults. Sometimes we have inmates who are behavioural problems; sometimes we have inmates who are suffering from a mental health issue. As we de-escalate the use of segregation, the behavioural problems are ending up in the mental health units and facilities. We don’t want that because they are disruptive and assaultive.
We need another alternative, because our goal is to make sure that inmates in a mental treatment centre get the interventions they need. We don’t need inmates who are behavioural problems causing disruption and assaulting other inmates and staff. That’s one the biggest issues we have.
The use of force has actually declined a bit in some statistical data, but we don’t see that. Some of it is not necessarily captured. We may step between two inmates. We may do that type of intervention. We continue to believe that some of those are up, but they are not necessarily captured. If you look at the CSC data, it captures that assaults on correctional officers and inmates are on the rise. We don’t want that happening.
I mentioned earlier that unfortunately two inmates were murdered in treatment centres in 2018. In talking with my colleagues, that’s not acceptable. I haven’t seen that in 27 years, but it’s a good indication that we are moving inmates into treatment facilities who do not belong there. We need another answer for those high-risk, violent inmates.
We have to recognize that 72 per cent of inmates are suffering from a mental illness. We understand that. It’s important that we treat those offenders, but we also have to recognize another 28 per cent of our offenders are not necessarily suffering from mental illness who may be involved in organized crime, who may be bullying or orchestrating assaults. We have to be cognizant of the other 28 per cent. Not only do we need an alternative for inmates suffering from mental illness, but we also need an alternative for those cases that are being disruptive to those different units.
I hope that answers your question, senator.
Senator Ataullahjan: When you say you need an alternative, do you have any ideas of what kinds of alternatives would they be?
Mr. Godin: I know some of the senators are aware of what we have been advocating for because we talked about a high-risk unit for violent female offenders the last time. We are trying to make sure those offenders don’t disrupt the others who are actively engaged in their programs.
It’s not about punishment or isolating them. It’s about making sure we put the high-risk individuals in an area where we can do high-risk interventions and treat them. That would be our solution. We currently have that now on the male side of the house. We can send the most severe violent cases to the special handling unit in Quebec, but we don’t have that option as it currently stands in the female facilities. It is not about locking them up and segregating them. It is about making sure that individuals don’t disrupt the others in the unit and that they get the interventions they need.
We are asking for two tiers where we can handle certain populations that are behavioural issues. We want to make sure the right inmates are in the treatment centres and get the proper interventions they need for the good of all staff, so that we don’t get injured and so other inmates don’t get injured. We are looking at two options that we would like to have.
Senator Pate: Thank you for being here and for the work you and your members do on a daily basis, around the clock, 365 days a year. We had the privilege of meeting with many of your members as we went around the country. Through the work I used to do, obviously I met many as well.
We heard about many issues, including a bit of a different perspective on some of the issues you raised today. To start with the last one you raised, the previous union to UCCO-SACC-CSN, when USJE represented correctional officers, actually recommended the same for women in 1994. Following the Arbour commission and the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, it was recognized that a better approach would have been the one recommended in the Creating Choices task force report, which was more dynamic security and less use of static security. In fact, that was the measure encouraged and has continued to be.
As we heard in testimony, women designated as women who should be in those units and have an opportunity for more dynamic security and external therapeutic support are doing well in the community now. The exhibit completely different behaviour than what was exhibited in prison.
I am glad you mentioned the Archambault and Millhaven because all the reports on those situations indicated that there was a tightening up of security; an increased focus on static security; and a loss of opportunities for prisoners to go out on passes and being involved in programming, which gave rise to security incidents and ultimately the problematic situations of riots and those sorts of things.
Successive recommendations, including the Report of the Correctional Investigator that you mentioned, also link increased assaults, increased reporting, an increased charging process and increased uses of force with the removal of segregation and increased use of static security in place of those. It strikes me that we haven’t heard from you something we heard from many of your members across the country: We need to be looking at more dynamic approaches. Some examples were given of approaches like the Breakaway program that is happening as a pilot but is not funded by corrections in Collins Bay to assist with those who have been gang involved. Others have involved outside therapists and section 29 agreements to actually get available outside resources.
Could you comment on the work that needs to be done in those areas? Understandably, it’s part of your mandate as a union representative to be negotiating for security. It was helpful to hear you talk about 24-hour health care, but where is your union in terms of recommendations of some of results and positive outcomes of the measures we have seen?
Mr. Godin: Honestly, senator, you have to understand that clearly our role is the security static side of it. I mentioned earlier what is most important to us. We are advocating as much to have those health care resources with us. It’s our role to make sure the types of programs you are talking about are being facilitated.
