Proceeding of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 27 - Evidence - Meeting of March 26, 2018
CHERRY BROOK, Nova Scotia, Monday, March 26, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 6:05 p.m. to study on the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system.
Senator Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to this public hearing by the Senate Human Rights Committee on prisoners’ rights. Before we begin, is it agreed, senators, that photography and filming be authorized during this meeting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Now, senators will introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.
Senator Cordy: Good evening. I am Jane Cordy. I am a senator from Nova Scotia; in fact, I live in Dartmouth. It is wonderful to be here this evening.
Senator Pate: I am Kim Pate and I am from Ontario. It is nice to be here and lovely to see so many people.
Senator Hartling: I am Nancy Hartling, a senator from New Brunswick. I am very thrilled to be here and see so many people here. Thank you for coming.
The Chair: I am Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator for Nova Scotia. I live just down the road in East Preston, for the record. I am happy to be home this evening.
We are honoured to be here at the Black Cultural Centre in Cherry Brook, Nova Scotia, tonight. This is the first Senate hearing ever in the history of the Senate to be held here in this place. It is wonderful to see so many people who have decided to join us this evening. Welcome to all of you.
Tonight, we continue our study on the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system. Earlier today we visited the East Coast Forensic Hospital. Tomorrow we will be visiting the Nova Institution for Women in Truro, and also tomorrow the Springhill Institution. Then we will be going to New Brunswick, where we will visit the Atlantic Institution and Dorchester Penitentiary. We will conclude this part of our fact-finding on Thursday.
We have three panels tonight. At the end of the evening we will have an opportunity for an open mike session.
On our first panel we have three witnesses. We have with us from the Regional Ethnocultural Advisory Committee, Theresa Halfkenny, Chair, Atlantic Region of the REAC with Correctional Services Canada. As an individual, we have Professor El Jones, who is the Nancy’s Chair in Women’s Studies at Mount Saint Vincent University. And we have the Reverend Mark Colley, who is with Word in Action Ministry International.
Ms. Halfkenny, you have the floor.
Theresa Halfkenny, Chair, Atlantic Region, Correctional Services Canada, Regional Ethnocultural Advisory Committee: Thank you. The Regional Ethnocultural Advisory Committee is an advisory committee with Correctional Services of Canada – CSC — of volunteers who have years of experience working in multicultural settings, specializing in areas such as policing, employment, community development, conflict resolution, entrepreneurship, ministerial and education.
The National Ethnocultural Advisory Committee, which I will continue to refer to as NEAC, is the national committee consisting of the chair and a representative from each of the five regions. Each region deals with different populations of offenders and the Atlantic region has an overrepresentation of Black offenders in the correctional system.
The role of REAC and NEAC is to provide advice to the Correctional Services of Canada on the gaps and to provide input on policies and procedures that will assist with the reintegration of the ethnocultural offender.
The policy objective of the commissioner’s directive, CD767, is to ensure the specific needs and cultural interests of ethnocultural offenders are identified and met through the provision of effective services and interventions that will contribute to successful reintegration and enhanced public safety.
I participated in a working group with CSC for revision of CD767 and the suggestions from NEAC have been incorporated into the revisions of the CD. Currently, the CD767 revised version is being prepared for internal and external consultation. This revision will address the suggestions that were raised.
At a recent meeting of NEAC, January 2018, the chairs signed off on the Charter of Mutual Commitments between the National Ethnocultural Advisory Committee and Correctional Services of Canada. The purpose of the charter is to establish a framework for cooperation and coordination between CSC and NEAC.
The charter is designed to facilitate NEAC members and CSC staff working for the safe and timely release of the ethnocultural offenders back into the community. This is done by providing advice on services and engagement activities for successful reintegration of the ethnocultural offender and public safety in accordance with CSC’s mission, mandate, priorities and CD767. The role of NEAC is to inform, liaise, collaborate, and provide support to resolve issues pertaining to the ethnocultural offender, interventions and reintegration, and support REAC in accordance with specific needs and characteristics of their regions. The charter, as well, speaks to the role that CSC has and what they will do.
Personally, I feel this Charter of Mutual Agreements will strengthen the partnership between NEAC and CSC.
In the Atlantic region there are five institutions and several parole offices: the Atlantic region is the maximum; Springhill is a reception centre; Dorchester Medium and Dorchester Minimum; and Nova Institution for Women.
The commissioner allotted $50,000 each year for the REAC committees to be used for projects that are aligned with the three priorities of CSC; namely housing, employment, and mental health. REAC in the Atlantic region has been able to support both staff and the ethnocultural offender with various programming such as understanding and dealing with the effects of racism, breaking down barriers, truth and motivation, developing interpersonal skills, self-esteem and confidence building.
The Beyond Bars Program is designed to provide ways of moving towards employment while learning effective ways to maintain a healthy mind and to cope with daily stressors of everyday racism and living with a criminal record.
The Journey of Self-Reflection is a five-week course based on the book Writing my Wrongs, Life, Death and Redemption in an American Prison by Shaka Senghor. These program sessions were: Defining Ourselves as Black Men; Owning our Issues as Black Men and Naming Them; Grow from the Experience of Sharing; Forgiving and Redeeming Ourselves and Moving Forward.
REAC has been able to get the support of organizations in the communities regarding the ethnocultural offenders who are eligible for temporary absences, or TAs, to come to the community and provide a work experience with jobs such as painting, lawn care, and carpentry, along with others. This allows the ethnocultural offender to be of service to a community.
REAC approached Dr. Wanda Thomas Bernard, at the time, who is now a senator, to prepare a policy paper on the social historical factors of the ethnocultural offender, as it is important to note that an offender is often faced with social history factors filled with unnamed and unresolved trauma, depression, oppression, and social exclusion which reduce options for living a life free of crime.
The NEAC and the commissioner supported the policy paper being done, and as a result there were 18 recommendations that were presented to CSC.
REAC has been in several discussions with Robert Wright, Registered Social Worker, Master of Social Work, consultant and therapist, regarding the impact of race and cultural assessments for CSC. This is moving forward, and Robert prepared a brief report on how and why cultural assessments for CSC can be very helpful. A teleconference was held with NEAC to further discuss and respond to questions. It was noted as well the principles applied in these assessments and recommendations are generalizable to persons of other ethnicities and cultural groups, and ethnocultural for clarity.
I have had the opportunity to meet with ethnocultural offenders on a regular basis due to the closeness to the institutions, and the concerns expressed are the same in many cases when it comes to this group of offenders. Some of the gaps and concerns were as follows: Health, hair and hygiene products are inappropriate for their needs. Hygiene products that are available at the canteen are very expensive and not the skin products to meet their need. Correctional programs need to have the cultural component for learning; the need for diversity for those individuals doing the training. The presence of more diversity among employees, such as program instructors, health department, and in some areas correctional officers. Statements that because of prejudice among staff members they feel this results in stereotypes, offensive comments, racism, derogatory comments and at time gestures. They spoke of how they feel very disrespected.