It’s not necessarily an overreliance on security. It is intended to make sure we can address those program needs for inmates and make it safe for staff and inmates. Static security is primarily our role. When the interventions are occurring, it is our job to provide the necessary security to ensure there are not inmates disrupting those programs or that we’re not having difficulties from other inmates on the range.
Unfortunately, again, it comes down to resources. At the end of the day, we are not necessarily advocating for additional security resources in this case. We’re saying that we need more health care professionals within the psychiatric units. I won’t speak for everyone, but I know you and I agree, senator, it is important to have 24-hour-a-day health care to make sure when those interventions are occurring that therapeutic nurses are at our disposal immediately. Then there wouldn’t be that overreliance on security. We could still provide security for those interventions, but at the very least we would have the mental health care professionals with us. That is really our goal. It is not to slow things down or to interfere with the interventions. It is to make sure that the staff member is safe, the therapeutic nurse is safe, or whoever the program person is.
Correctional officers who work in treatment centres are a pretty special group. Some of them are extremely skilled at interventions. I can speak to one officer who received one of the highest awards in correctional services. His interventions were recognized. This guy was unbelievable.
We are doing thousands of interactions and interventions. We try to complement the health care staff, but we need them there 24 hours a day. At eleven o’clock at night or four o’clock in the afternoon when the health care staff is gone, it is only us. We would really appreciate having those people with us side by side so that we could do the interventions together. We could help do it together.
Senator Pate: I am conscious that I only have six minutes. We heard about an initiative at Stony Mountain and other institutions where peer supports and advocates are being used to assist in de-escalation. You mentioned there was very little training in de-escalation techniques for staff, which is part of the way you encourage people to use more dynamic security rather than static. It strikes me that one of the things we heard from the Correctional Investigator when he was last here is that only about 2 per cent of the budget currently being used in corrections goes to programming.
What kinds of programming have you seen that have been really effective, like the Breakaway program and the one at Stony Mountain?
Mr. Godin: To be honest and quite frank with you, Senator Pate, I am not an expert on that. You will never get an argument from us; we continue to advocate for programs. The more programs we have, the better it is. I am not the expert to tell you which program is better than another, as an example.
I appreciate de-escalation training. I think we all agree that more training for correctional officers will be useful for us. De-escalation training is something we have talked about a lot. We get basic training, but we would like to have that additional training. We’re pretty good at de-escalating a lot of situations. We do that on a daily basis. Additional training would assist us to try to de-escalate those situations, in conjunction with health care professionals. I hope you advocate for it as much as we do because we continue to say the same thing. The more training correctional officers have to deal with front-line issues, especially de-escalation training is great.
The colleague I referenced before could teach the program. He is the best I have ever seen at it, and he has never received any formal training. It would help our correctional officers to have that type of training. If you could put in a good word for that, we’re on the same paper there.
Senator Ngo: Too many witnesses say that many federal prisoners are abused or are put into segregation for the sake of safety and so on.
First, what do you think is needed in order to pull away from segregation for international safety? They use the word “safety” all the time in order to move a prisoner into segregation.
Second, what is the union doing to uphold the human rights of federal prisoners?
Mr. Godin: We have to do a pretty careful risk assessment when we admit an inmate into segregation. Part of that risk assessment involves engagement directly with the offender. Sometimes offenders will come to us and will say, “I am in debt. I can’t go back into the general population. I need some quiet time away.” Sometimes offenders like to be away from the general population.
I want to be a bit careful referring to a recent example that is currently under investigation. I am aware of a situation where an offender advocated to stay in segregation. Unfortunately, he was released and ended up being murdered. These are the evaluations we have to do very carefully to ensure that these types of things don’t occur.
Senator Pate: Which institution is that?
Mr. Godin: I am not at liberty to say. Maybe we could chat about it after, Senator Pate. The details are a little sketchy, but I don’t want to comment because it is being investigated. Those occasions have happened. We have inmates who say, “I would like to go to segregation.” They don’t end up going to segregation and unfortunately end up getting assaulted or potentially or fatally hurt on the range.
In terms of human rights, we looked at statistical data from the Office of the Correctional Investigator. Over a nine-year period there were 441 discrimination complaints looked at by the Correctional Investigator. Many of those are anecdotal. They’re not necessarily true or reliable and oftentimes they’re not proven. I also checked Correctional Service of Canada statistics, and we actually had three discrimination grievances by inmates. Again, we don’t know the outcomes because disciplinary measures are not taken.
In terms of what we are doing, we have looked at the numbers. We do cultural awareness training. We do all kinds of training. Sometimes the CSC policies are perceived as discriminatory. That’s not necessarily against correctional officers. If I tell an inmate there are only certain hours of the day you can be in this program, that may be seen as discriminatory. Sometimes the CSC policies affect that.
I have been a correctional officer for 27 years. I can tell you, honestly, the last thing a correctional officer wants in a unit or an institution is discrimination. We have to work inside there. We don’t want that kind of tension; we don’t need that kind of tension.
What are we doing about it? There is more awareness. We are making sure as colleagues that we talk to one another if we see anything happening, but we don’t have a lot of data to support that there are a lot of difficulties. We’re constantly aware of it. We receive certain training, and oftentimes a union will advocate for training.
Maybe I could use an example. Several years ago we had to transfer a bunch of Aboriginal inmates from Drumheller. We received cultural awareness training around Aboriginal, First Nations and Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, the officers in Ontario didn’t have quite the same understanding or knowledge of Indigenous needs and rights that they would have in the Prairies region. We advocated very strongly to get specific training. At that time we were housing a group of inmates who had come from the Prairies. That is predominantly where most of our Indigenous offenders would come from.
We do certain things. We intervene when we need to intervene. Certainly we have done that since the very beginning and certainly will continue to do it.
Senator Ngo: You mentioned about 440. That’s a lot.
Mr. Godin: Over a nine-year period, yes. I will give you the exact average. It was 41 per year. These come from the Office of the Correctional Investigator. I spoke personally with Mr. Zinger who said that most of them were anecdotal and not proven. They’re unfounded. They’re basically overt. That’s certainly the policy one, but they’re not necessarily proven.
I went back to check the CSC numbers. An average of 41 per year is not unusual. I have been in situations as a correctional officer of having to direct an inmate to do something, and the next day I have a discrimination complaint against me. It is not because I am discriminating against the inmate. It is because I am enforcing the policies and rules of the Correctional Service of Canada. Unfortunately the discrimination cases show that only three of those grievances by inmates actually made it through.
The recourse system we have for inmates and staff alike is pretty vast. In the federal public service there are all kinds of recourse compared to other countries in the world for correctional officers and inmates. For those cases I encourage that the redress system be used, but I don’t have a single disciplinary case in front of me about inmate discrimination right now.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Mr. Godin and Mr. Thibault for appearing before us. You mentioned higher risks faced by correctional officers with the presence of needles in the prison system. Could you go quickly over those risks again and tell me if any of them are mitigated or covered in this legislation, Bill C-83?
Mr. Godin: Unfortunately those risks are not covered in the bill. There’s a whole perspective on the prison needle exchange. I want to make clear that we’re not against harm reduction strategies. First, we need to make sure it is safe for us and the inmates. We are suggesting an alternative to what Correctional Service of Canada is currently doing where they’re issuing needles in cells. We believe that the prison needle exchange program is a health care issue.
We have spoken to several members of Parliament. I can give you a list of members. They all agree that this is a health care issue. We’re suggesting that it belongs in health care. Remove it from the cells. That removes the risks to us. It removes the risk to other inmates, believe it or not. For example, needles can go missing. I can be muscled for a needle. It has already happened under the current program. It also respects the privacy of the inmate. If we remove the needle from the cell and put it in health care where it belongs, that will avoid the sharing of needles, first of all. Second, it protects the privacy of the inmate.
I will tell you what is concerning for us. If you look at the statistical data, which I can provide to the committee, 79 per cent of our overdoses occurs in cells. It would make more sense to have the needles removed from the cells, put in health care where they belong and do it under safe conditions, issued by health care professionals. In that way, if the inmate overdoses, the health care professional is there.
I want to make clear that we’re not against the harm reduction strategies. At first, we were opposed to it for many reasons because at the same time they were asking us to do drug interdiction strategies. We’re caught in a conflict of interest here. We notice that is not how it works in European countries. I have provided you guys with a lot of information on that.
Our goal is the safety of correctional officers and the safety of inmates.
Senator Wells: I am gathering from your presentation and the data being provided that it is prevalent, but in your experience does drug use inhibit or contribute to the rehabilitation objectives within prisons?
Mr. Godin: That’s a tough one. As correctional officers, obviously it is our responsibility to deter drugs come into our institutions. I often get the question, and I very openly love to answer it. People say, “Mr. Godin, you are not doing your job. How are drugs getting into the prisons?” I can give you a list of a hundred ways they are getting into the prisons.
Inmates on drugs is not a good thing. It is not a good thing for other inmates. It is not a good thing for correctional officers or other staff. Currently, our mandate is to prevent the drugs from coming in. That’s very difficult. We have drones nowadays they can actually pinpoint right to a cell window. We’re having difficulties with that.