Food is an issue as well for ethnocultural offenders, especially those with a religious orientation. Ethnocultural offenders continue to ask about working at CORCAN. It would appear they do not get an opportunity to gain skills that will benefit them when returning to their communities for employment. There is a need for an Ethnocultural Liaison Officer at each institution. One Liaison Officer for five institutions does not meet the need they have. It is felt this person could be part of the CSC’s workforce on a full-time basis.
There has been minimal progress and there is still work to be done. CSC is putting on cultural competency training that is mandatory for all employees.
NEAC has been provided the opportunity to review the training material. This is a step in the right direction; however, will real change come?
A couple of things that NEAC is hoping for: that legislation can bring change to the Correctional and Conditional Release Act, the CCRA, and regulations for increased responsive policy across public safety, the CSC, RCMP, provinces, and municipalities.
Changes which we continue to lobby for are: an amendment to CCRA, section 77, to include the ethnocultural offender and an amendment to CCRA, section 7, to include the ethnocultural advisory committees. This would again be something that would be in force and hopefully more recognizable. Thank you.
The Chair: Now we will hear from Professor Jones.
El Jones, Nancy’s Chair in Women’s Studies, Mount Saint Vincent University, as an individual: Thank you. Good evening. My name is El Jones. I am an academic, a writer, and particularly a community advocate for the incarcerated people. I collaborate in my work particularly with women and with African Nova Scotians.
I am here today to read a statement prepared by African Nova Scotian prisoners who are not able to be present today themselves. African Nova Scotians form a distinct population in Canada and must be recognized as a specific cultural group that is not simply lumped in with African Canadians as a whole. The specific history in this province of enslavement, of liberated slave settlements, of segregation, and of marginalization has particularly deprived our communities and contributed to the high rate of incarceration and criminalization of African Nova Scotian men and women.
Before I read this statement, I want to acknowledge that one aspect of anti-Black racism in the prison system is that it is not only applied to prisoners but also to Black communities, families and advocates. Just getting this statement out of the prison was accomplished at incredible risk and with great difficulty. This is because the prison system criminalizes all Black people — for example, accusing community members who advocate with prisoners of gang affiliations, or claiming other security risks denies us access to phone calls with prisoners and treats us with suspicion. All of these things mean that not only is the prison system not meeting the needs of Black prisoners, but they are also making it incredibly difficult for communities, and particularly for community members who openly challenge the racism in the system, to gain access to meet those needs ourselves. I hope you will ask me questions about the problem of access.
Accompanying this opening statement, I have conducted interviews with African Nova Scotian prisoners that address a range of issues, some of which Ms. Halfkenny also addressed. These include access to health care, access to parole, high rates of involuntary transfer, the educational curriculum, connection with community, the lack of access to culture elders, spiritual advisors or staff and teachers who look like them and share their background, access to jobs within the prison, the lack of trauma centered understanding or programming that recognizes the specific historical trauma lived out in Black communities, the disciplinary system in the prison that unfairly targets Black prisoners, such as reports of being accused of gang affiliations, and that has no avenues for cultural interventions or testimony in those hearings, lack of access to visits, and disproportionate sentencing.
I have also spoken with many women who provide testimony about the ways gender intersects with racism within the prison system and how Black women are particularly criminalized. I hope questions will follow up on all of these areas.
I also hope that questions will address decarceration and recognize that the solution to anti-Black racism in the prison system is not to simply provide better programs, or more Black staff. It is to stop sending Black people to prison. This also requires thinking about how all state systems, including policing, child welfare, immigration, as well as housing, employment and education, all impact and criminalize Black people in this province.
I hope this hearing also recognizes the relationship of the prison industrial complex to state violence against Black people and how histories of enslavement are continued in this system.
I will now read this opening statement on behalf of federally sentenced African Nova Scotians. I would say the name of the person who wrote this report, but I was worried that he might face some risks. If you are interested, please do follow up in private, but I did not think it was a good idea to publicly say his name.
The thoughts, feelings and opinions that I am going to share are unofficially on behalf of all Black and brown men in federal custody across this country. So, I could be 20 years old, 30 years old, maybe even 40. I may be a permanent resident, or maybe I was born in Toronto, or even Halifax, Nova Scotia. I may be short and brown-skinned, like Martin Luther King, Jr., or I could be tall and brown-skinned, like Malcolm X. There are a lot of different possibilities and variables, if I was to describe us all. But there are two things I can guarantee; I am of African descent and I am incarcerated.
Me, personally, I have been incarcerated for almost seven years. If I cut that time in half, I find myself back in the high court of Nova Scotia for my sentencing hearing. What I remember vividly is what the Supreme Court Justice explained was the reason behind sending me to a federal facility. This was the only place that provided programming adequate to jump start and assist me with rehabilitation. Six prisons, three provinces, and two security levels later, I have yet to encounter this programming.
That is not to say I have not completed programs. I finished every program recommended to me and more, but “adequate” is not the word that comes to mind when I assess their relevance to my rehabilitation. I use the term “relevant” because the strategies taught in these programs are not geared for people who look like I do. My assumption is that the people who designed these programs do not live in communities like ours and did not spend enough time in one to understand the dynamics; fatherless homes, motherless homes, parentless homes. Hence, the lack of visible positive role models. Or it could be plain old poverty, which then leads to drug trafficking, drug abuse, and possibly gun violence, all serious issues that are not daily occurrences in most neighbourhoods. How can someone who has never encountered these challenges successful design ways to address them?
Through my federal travels, I have met many parole officers, program instructors, and other staff with similar jobs. I believe that for the most part they fall into one of three categories: the obstructionist; the negligent; and the reluctantly helpful.
The obstructionist seems to purposely place hurdles in front of Black inmates attempting to make progress. That may be difficult to comprehend, but it happens every morning and evening in every CSC facility.
Second, the most populated category, the negligent. These are those who turn a blind eye to the obstructionist. They refuse to acknowledge that issues may exist, or that improvement in certain areas is desirable. My question to this group - does your silence make you complicit in the actions of the obstructionist?
Last, we have reluctant helpers. Sometimes they can be helpful and appear receptive to the idea that there are legitimate concerns. But they are unwilling to push the progressive envelope too far. I believe the blame for that lies with those in the first two categories. What professional wants to be the first colleague to go against the grain, i.e. their peers?
At bottom, not only is the programming inadequate, those appointed to facilitate these programs do not seem to have been selected with our best interests in mind. I make a conscious effort to better myself on a daily basis and these are my experiences.
Unfortunately, we do not all have the same drive and initiative. What are the odds of rehabilitation for those who need the help but who are waiting for help to be brought to them?