Does it contribute? With harm reduction strategies, as an example, one of the concerning things — and this is statistical data; I don’t happen to be the expert — is that inmates on the current needle exchange program don’t have to disclose that in front of a parole board. The Canadian public probably has a vested interest in knowing that, because 80 to 90 per cent of offenders have usually committed their crimes while on drugs or alcohol when they are in the community.
I don’t pretend to be the expert. Are there things we can be doing to try to prevent drugs from coming in? Of course there are. We are to introduce the body scanners, which is a non-intrusive way to detect contraband. We have a major problem with drones. They’re out of control. We’re getting anywhere from seven to ten drops a week. I can show you some photos. I had one yesterday. It is unbelievable how sophisticated these things are. It is creating a lot of difficulty for correctional officers.
There’s not an easy solution to that. We’re trying to figure out ways because it is our goal to get inmates off of drugs. We want them to be successful when they go back into the community. We don’t want them to commit crimes to support drug habits. That’s what we’re trying to do. It is very complicated to prevent that. We continue to do all that we can. We’re trying to prevent drugs. That’s our mandate, as well, as correctional officers.
Senator Wells: It appears to me there is some advocacy for controlled injection in a health centre in the prison. Is that what it would be called?
Mr. Godin: Safe consumption, we might call that. They’re using different buzzwords now. We are actually going to pilot one of those.
Senator Wells: Drugs aren’t allowed in prison but they’re getting in, obviously. You would advocate for a safe consumption site where there is not mitigation of it. I won’t say it is promoted but it is facilitated. We would hope, through some kind of rehabilitation program, prisoners would be incorporated back into society. I don’t know the correct word to use.
We are putting inmates, who use drugs or may be facilitated through needle programs or health sites, back into society, hoping that it works out. Am I getting it wrong?
Mr. Godin: I guess. I am not the expert to make those evaluations. I would suggest, though, that there are all kinds of synthetic drugs on the market. They are alternatives to illicit drugs because it is illicit drugs that are the real danger. From my own research, and again I don’t pretend to be an expert, there are over a thousand drugs approved by Health Canada that are substitutions for those kinds of drugs.
As well, we’re advocating for trying to substitute synthetic drugs and maybe we can reduce the other situations from occurring where the illicit drugs are coming in. The opioid crisis is at an all-time high. That’s a real concern for us. We get several overdoses every week. We’re correctional officers. We are the only peace officers I am aware of that are responsible for an inmate’s death. In the Vancouver PD they don’t even respond to overdoses anymore. It is unfair to us. If you look at the needle exchange in Europe, they don’t respond to overdoses either.
We’re saying that this belongs in health care. That’s where the experts are to deal with this one.
Senator Wells: You are saying it is not what you signed up for.
Mr. Godin: That’s pretty much it, yes.
Senator Boyer: It sounds like you have a really tough job. My question is about relationships. As part of this committee’s work, we heard in confidential meetings with correctional staff and officers that some of them feared retribution when they had reported unacceptable behaviour to other correctional officers, to other staff or to prisoners.
First, could you explain what systems you have in place to protect whistle-blowers? Second, what is in place to create more positive working environments between correctional officers? You had mentioned recourse, but I would like you to expand on that, please.
Mr. Godin: Absolutely, and I do appreciate the question. We are very proactive right now. We have decided to do a couple of things. If we look at the situation in Edmonton — and I won’t go into details because it’s currently under investigation — I will tell you that the union was the one that raised Edmonton to the attention of the Correctional Service of Canada. In fact, we advocated for months and months and months. We said, “Look it, something has to be looked at here. We’re having a lot of difficulties. We have a unit operating outside of administrative segregation policies.”
We advocated for that. Finally, CSC took action. They agreed to do an outside investigation. A third party came in and did an outside investigation. There’s a toxic work report I would be more than willing to share with the committee. It is public. It was us that pushed for that. At the same time we visited Edmonton very regularly. We went and visited all the staff there. I have been there myself personally six or seven times, encouraging staff that if there’s any unacceptable conduct or behaviour to come and talk to us too. We’re currently representing six of our members on human rights complaints. We have always had a harassment policy. We took additional measures to enhance that. We’re working with CSC on implementing the toxic workplace report.
I would strongly suggest that the committee take a look at those recommendations and join in with us on that because we’re asking for those recommendations to be implemented. Our local unions are currently working, saying they need this change, this change and this change so that these types of things don’t occur again.
At the same time we have had many discussions with Correctional Service of Canada through the ethics committee on making sure that we now have a number where people can come forward. We are obviously encouraging our members to come forward to us because we don’t want that kind of work environment either. I have been around a long time. Most correctional officers do not want that type of work environment.
At the same time training is essential. We continue to signal that. We know that we have different types of training on CTP, but we’re saying that maybe it is time for refresher training. The Correctional Service has picked up that ball, and we’re redoing the kind of ethics training we need.
We have done a lot of work. I plan on heading to Edmonton again. I want to see the progression of the report. We have met with many of the members. There was a problem. Again, I won’t talk personally on those cases because they’re ongoing, but we’re now representing six human rights complaints on behalf of our membership.
We have taken a lot of action. The problem is that we have a delicate balancing act. Under the law, it is also our obligation as a union to represent members on the other side of the spectrum, so you can see the dilemma the union is caught in. At the same time we have a mechanism where we channel those things. We have different representatives dealing with one part and different representatives dealing with another part.
Once we implement some of the recommendations out of the report out of Edmonton, the next step is to be there to support the staff. It is really important to understand that we have excellent staff at Edmonton. A lot of people that come to that institution are proud to do their job. After this is all over, we want to make sure they’re supported and feel confident and comfortable to go in and do their job. We encourage our members to report any kind of misconduct immediately to us and to Correctional Service of Canada. There are all kinds of recourses and mechanisms. Different hotlines are set up now. We’re on board with a lot of that. I strongly encourage you to take a look. I will share the report with you, if are you interested.
Senator Boyer: I look forward to it. Thank you.
Mr. Godin: It is a pleasure.
Senator Hartling: I was going to ask similar questions to what were just asked, but I want to reiterate that you talked a lot in your opening remarks about safety, security and mental health. Those are factors in prison, but workers and a lot of staff we met had concerns about how things were going in the workplace. I am happy to hear you are looking at those issues. It is especially disturbing that women are attacked by their fellow workers.
In the complaints process, how safe do you think people feel to go forward and how do they do that? You talked a bit about that, but could you expand on that? Supposing I am working there and I get attacked, whom do I go to? How does that work?
Mr. Godin: Honestly, senator, it is basically spending time to sit and talk with people to make them feel comfortable. As I mentioned, we are representing six correctional officers on human rights cases. We’re taking those very seriously. We don’t take this subject lightly.
It is getting people to feel at ease. I won’t comment on the specifics, but we have spent a lot of time talking to members and encouraging them to come forward. We’re not shy of that. We want a workplace that’s free from harassment. We want it to be safe, and we want it to be safe for our co-workers. The only way, to be honest with you, is to be very present there. As a union we have done a very good job of that. I have spent hours and hours talking with people and encouraging them. It has had a pretty good effect. We have had good discussions with some individuals affected directly by some of the events that went on. It is a trust thing. It is sitting down, talking with people and engaging people. We’re doing all we can.
For me it is a lot to do with face-to-face interactions. It is reassuring them that there’s a hotline to call. It is reassuring them that their union is available to help represent them if there is a problem. As I mentioned earlier, we have two factions we must manage there. We have to manage them carefully because the law obliges us to represent both parties, the victim or potentially an assailant. I won’t comment on the specifics because it is ongoing. We can talk more after.
Senator Hartling: Is there opportunity for a woman to talk to a woman?
Mr. Godin: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Hartling: If she’s a Black or an Indigenous woman who works there, does she have the opportunity to talk to someone of her culture?
Mr. Godin: Yes. You can look at our union structure. We have a Status of Women representative locally and we have a Status of Women representative regionally. Perhaps I will give you an example, if this is helpful for you. We’re having some issues around transgender inmates. You have to understand that some of our members may have been victimized themselves. If we have a risk assessment on an inmate who is acting inappropriately, who has a long history of sex offences, who shows up in an institution and self-declares as a woman, who continues to have male genitalia and makes advances toward our members, we have a mechanism in place for that. We’re experiencing some of those problems right now in places like the Pacific region. To answer your question, we have individuals available.
Many our officers come from a lot of different ethnic backgrounds now. That’s hugely important. I will use an example. At Warkworth Institution a good portion of our correctional officers are Indigenous. Unfortunately, a couple of years ago, the correctional investigator came out and made a generalized statement about systemic racism there. I can tell you the three officers involved in the particular situation were all Aboriginal and were very offended by that. Bill Gonzalez, whom I’ve known for many years, was 30 years on the job and was upset by that. He said, “We don’t have a systemic racism problem here. I have worked here for 30 years. I am an Indigenous correctional officer, and we do our job.”