Perhaps I am speaking from behind a veil of ignorance; maybe so. I would like to know the name of the program available to help incarcerated Black men across this country have a fair chance at living a positive life once they are released. If that programming does not exist, the revolving door will continue to turn. Thank you and God bless.
The Chair: Now we will hear from Reverend Colley.
Reverend Mark Colley, Word in Action Ministry International: I am Reverend Mark Colley. I am what the system would call an ex-con, but I do not see myself that way. I spent 12 years and in and out of the prison system. Out of that 12 years, I did three years in the federal system in Springhill.
You know, the system was not my enemy; I was my own enemy. I was the one who put myself in prison. I was the one who did the things that caused me to go to prison. I was the one who was stealing cars, breaking into houses, committing armed robberies, buying cars without a licence and insurance, and doing all that stuff.
I was kicked out of school in Grade 7. I was not there to learn. I was there for a number of other things; girls were one. I was kicked out of school and I tried to get back in two more times after that, unsuccessfully. I was not there to learn. I was not even willing to learn really.
I led a life of crime. I was 12 years in and out of the prison system. There were people there willing to help me, but I did not want help because I liked the way that I was living. I called myself a thief. People knew me as a thief. There came a point in my life where I was on the run. I left Halifax because I had a warrant for my arrest. I took off and went to Toronto. The same guy who left Halifax was the same guy who landed in Toronto. My heart was still the same. I was still the same person. I got to Toronto and got into doing crimes. I met guys there and continued the lifestyle that I was living. That is what I was doing. That was my lifestyle.
Then the police were on my tail in Toronto. I escaped them, and I headed to Edmonton. I was in Edmonton for over a year, doing the same thing that I was doing everywhere else, committing crimes, because I was that same person. My heart was the same.
After a year of being in Edmonton, I was doing the things that I was doing, but I was not getting caught. You know, that was because the police did not know me. My life was empty. I was just going about at night committing crimes, going through the day selling the stuff that I would get at night, drinking and smoking drugs and doing all those things.
One Saturday morning I was sitting in my apartment, smoking drugs and drinking whiskey at 10:00 in the morning. Then the spirit of the Lord spoke to my heart. During all of those 12 years in and out of prison, I always went to church. I was not looking for God. You can guarantee I was not looking for God, but I always went to church. I sang the songs. I listened to the sermons. I would get up and I would leave the same way I went in.
I was sitting in my apartment smoking drugs and drinking whiskey and the spirit of the Lord spoke to my heart and said, “There is more to life than this. Get a Bible.” I said to my girlfriend and my buddy, “There has to be something more to life than this. I’m going to go and get myself a Bible.” I got up, got dressed and went to the mall to get a Bible. When I opened the mall door that day, Lionel Richie and the Commodores had a new record playing. I stopped in the music store and bought the record and I forgot all about the Bible. I got in my car and I was half way back home and I said, “Oh, I forgot the Bible. I will get it the next time I go to the mall.”
I continued on doing what I was doing. That next week I was out pulling a break and enter, and the police showed up. I do not know why, it was my buddy and I, and I went to have a look to make sure the coast was clear and I heard the cop radio. I went and told my partner, “The police are outside.” We took off and he went out the front door.
I figured the building was surrounded so instead of following him out the door, I went upstairs and tried to get out a window to get on the roof. I could not find a window. When I came down I ran out the same door he did, and I heard a cop say, “Freeze.” Four times he hollered, “Freeze.” After the first time he could have pulled that trigger and took my life. But I believe that day when I got up off my chesterfield and said, “I’m going to get a Bible,” I believe God protected me and that I would come through with the knowledge of the truth because I was lost, and I did not know where I was.
I did not get a Bible that day and I did not lose my life that night. I ended up in prison. After a period of time, I ended up in prison and I got 21 months. My cellmate was a Christian who had got out, got into trouble, became a Christian, and went back in. A lot of people told me I was a lot of things. They told me I was a thief and a number of other things that wouldn’t be nice to mention here. But he told me something that nobody ever told me. He said, “Buddy, do you know what your problem is? You are a sinner and you need Jesus Christ in your life.” That is what he told me, and he gave me a Good News for Modern Man Bible.
That night I started reading it and I started going to church, Bible studies. I would go to anything to do with the church. After three months, I was convinced that the Bible was the word of God. I was convinced that Jesus Christ was who he says he was. I was faced with a choice; do I accept that, or do I reject it, because it was still my choice.
On one Tuesday night, I opened my heart and I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and my life began to change. Different desires came into my life. I began to see how wasted my life was in prison, out of prison, in prison, out of prison – wasted days and wasted nights. Then I started to have a vision of what I wanted my life to be. I did not want to be in and out of prison anymore, as I had been.
I got a desire to work for a living. I got out of prison in Alberta and I started working in a mechanic shop, doing mechanic work and stuff. Then I started another job doing siding, and it was things that I learned to do to help me make a living for myself.
After two years out there, I decided I wanted to come back to Halifax, because I was a different person with a desire to return. I knew I had a warrant back here. I knew I was going to get arrested when I came back. But one thing I realized, a person’s life can change, but people don’t want to hear the change; they want to see the change.
I came back, but I did not turn myself into the police. That is one thing I never did. Eventually, I got picked up and I had to do some time myself. But eventually I got it all behind me. I had two children prior to that, but I was never there because I was either in prison or I was on the run. I had a desire to be a dad, coming home from work, children running and happy to see you. I needed a wife. I met a lady and I told her my life story that first night. We got married a year and three months later. It was three months after I got out of prison that we got married. She is here tonight. She is still with me 33 years later, six children, multiple grandchildren.
It all began when my heart changed and I did not want to be the person I used to be.
When I was in the system there were things there that could help me. There were mechanics’ shops there and I did work in them. There was upgrading in schools and stuff like that and there were certain programs and things there. I did not have any interest in those things back then.
The system did not fail me. I failed the system because everything was there. I did not need to do 12 years in and out of the prison system. I chose to do 12 years in and out of the prison system.
I experienced racism. So, what? There are racist people in the Bible. The Jews were racist against the Samaritans. There always was racism and I believe there always will be racism because it is in the hearts of people.
The Bible says, “Whatever a man or woman thinks of themselves, that is what they are.” To me, racism does not bother me because it cannot stop me from doing what I want to do. It can stop other people. But if I put my heart to something, it is only me that can stop me from doing it. If I have a goal, it is up to me to press forward no matter what. Roadblocks can be put in the way, but you can go around roadblocks.
The Chair: Mr. Colley, I hate to interrupt you, because I am sure you have multiple stories to tell, but we only have 20 minutes left for this panel and we do need to give the senators an opportunity to ask all three of you some questions.
Rev. Colley: Okay, that is good.
The Chair: If there is some opportunity at the end of the evening, we could hear more from you. Is that okay?
Rev. Colley: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chair: We will go to questions now and we will start with the deputy chair, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much to each of our presenters this evening. It has been excellent presentations.