Things have changed a lot in the service since I started. The proportional representation of our membership has changed very drastically over the last 27 years, and that’s a good thing. Just to get back to it, there are women representatives available for those personal issues to go to for assistance.
Senator Pate: One of the issues that has changed is the security clearances required for outside organizations. I was pleased to hear you talking about wanting to see more programs and opportunities coming in. One of the challenges has been with those security clearances being increased is that fewer community people are coming in and there is less access. Under Bill C-83, my understanding is that most of the resourcing will be going to extra correctional officers.
How do you see, under Bill C-83, more programming coming into prisons? Does the union have a position on the increased security clearance requirements for visitors, civil society, non-governmental organizations and the like?
Mr. Godin: That’s a bit out of our control. We’re not necessarily in charge of approving outside people coming in. We’re not discouraging it. Don’t get me wrong. That’s up to Correctional Service of Canada. If you are having issues around those requirements, I would suggest you address them with CSC.
With Bill C-83 we will see a huge increase in nursing staff and therapeutic resources. That’s encouraging. We have to make sure we have the security to help them do their job. There will be an increase in both resources, I would suggest. Obviously there has to be a slight increase in security. I don’t see it being a huge one at this point, but we know those numbers must increase to make sure we can facilitate.
We have to take into account the numbers. I will give you a good example. If we’re running a unit with 75 offenders and we’re trying to provide four hours a day out of cells, therapeutic interventions and those types of things, that requires resources, and 75 is a lot. We’re talking about four hours outside of cells, plus showers, phone calls and all those things. We need resources. Based on how it is being proposed, the four hours out of cells will be occupied by therapeutic health care support. That’s interesting. That’s definitely an improvement.
You may not agree it is far enough, and I certainly encourage you to advocate for more. For us, it is about making sure we safely do those interventions. Some of the units might be smaller, so we don’t require as many resources. We may not have a unit of 75 that we’re dealing with. It is virtually impossible to deliver four hours a day out, unless we have what we need. We may have smaller units that can facilitate that, which would be a bit easier. We’re not against programs. We’re not against people coming in to deliver them. We have to make sure the security support is there so they receive the time they need to interact with the offender.
Senator Pate: When the Correctional Investigator appeared before us, he indicated that he didn’t see the resource allocation and the plan that has been put in place being capable of implementing what are the stated objectives of Bill C-83. Would you disagree with that?
Mr. Godin: I wouldn’t disagree with that. My testimony before Parliament was that you would need a lot of resources to do this. We were very clear that this is not a small undertaking. You won’t hear an argument from us. In fact, you have probably heard me make public some statements. While well intentioned, you need to cough up the bucks. It’s not cheap to facilitate this.
It’s also difficult right now. This is something for your consideration as well: Part of our problem is trying to recruit health care professionals. This is an issue that we are having as well. It’s not necessarily about not letting people in or not getting people in to deliver programs. It’s about recruitment piece of it. Honestly, I sympathize with CSC. We had a discussion about this last week. It’s very difficult to attract health care professionals in the prison service if you are not paying appropriate dollars. A psychiatrist or psychologist will make more money on the street than he is working inside a federal institution. That is part of our problem.
We are advocating for as many resources as we can, and I know you are singing the same song as we are.
Senator Ngo: I want to follow up on Senator Wells’ idea. Tell me how the anti-drug program strategy and the prison needle exchange program work together. On the one hand you have the anti-drug strategy, and on the other hand you have the needle.
Mr. Godin: To be honest with you, I will tell you it’s very complicated. Here is the situation that correctional offices are put in. We are asked to keep contraband out. We feel that’s our primary goal. At the end of the day, we’re also being told to accept that we’re going to give a needle to an inmate in a cell. Our correctional officers are asking the same question. When the program came in I had hundreds of members asking, “Jason, what do we do?”
You have to remember that we don’t want to be seen as targeting an inmate either. I now know that the inmate has a needle in his cell. Subconsciously, in the back of my mind, I am pretty certain. You have to realize that it’s like driving a car. If you are driving down the highway and the police pulls you over and there is a needle sitting on the passenger seat, he will likely have reasonable and probable grounds to search your car. I take that same analogy and I put that in the prison environment: I now know he has a needle. It should give me reasonable and probable grounds to go in and search the cell, but we are being told that it’s discriminatory. By the way, if the needle is lying on the desk and there is drug residue in it, we can’t do anything. To be honest, we are seeking the same clarity that you are.