Ms. Jones, you spoke about the high numbers of Black men particularly in prison. Ms. Halfkenny, you also spoke about the over-representation of Blacks in prison in Atlantic Canada.
Ms. Jones, you said, “Let’s just stop sending Blacks to jail.” What about those who are in jail and the relevance of programs? You spoke a lot about that and I found that quite interesting that unless the programming is relevant and unless the programming will help with reintegration within your community then it is for naught. I wonder if you could just be a little bit more specific on that particular part of your presentation.
Ms. Jones: Thank you. The statement I read by the prisoners particularly address programming because that is what affects them on a daily basis. They have to mandatorily attend these programs, but they find the solutions that are given them in these programs, not only not relevant but often completely useless to their lives.
An example I have been given is, they are told that if you are in a conflict situation, “Count to three and take a deep breath.” I cannot do that in a life or death situation in my community. That will not help me. Other people have talked about how, particularly in the conflict resolution classes, or high intensity balance and those kinds of classes, they feel that they can’t win. If they say, “I don’t know if I would agree with that,” they are being aggressive. If they go with the flow, then they are manipulating the system. One person said that he was asked, “What would you do if you are encountering a problem?” He said, “I would just suppress my feelings. That is what I would do.” They said, “Well that is a ridiculous answer. You will get into trouble when you get out.” They feel that, no matter what they say or do, they really have no options in these programs and either way they are still labelled a threat or labelled in all these ways. Although, in fact, Black prisoners have the best profiles of reintegration out of all prisoners, as was shown in Howard Sapers’ study in 2014.
The reason why I also said, “Stop sending Black people to prison,” is that an unfortunate thing happens. It is my concern if we continually to speak only about programming, that these programs should not be available only for people when they go to prison. Our profile of social justice should not be that we deprive Black people of education; we deprive Black people of employment we systematically remove resources and opportunities from Black communities. When youth have no opportunities and when the trauma that is built up in these communities for generations results in people becoming criminalized, then we say, “Prison is the place for you to go because you can access programs there.” They should not have to be accessing them in prison. They should be available in their schools and in their communities.
That is why I want to vigorously oppose the idea that all our energies should be placed only into programming people in prison because we know the result of that will be, “Let’s just send more Black people to prison. The programs there are so good.” While I recognize that it is the most important thing on a day-to-day basis for people who are incarcerated, we have to recognize their needs and prioritize what they experience on a daily basis, what will get them parole, what will allow them to reintegrate into the communities. We also have to recognize that prison is not a housing complex. Prison is not a job program. Prison is not a school. Prison is not social work or psychiatry. It is a traumatic place. It is a violent place, and it is a place that we should be using as a last resort, not as a measure to fill in the gaps that have not been filled in society.
Senator Cordy: I agree wholeheartedly that things are needed to keep people out of prison.
One of the things that we heard at one of the prisons that we attended was that staff played one racial or ethnic group off against another. We heard these comments when we spoke to prisoners without any staff around. Did any of you hear about any cases like that from people who have been in prison? I will give you some examples. It was Black History month, so perhaps the Asian group would ask for funding for an event and they would say, “Well no, you can’t have it because the Black prisoners group has used up all the funding for this month.” Then perhaps for another situation the Aboriginal group would be looking for funding for a program and it would be, “Well no, you cannot get it because the Asian group is celebrating Asian month.” It created conflict.
Have you heard anything like that about prisons within Atlantic Canada?
Ms. Halfkenny: I can speak for the institutions where our committee has gone and spoken with some offenders around some of those issues.
One of the things that we found in terms of the ethnocultural offenders, which is our role, and the Black offender, of course, is representative of that in the Atlantic region, relates to cultural activities. We have been successful in getting a number of different individuals to come in and present to the offenders. What I have found is that it seems to work much better when they go as a group to put in a request for a cultural event or something like that. Sometimes it is difficult because the offenders are feeling so oppressed and not wanting to really do anything different. It is a fact that it is them wanting to come together to form that group and the importance of that.
At one particular institution that our committee has been working with, right now they are doing a really great job because they have taken ownership of the group. However, there certainly are still issues around what they can get and what they can’t, and what they can do. They do feel they are disrespected because of who they are and there is not a lot of diversity floating around in terms of guards. There is not a lot of diversity there. It is almost like they are made to feel like they are less than them. I hope that answers the question.
Ms. Jones: I will just add, very briefly, that many African Nova Scotians in particular also share Indigenous heritage. They find a lot of conflict in that, whether being believed in that heritage, having that recognized, having the sense they have to choose one side. Some feel that it is best to go on the Indigenous side because the things that should be available to Black prisoners as well, things like cultural reports, elders, are not available to them through their African heritage but are available through their Indigenous heritage.
That is not to suggest Indigenous prisoners have it better than Black prisoners. It is just that those particular services are not there. I would say, particularly in this province where many people have a long history of being from both communities, they find it very difficult when both those cultures aren’t recognized equally.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much all of you for presenting. I have questions for both Ms. Halfkenny and Professor Jones.
I will start with you, Professor Jones. One of the issues you raised was around access. I have heard about access issues both as part of this committee, and I have certainly heard from a number of communities, prisoners, prisoners’ families, advocacy groups, activists in the community. So we can have a full appreciation of what has been happening in this region, could you please elaborate on that?
Ms. Halfkenny, you mentioned wanting to see changes to section 77 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which is the provision that says particular focus has to be looked at for women in the prison system. I am curious as to what work has been done with the ethnocultural committees around section 29, which allows for those with mental health issues to be taken out of the prison; section 81, which allows people to serve their sentence in the community, and section 84, which allows a similar process, but for people to be paroled into the community. Their focus is Indigenous prisoners, but the subsection allows for it to apply to any prisoner, not merely Indigenous prisoners.
What we have heard in terms of evidence is many times the ethnocultural groups have been told section 81 and section 84 don’t apply to Black prisoners or other prisoners, other than Indigenous. We also know that the policies have been written in such a way as they actually obstruct the legislative intent of section 81 and section 84. Those provisions were put in place specifically to reduce the numbers of people in prison, but they have not been used in that way. Most communities do not even know about the provisions.
Perhaps, Professor Jones, if you could start with the access issue and if you want to speak to section 81 and section 84 as well, I would be happy to listen.
Ms. Jones: As I alluded to, when we talk about criminalization of Black people it, obviously, most intensely affects those who are in prison and those who are arrested. It also applies to all Black people, because all Black people in this society, as a result of anti-Black racism, are seen as either potential criminals or as having some kind of suspicious behaviour, as being a threat.
What does that means in terms of access in the prison system? As an advocate, I work with a lot of Black men. Because they are disproportionately accused of gang affiliations, it means that I have been accused of gang affiliations. I have been approached and told, “You have affiliations to these gangs.” What they see as signs of gangs have been; for example, they recently banned basketball jerseys and wave caps as being signs of gang involvement. The Black prisoners pointed out that they knew of no gang that wears a wave cap as a sign of their gang involvement. These are the sort of things that are being applied to them and also applied to all of our communities.
If you come from a community that has been highly criminalized, therefore, you have these attachments. Therefore, you must be a gang member, so you are too dangerous to be let in.
These kinds of things also accompany us being labelled as security risks. I want to say this particularly has a gender impact, particularly for Black women. A lot of mothers report being arbitrarily banned from visits. They may get a false-positive hit on scanners. We know that scanners are up to 90 per cent inaccurate. They are completely inaccurate for opioids and cocaine. There are all kinds of studies on this. You can get hit for like road salt, hand sanitizer. Then mothers will hit on the scanner and they are not provided any opportunity to advocate for themselves. Mothers have offered to be strip searched out of desperation to see their children and have been turned down. This again is particularly applied to Black mothers who are seen as particularly criminalized.
For community advocates, if you are seen as speaking against prisons that labels you also within the system. Even though I am doing this publicly, I may well face some kind of retaliation in institutions for saying the things I say. I have had it said to me, or said behind me, or passed on that it was said to me that I am not welcome because I have spoken out or written articles about people dying in custody, or I have written about the lack of access to menstrual products, or men doing weekends. I have written about racism in the prisons, therefore, that is actually read as a security threat. Therefore, I will not be invited to the institution and even banned from the institution.
That also extends to things like PIN numbers. We know that a lot of Black people do not have resources. We do not have the financial resources, so advocates may be the people they have the opportunity to be in touch with. For example, for a child who has been in foster care who does not have family, I may be the person they know so they want to call me. If your contact information appears one time on more than two PINS that is read as, “This is a PIN number for the phone system. You are on the contact list for people in different provinces and for a number of people, so you are probably dealing drugs. We will cut off those PINs so you cannot talk to people on the phone.”
These are the kinds of problems prisoners can face. I would say at its base we have to recognize a particular root of anti-Black racism. For example, I am a professor and poet laureate and still I am accused of things like gang affiliation, or somehow will come in to disrupt things, or will somehow be a security threat. What injustices do people who are not able to rely on a university affiliation, or on those sorts of titles face just trying to visit their own children or their family members?
We really need to recognize that criminalization extends well into our communities and to family members and that we cannot just speak about prisons only at the point of the prison. We have to recognize that we live in a prison culture as well that particularly affects Black people.
Senator Pate: Professor Jones, there has also been discussion about the types of security clearances required, including credit checks and that sort of thing, that are linked to sometimes gang affiliation. But you also mentioned the retaliatory component and many people may not know there is a section of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that also says that for prisoners there should not be retaliation. If there is retaliation for community members, do you have experience with retaliation experienced by prisoners?
Ms. Jones: First of all, you will never get anything in writing and you will never be told. You will hear that they said this. I have, in fact, had phone calls where I have said, “I heard this was an issue. Can I please address it? Do you have any concerns? If you let me know, I can address them.” And they have said, “That conversation never took place. I do not know where you are getting this from.”
When you do try to address things and approach them and ask so that you can clarify, as happens normally in the world, what you are usually told is, “That conversation never took place. Why are you even speaking to this person in the first place? How did you get this information?” You feel that if you continue to push, it will be the prisoners who are retaliated upon.
While they may say that they can’t retaliate, the reality is that they have wide latitude when it comes to anything that can be seen as a prison security risk. If they want to block visits, they can do that. If they want to go to closed visits, they can do that. If they have suspicions, they do not have to even inform you what those are. It is not taking place in a court of law. If the prison decides that you are a risk, they have the right to ask you not to come, or to tell you that you can’t come. It can be things like blocking numbers from the phone because they are just not sure what you are talking about. It can be particular surveillance, particularly when used as a disciplinary sanction, so preventing people from accessing programs. People feel that they are retaliated upon, so they lose their job, or they are removed from a position that they have. They may be on inmate committee, or on a cultural committee, and then they are not able to continue.
It can be just small things. They feel that they are being targeted so they may be labelled on the range as a troublemaker and they feel that they are targeted by staff. Also, there is a number of informal ways that they can be targeted, of course, within the disciplinary system. This was also shown in Howard Sapers’ report, that when disciplinary incidents are based on discretion, Black prisoners get the highest amount of these disciplinary sanctions. For example, one guard says, “Go to your cell.” The other guard says, “Sit down.” The prisoner says, “What do you mean go to my cell or sit down? What do you want me to do?” “You are arguing with me. You are disobeying an order. Disciplinary action.”
There is quite a wide range for prisoners to be targeted because they are perceived as disrupting the prison system and can then be punished within that system. Of course, they are extremely vulnerable, which makes it very difficult for advocates to push. An advocate may say, “I feel that it is unfair that I am not allowed in.” But if I continue to push the issue, it’s not me that will get hurt. It’s the people who are inside the prison who will get hurt. This makes it very difficult to speak about racism in prison and to actually make the changes. In the end what we want is these changes to be made. We want Black prisoners to be safe and healthy. It is not a negative criticism in that you want Black prisoners within your prison system to be treated equally and you should want to know how to improve. But when those suggestions are made they are often treated as creating some kind of disruption, rather than being helpful and necessary.
The Chair: We only have about five minutes left for this panel.
Ms. Halfkenny: The NEAC committee has had several discussions about the legislation and what it does and one of the reasons around CD767 came from a recommendation from the policy paper saying that it did not satisfy. In other words, it was open to any interpretation of what is meant. We want to tighten that up a little bit.
The legislation and regulations contain sections that refer to the Aboriginal offender but there is nothing about the ethnocultural offender, of which the Black offender is inclusive. If they are not mentioned there it sometimes seems as though they are forgotten. In order to be able to move forward and get different things for these groups in our region, it is almost like you need to have something more solid. That is one of the reasons why the charter of the neutral commitments that was just signed explains everything step by step. It is much clearer and a good piece of work to have as we move forward. It is important to have these groups included in the act and the regulations. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Pate: No discussions about section 81 or section 84 though have been held with your group?
Ms. Halfkenny: I can’t respond on that. I do not think that we broke it down to that particular section. The commissioner chairs our national committee, and in the discussions with the commissioner, we have been just bringing these things up and talking about them.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for coming tonight. I really appreciate your presentations.
Ms. Jones, I really appreciate your passion on this topic. You have really enlightened me in talking about your situation, and even for you it is difficult to go through some of the issues around racism. I know that you have mentioned many Black members, community members, and other people are experiencing it and people also in prison. Have you any knowledge about staff members who are Black and are working within prisons? Are they having any experience with racism within the system?