In terms of other strategies, we continue to do what we do. We utilize drug dogs. We scan inmates coming through central control areas where we frisk them or pat them down. We do our regular routine stuff, but this adds another complication. Correctional officers are saying, “Wait a minute. I am supposed to try to keep drugs out. At the same time, if the inmate overdoses, I now have to run down within a lock zone top save the inmate.” This is really a conflict of interest for correctional officers. It’s very difficult for us. That’s why we’re suggesting, for the good of everybody, to put it where it belongs in health care.
Protect the inmate’s privacy. We’ll continue to do our job if they go to a safe injection site. We won’t even know what they are going there for, anyway. They can put in a request to see health care. We won’t know because that’s private. Help us protect all of us. That is what we are asking. Remove that from the correctional officers’ hands. We will continue to do our drug interdiction strategies, but this protects the inmates and protects us. Some people say that we have not had attacks with needle sticks. Believe it or not, we have had attacks with needle sticks. We believe the needles belong with the health care professionals. It’s a huge conflict of interest for us. It is very difficult for us.
If you look at the document I provided in advance of this meeting, you will see that Switzerland, for example, doesn’t have a drug interdiction strategy. At the discretion of the warden, they provide needles for inmates for safe injection. However, when an inmate overdose, they don’t respond to that. They are not responsible. They do not have drug dogs. They don’t have the same drug interdiction strategies that we have. We were surprised because Switzerland, as you know, is the United Nations home. They don’t practise the Nelson Mandela rules or the drug interdiction strategy. It is interesting to see the contrast. We went to look because we wanted to understand what is actually happening there. We did a lot of research. Éric Thibault went there. I sent him over in a group to go over there to look at that.
We are caught in a bit of a conflict of interest or an ethical or moral issue for correctional officers. We want to do our job, but we don’t want to be seen as discriminatory against the inmate who has a needle in his cell. I still have to do my job to follow the drug interdiction strategies and policies. Maybe I didn’t answer your question. It’s very complicated and difficult.
Senator Wells: What are the top two illicit drugs used in the prison system?
Mr. Godin: I will forward you the report. I have it. I am pretty sure the opioid crisis is at the top of the list right now.
Senator Pate: What about tobacco?
Mr. Godin: Tobacco as a contraband item, possibly, but I thought you were asking specifically about drugs. I will double-check the report, but I can provide it to you. Opioids are part of an issue. Heroin is not necessarily the choice of drug these days, which is another reason for the needle exchange being difficult.
Senator Wells: The two inmates that were killed in the treatment centres, how were they killed?
Mr. Godin: Stabbed in the neck with a pen.
Senator Wells: Both?
Mr. Godin: Ironically, both. It was quite interesting.
Senator Pate: Male or female?
Mr. Godin: Both of those are male facilities, Archambault and Millhaven. You can probably access those reports through the Correctional Service. I can’t disclose them because they are B-protected documents.
Senator Wells: Do correctional officers have any role in the parole process, in provision of information to the panel, et cetera?
Mr. Godin: We don’t really. We provide security for parole hearings. We only have so much input through a CX-2 or a parole officer. We are not necessarily sure whether some of our stuff gets in front of the parole board. We hope it does. We write reports. We write casework records. They don’t necessarily make it in front of the parole board. They don’t generally get there. Generally all we provide is the static security to make sure the hearings occur.
Senator Pate: Do security reports and assessments for decision get put in?
Mr. Godin: I believe they do, Senator Pate, but we don’t have control of that. I don’t know what goes in or what goes out, to be honest with you.
Senator Brazeau: We’re talking about drugs getting into the prisons and new technologies and whatnot today that allow that to happen. I don’t want to be sensationalist, but there are a lot of movies and documentaries out there.
Is it possible that correctional guards could actually be the ones bringing in some of these illicit drugs for whatever reason? Maybe they are being intimated or threatened, et cetera, because there are some people inmates who are part of gangs and have information? Could that be possible? If so, what is the responsibility of the union in that case with respect to correctional officers?
Mr. Godin: I won’t pretend that doesn’t happen. I wouldn’t necessarily target correctional officers because oftentimes it is not them, believe it or not. Unfortunately, Hollywood movies portray that. I liked your reference to that because they certainly portray that every correctional office is doing that. It is a rarity in the business. It is very rare.
That’s the worst thing a correctional officer can know about. We will usually know and will confront the individual. That’s really the best way to deal with that. We don’t want that occurring. When contraband comes in, it becomes dangerous for us. I can tell you, when walking the range, I don’t want to know my colleague is involved in that. It does happen. However it’s fairly rare. We try to do all we can to keep drugs out. Correctional officers are making good salaries these days, so it’s not necessarily in the interests of a correctional officer to engage in that.