Ms. Jones: Yes, and staff members will say this as well. If they advocate for the prisoners themselves, that can be problematic. Many of them also feel that they could be doing things. One guy said, “I wish I could take off my vest and play basketball with the guys. If I could do that, I feel we would be able to relate. We would be able to have conversations. But I am not allowed to do that because you are not allowed to do that in the prison at all.”
Certainly, yes, many of the staff also recognize this. They also face difficulties with promotion. We do not see a lot of Black wardens. We do not see a lot of Black people in administrative positions, Black people in a position to set policy, or in charge of making any of those decisions. Where you will mostly see Black staff is on the floor, not in the position to actually make those changes. On the floor, of course, they certainly face from either their colleagues, or from higher-ups, a great deal of resistance. Even with stuff like putting on an African Heritage month event or wanting to have certain community members in, or getting better hair products or better skin products. They can be dismissed with comments like, “There is no racism. You are making this up.”
I think particularly the statement also addresses that. At best, staff are forced to be sort of reluctantly helpful, even if you have a great staff member. I do want to say that there are many wonderful programmers that do go out of their way and do care for people. I do not want to paint a system where nobody ever cares for anybody. But when you are in a system that is not supportive of Black people, that one individual cannot make that difference.
The Chair: Before we wrap up this panel, Mr. Colley, I have a question for you. You said, at least twice, that the system did not fail you, that you failed yourself. It sounds to me that part of that is you taking responsibility for choices that you made. I wonder if you would think about the possibility that maybe the choices that you had were limited by the system failing you, maybe even starting with school. You said you were kicked out of school at Grade 7. If you were under 16, the school system would have had a responsibility to provide education to you; in your home, perhaps, if you needed it, or extra supports if you needed it. Did you get any of those kinds of supports at that stage?
Rev. Colley: No, I was older. I missed a lot of the classes. When I finally got kicked out, I was 16. I was kicked out prior to that and then had to start, kicked out and had to start. No, back then, I never brought homework home or anything like that.
The Chair: That would be an example of the system failing you. Sometimes the system can fail us and it is in an invisible way. We do not know the system is failing us because maybe we do not understand what the system is supposed to be offering us. I just want to put that on the record.
I want to thank all of you for coming and giving your testimony this evening and for responding to the senators’ questions. Thank you very much.
For our second panel this evening, we are pleased to welcome, as individuals, from Dalhousie University, Archibald Kaiser, a professor at the Schulich School of Law and the Department of Psychiatry at Dalhousie; and Adelina Iftene, assistant professor at Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie.
Mr. Kaiser, you have the floor first.
Archibald Kaiser, Professor, Schulich School of Law and Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, as an individual: Thank you very much. On behalf of myself and my colleague, I thank you most sincerely for following up on the Senate’s reference and for inviting us to contribute to your deliberations. In my case, at least, it will deal with the human rights of prisoners and specifically national and international standards, especially regarding vulnerable people.
I know that there are only two of us. We were told in the introductory materials that we would have five minutes to seven minutes for our opening statements. Do you prefer to still keep to that, or can we have any extra time?
The Chair: Time is something I have decided I may sell this evening. There will be lots of questions, so if you could try to stay within at least a seven-minute timeframe that will give the senators more opportunities for questions.
Mr. Kaiser: My particular focus is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the Mandela Rules, especially as they relate to persons with psychosocial disabilities, persons with mental illness, persons labelled with intellectual disabilities, and people with dual diagnoses. Obviously, these issues must always involve an awareness of intersectional vulnerabilities. I will focus on issues surrounding conformity with an accountability under international human rights standards.
First of all, internationally and in Canada there has been an overuse of imprisonment for persons with psychosocial disabilities. Penal systems, in general, across the world have fallen short in terms of allocation of resources and capacity to respond to the needs of this population.
In Canada, the office of the Correctional Investigator for more than a decade has made pointed references to the deplorable situation within Canadian prisons. I quote from the 2016-17 report:
There continues to be inadequate treatment space for significantly mentally ill persons who cannot be safely or humanely managed in a federal correctional facility. The office continues to call for external psychiatric hospital placements in cases of extremely complex or significant mental illness.
I want to start in these international references with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I am not sure how familiar you are with it. I have passed around materials that may assist you if you are just coming to grips with the convention. The CRPD does represent a radical paradigm shift for the world concerning persons with disabilities and, in particular, requires us all to think of them as persons who are holders of rights, rather than objects of charity.
There are many general principles within the convention that are particularly important for prisoners. I tried to highlight those in my article that I have given you. For prisoners, they relate to everything from ensuring that prisoners with mental health and other difficulties are involved in the setting of policy; to ensure as well that there are improvements in staff training, as required by the CRPD; to try to provide for awareness raising in the general population concerning the issues which persons with mental illness and intellectual disabilities who are prisoners face; to protect prisoners against torture, or cruel, or inhumane, or a degrading treatment; and to ensure that they have freedom from exploitation, violence, and abuse.
There are also powerful sections of the CRPD that recognize the importance of having equal recognition before the law for persons with disabilities and a recognition as well of their economic, social, and cultural rights, which are not impossible but still require some careful translation into the prison environment.
Overall, the message of the convention is that persons with disabilities are entitled to be included in the community, as dignified members of the community. That applies no less for prisoners, but for the fact of their imprisonment, obviously. One just has to make adjustments to the content of the rights of the prisoners under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I refer next to the Convention Against Torture. There is an emerging understanding since the report of the rapporteur in 2013 that health care settings specifically must be seen differently where there could well be the crossing of a threshold of mistreatment that is tantamount to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. The rapporteur for the UN said that this is especially true for persons with psychosocial disabilities and other marginalized groups.
There are a number of provisions within the Convention Against Torture that have to be considered with respect to imprisonment of Canadians. The rapporteur refers to within hospital and rehabilitative settings the need to consider an absolute ban on restraint and seclusion, a concern over allowing forced interventions in the lives of persons with disabilities, and to ensure respect for their legal capacity.
In my final two minutes I will address the Mandela Rules. The rules are important for all of us to consider. I quote, in particular, Rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules:
All persons shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings.
There are a number of provisions within the Mandela Rules that refer specifically to health care services. Basically, the norm is in Article 24.1, which says that:
Prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community, and should have access to necessary health-care services free of charge and without discrimination on the grounds of their legal status.
There are a number of other articles that specifically deal with the situations of prisoners with psychosocial disabilities. I quote again from Article 33: Whenever the medical director “considers a prisoner’s physical or mental health has been or will be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment,” there is a requirement of a report.
There are various prohibited practices. There are other articles which obtain specifically with respect to solitary confinement and restraint.
There are separate provisions that deal with persons found not criminally responsible, or who are later diagnosed with severe mental disabilities within prison facilities in Article 109.