There are some cases of intimidation. Years ago we had training. We actually participated in a justice committee quite some time ago in Quebec City about the intimidation of justice officials, everything from correctional officers to judges. We tabled a lot of solutions on how to do that. One example was to bring back a type of training called Anatomy of a set up. Those are the types of things we discussed.
We have had specific cases where inmates were directly targeting correctional staff and trying to intimidate them. Those individuals weren’t bringing in drugs. Once they came forward, they put up their hands and said, “Hey, Joe Blow is intimidating me.” We’re telling correctional officers, because it does happen, “If you are intimidated by organized crime inside or by offenders, make sure you report it right away.” Most of our members will do that right away.
Again, we are not perfect. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a doctor, lawyer or teacher, I think in every profession that does occur from time to time. It’s rare in our business because we realize how dangerous that could become for us inside.
Senator Brazeau: I am glad it’s a rarity. I am glad you had the opportunity to address it and dissuade any of the sensationalism out there. Having said that, and seeing that it is rare, do you have real or anecdotal evidence or data with respect to times when that may have happened?
Mr. Godin: I don’t have any data before me. That’s a difficult one to capture because it’s private. Discipline is private and resignations can be private. Honestly, I don’t have any data before me.
Senator Brazeau: If it happens, it is done internally.
Mr. Godin: Yes, it is done internally. On occasion we have to make representation on behalf of our members because we are legally obligated. We do that. We have to go through the investigation process. I am not aware of any on my plate right now. Normally, if someone was in trouble, they would come to us. I don’t have any statistical data in front of me to say that we have any of those issues right now.
The Chair: In speaking about or responding to questions, you’ve talked about Bill C-83 and the fact that there will be therapeutic health care support. Are you aware of any discussions to ensure that the therapeutic health care support is actually culturally specific and relevant? Are there efforts in place to ensure that they are?
Mr. Godin: I am not aware if there are some initiatives there, but I strongly encourage that. Certainly your voice would help with that as well. I am not aware of any particular discussions around that. There is certainly a lot of discussion around making sure we have Indigenous representatives come into the institutions to help in those situations in segregation with more visiting rights and more access to Aboriginal offenders. I think that’s important. I am not aware of any specific discussions outside of Indigenous groups right now. Maybe that’s something you would suggest.
The Chair: What are your thoughts about that? Do you think they should be extended to other groups in addition to the Indigenous population?
Mr. Godin: Obviously, the more the better. Certainly I don’t think we’d be opposed to that.
As I said, several officers with various ethnic backgrounds are employed there. They may have a better understanding to better deal with that. Certainly we wouldn’t be against that. Again, understanding how the bill is being positioned, certainly that’s one of things that maybe the Senate would recommend. We wouldn’t oppose it. That’s for sure.
The Chair: Thank you both for your responses to the questions and for the evidence you’ve presented to us.
You’ve referenced a few documents that you are willing to share with us. I would like to put them on the record and ask you to do that. One was the top drugs. I think we should expand that to talk about the top contraband. Perhaps you could provide that. You also said you have stats on drug overdoses. It would be useful to have that information.
Mr. Godin: Yes, sure.
Senator Pate: You mentioned the nature of human rights complaints.
Mr. Godin: Again, I will not be able to provide detail around the human rights complaints because it’s ongoing. We are representatives of those parties, so I can’t disclose.
Senator Pate: It doesn’t have to be private. Whether it’s men or whether it’s women, what is the nature of alleged human rights violation complaints?
Mr. Godin: I am cognizant of that. I have to be mindful of the victims as well. We can have a discussion after, Senator Pate. I would be more than willing to have a chat with you for sure.
The Chair: Maybe not so much the current complaints — we recognize those would not be public yet — but any previous complaints.
Mr. Godin: I honestly wouldn’t have access to previous complaints unless they were brought to my attention. Sometimes complaints are not brought to our attention. We are looking to the future, especially in the current climate, and trying to move forward. I wouldn’t have specific stats on that, but I would certainly be happy to have a short discussion without disclosing details after the fact. I have no problem with that. I will provide, Madam Chair, the documents you requested.
The Chair: And you mentioned the toxic work report.
Mr. Godin: Yes.
The Chair: We’d like a copy of that as well.
Mr. Godin: Yes. sure. That’s a public report, and we are working on all those recommendations.
The Chair: You are saying it’s public, but we tried to find it and we couldn’t.
Mr. Godin: I will help you out, Madam Chairman. I’ll make sure you have a copy. No problem.
The Chair: We thank you for your comments today.
Committee members, we have some administrative matters to discuss. Is it agreed that the meeting continue in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)