This is one area where I am pleased to note that the Office of the Correctional Investigator recommended in 2016-17 that Correctional Services Canada review its health care policies, practices, and authorities to ensure they are compliant with the Mandela Rules. The Correctional Service of Canada has replied that CSC is reviewing its health care policies to ensure compliance with the Mandela Rules.
My point in the end is that it is vital that we monitor more closely and regularly Canada’s conformity with international human rights standards, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Mandela Rules, and the convention against torture.
I am pleased to see that at least there are inroads being made in respect of the Mandela Rules, but they are no less urgent with respect to the implementation of our obligations under the Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention Against Torture.
In the context of prisons, this monitoring and the accountability could continue to be done perhaps by the Office of the Correctional Investigator with necessary follow-up statements from Corrections Canada. It is also conceivable and indeed fit in many ways that the Senate and the House of Commons consider its responsibilities in this regard.
The benefits of this enhanced awareness and oversight of international human rights standards is that it would demonstrate Canada’s bona fides with respect to its international obligations under the Vienna Convention of the Law on Treaties, specifically all of the human rights instruments I have mentioned. It would also demonstrate to Canadians and the international community that we do not fear scrutiny on international standards. This is also consistent with our reporting obligations under each of those conventions. It would provide evidence of acceptance of our specific treaty obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but also the other conventions. Most importantly, it would provide additional assurances for Canadian prisoners that their fundamental human rights are being taken extremely seriously by the government, particularly when they experience mental health difficulties, intellectual disabilities and combinations thereof.
That is the end of my seven and a bit minutes of opening comments. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Adelina Iftene, Assistant Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, as an individual: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight and to share with you some of the findings of the work I have done with vulnerable prison groups.
For the last seven years or eight years I have been working with aging prisoners, people that we define as 50 plus, in the federal correctional system. I have been doing research on issues regarding medical care for older prisoners, opportunities for release, and access to justice.
My major work consists of 197 interviews conducted in seven penitentiaries in Canada with individuals over the age of 50, all of them male, at all levels of security. Some of the biggest concerns raised by this study, as well by my subsequent legal and socio-legal work, has been summarized for your consideration in the written evidence.
I will now summarize what I believe are some of the main points that need urgent reform. I would be happy to answer questions on that.
I would like start by noting the fact the aging prison population is one of the fastest-growing groups of prisoners, perhaps second only to Aboriginal women. Currently, this group makes up 25 per cent of the incarcerated population. This proportion has doubled in the last decade.
It is also important to note that based on my study, and on other work noted by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, there are layers of vulnerability among this group. It is not only that they are old, but they have some of the highest rates of mental illness, terminal illness, chronic illness, and many of them are Aboriginal.
Something that I believe needs to be noted and addressed with priority is consideration of the fact there are very high rates of chronic illnesses within this group. As the evidence in front of you shows, an average individual over 50 has about four or five chronic illnesses.
I think the deficient health care system in prison is very problematic. There is a chronic lack of specialists, with very long waiting times to see somebody. There are many penitentiaries that do not have 24/7 nurses available and the reply to emergency care is very problematic. There is a significant limit in the number of escorts that exist in a penitentiary who can take an individual to their community medical appointments. Therefore, many of them are not able to see the outside doctors because they do not have an escort. Their access to medication is restricted because of the lack of drugs available in the drug formulary. Many of these drugs are of inadequate quality or they are not able to address some of the illnesses, particularly chronic pain.
Second, the infrastructure in many places is unfit for the high number of people suffering from disabilities, which is affecting their activities of daily living. Even though 54 per cent of those sampled were having such disabilities, they were placed in institutions where there were stairs and no working elevators. They had to walk long distances between buildings, in record time, under threat of punishment if they were late. They had to stand outside in the cold for an hour every morning to pick up their lifesaving medication. This occurred in over half the penitentiaries I visited.
In some of the institutions there is a complete prohibition on receiving medical supplies that are necessary for managing conditions, some as simple as blankets, extra pillows, heating pads or braces.
It is important to note that there are very high rates of mental illness among this group, which is probably under reported. It is very problematic that in some institutions there is a chronic lack of psychiatrists. In one institution there was one psychiatrist for 600 individuals. This meant automatic renewal of medication, without seeing them for years. It also meant that the disciplinary measures and segregations were the number one response to mental illness and to chronic illness. As you can see from the data I have collected, solitary confinement and disciplinary measures were twice as common among people with mental illness or chronic illness than they were in people who did not present with mental illness or had fewer chronic illnesses.
It is also important to note that solitary confinement was not the only form of isolation that was present. Rather, isolation among this group is a status. It is not only a place. This is concerning because they are deemed to be very vulnerable and because there is no way to otherwise appropriately protect them, they are placed in higher forms of security. Many times, they are placed in protective custody, which essentially is being enclosed for 23 hours for protection. It means observation cells. It means mental health units. Essentially these are not called solitary confinement, but they have the same effect on health, social relationships, and accessibility of health care.
It is also important to note that there is no systemic palliative care, despite the fact that, at the time of the interview, I knew of 11 people who were terminally ill in those penitentiaries. Also, despite the fact that the Office of the Correctional Investigator pointed to the fact that 36 people died last year in our federal penitentiaries of natural causes that were predictable.
There is no systemic palliative care and that is of even more concern now that there is access to medical assistance in dying. In my opinion, this has been inappropriately regulated, in that they place the process for medical assistance in dying completely in prison. The request for assistance in dying takes place in prison. The assessment takes place in prison. Only the actual procedure, the one syringe that they get, takes place in a community hospital. I believe this calls into question the validity of the consent of somebody who opted for assisted dying when the other options were isolation and lack of proper medication in an institution unable to attend to their health care needs.
Finally, and probably most important, these individuals who are old, mentally ill, terminally ill, do not have substantive access to timely release. It is a very big concern because they are low risk and they have very high needs that can and should never be addressed in prison because prisons are not nursing homes.
At the moment, these individuals have difficulties in accessing regular parole because the criteria are not flexible enough to consider the lower risk that comes because of their aging bodies, or the diseases they are suffering, or their physical incapacity to reoffend. It focuses instead on issues such as completing correctional programs and a proper release plan, which is something a dying 70-year-old is not focused on.
I also believe that it is an issue because the release is made significantly difficult because there is poor liaison with community institutions that would be willing to take them and because compassionate release, either under the form of Parole by Exception or under the form of Royal Prerogative of Mercy, is actually non-existent. None of the individuals in my study have even heard those are possible.
I will conclude by saying I believe there are a lot of recommendations, if made by the Senate committee, that would actually significantly improve the chances of such people to have a better life or at least a decent death. I am happy to expand on them. For now, I think the priority should be making recommendations to improve the release system both in law and in regulation, finding alternatives for individuals facing their end of life in prison, proposing a different medical assistance in dying regulation, improving the health care system and probably, most importantly, ensuring that people who are so sick will never be placed in isolation of any kind or any form, or in institutions that are “infrastructurally” unfit to house them. Thank you.
The Chair: We will start senators’ questions with the deputy chair.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much to both of you for your comments this evening. They have been very interesting.
Mr. Kaiser, the last time I was on a committee that you appeared before was Mike Kirby’s committee on mental health and mental illness. That was quite a long time ago.
Mr. Kaiser: Not that long ago.
Senator Cordy: Yes, it does not seem that it was long ago, does it? Thank you for your help in writing that report, which I think was a milestone.
I would like to speak about the rights of prisoners. Mr. Kaiser, you said that prisoners are the owners of rights and should not be made to feel that they are receiving charity. I will go back to the mental health and mental illness. Twenty per cent of Canadians have poor mental health and 20 per cent of them have substance abuse problems. I do not have the statistic, but we know that among prisoners the percentage of those with mental health issues is even higher. One of the things that we have seen, and it is starting to change, is that the solution for those with mental health issues has been segregation. You can call it isolation or segregation. Nonetheless, the people are by themselves which worsens the problem. It does not help whatsoever.
Just this afternoon we were at the Forensic Hospital in Burnside and one of the patients at the hospital said to us, “Segregation is not the answer.” Then she said, “We need compassion, not segregation.” That was very wise of her.
We heard tonight about isolation of seniors, supposedly for their own protection, which is not helpful. We are hearing more that it should not be allowed, particularly as a result of the report in the Ashley Smith case. We are hearing more about it and that it has to change. But change does not seem to be happening as quickly as it should be happening. What do we have to do to ensure that segregation is not being seen as a cure for mental health in the prison system or for seniors? I will include the seniors in that particular group also.
Mr. Kaiser: First of all, I want to address the issue of prisoners as bearing the same human rights that you and I have, in addition to prisoners who also have compound vulnerabilities as persons with psychosocial disabilities.
We have come some way since the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Ruffin case in 1871 that “Prisoners are civilly dead, in a state of penal servitude to the state forfeiting all their personal rights.”
The Supreme Court of Canada said in 2002 that certain rights, the right to liberty, particularly, are justifiably limited, but society still accepts that prisoners are persons who have rights and responsibilities and that the ancient concept of civil death is over.
In some ways it is, in a sense, ghettoizing to speak of prisoners as if they were different from you and me. The instruments to which I referred — the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention Against Torture, and the Mandela Rules — all recognize a broad entitlement of persons, notwithstanding the fact that their liberty is curtailed, to be treated as human beings with the same fundamental non-derogable rights that all of us have. That is specifically guaranteed under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I only mention this by way of introduction in response to your comments because these conventions, particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, do not say that this applies to all human beings on earth, except prisoners. Quite the contrary, it is meant to be a specific iteration of the universal human rights of everyone, including prisoners.
You mentioned specifically the issues of restraint and seclusion. You also mentioned our earlier meeting during the Kirby committee hearings. As it happens, these worlds do converge. Two weeks ago, I lectured at the Forum on Restraint and Seclusion by the Mental Health Commission of Canada. I commend members of the committee to liaising with the Mental Health Commission of Canada on the issues of restraint and seclusion. They are certainly taking a strong stance which contemplates, at least in the civil setting, that this is a failure of treatment. The goals ought to be the elimination of chemical and physical restraints and seclusion. I think that those kinds of goals are no less worthwhile here when it comes to persons with serious mental illness.
I teach one session in both law and psychiatry on solitary confinement as an aspect of restraint and seclusion. Obviously, there is a universal chorus of opinion that this is damaging to persons who are already vulnerable and that even for persons who don’t appear to be mentally unwell that the use of solitary confinement will virtually guarantee a deterioration of their mental and social functioning.
When you ask how this can be controlled, I do think it is worthwhile to acknowledge Bill C-56 before Parliament and, I think it is, the commissioner’s directive 711 that respond to the issues surrounding persons with mental illness and the use of solitary confinement. It is important not to be discouraged by what we have inherited, which is the overuse and the damaging use of restraint and seclusion for prisoners with mental illness, and not think of them as problems that cannot be solved. In the civil domain, at least, it is understood. At the conference where I lectured there were persons from health care systems where they had virtually eliminated restraint and seclusion for psychiatric patients who were confined against their will.
It seems to me that the same goal is entirely legitimate within the prison setting although, obviously, it is an inherently more complicated environment. In some ways, the issue of restraint and seclusion within the prison environment represents the worst of Canadian penal policy. That said, I recognize that we are at least in an era now where we appear to be making baby steps towards improvements.
If you ask, “Well what is the roadmap toward elimination?” I would say start with the same kinds of things that are in the civil setting to help understand people when they are admitted to prisons, to understand their complex mental health needs, to understand the terrible conditions that many people have lived under, that they themselves are victims of abuse and discrimination and multiple levels of disempowerment and to, as they say in the civil setting, “Ask them what will help them to ensure that they keep control so that restraint and seclusion will not have to be considered. Ask them to help maintain control over themselves.”
Well, beyond that are the issues that are foregrounded for you in your deliberations concerning lack of access to mental health care services and the failure to recognize the conditions of trauma that prisoners, especially women prisoners, have had to live with. This all contributes to people acting out and then an unimaginative prison service may well inappropriately and, I believe, unlawfully, use seclusion and restraint.
I hope that is one of the focuses of your deliberations. I hope that you will liaise with the Mental Health Commission to try to jointly come up with recommendations that will deal with this evil in the twin worlds of institutionalization of psychiatric facilities and prisons.
Ms. Iftene: I will start as the question was formed. I will just tell you this very short anecdote of one of the people that I have seen in Millhaven Maximum Security in Ontario. This anecdote is really good for illustrating that, in my opinion, illness acts in two ways and leads to people spending very long times in isolated conditions.
One; illness triggers people to misbehave in a manner that is considered to be disciplinary, as opposed to being triggered by a mental problem or a physical condition. That is sheer incompetence and the inability to correctly diagnose the problem. This goes back to the lack of doctors and lack of specialists.
The second issue is the inability to protect them in another manner, protect individuals that should not be there in the first place.
I will tell you about this guy who was in his second year at Millhaven. He was an Aboriginal offender who was serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. He had recently been diagnosed with stage 1 dementia. Because murder carries such a high factor in the risk assessment, he was automatically placed in maximum security. He had very significant difficulty in following the rules of the institution. They diagnosed him with alcohol withdrawal. They automatically assumed that he was in withdrawal because he did not have access to alcohol. He had been bullied. He encountered a significant amount of racism against him. His behaviour was deteriorating. He was placed for very long periods of time in solitary confinement during those two years, only in the end to end up in protective custody.
I do not know how many of you are familiar with protective custody. Once you are in protective custody, you are never coming out because protective custody is made for the Paul Bernardos of the world. It is a very stigmatizing place to be. It is 23 hours of segregation. Simply put, there is no way of coming out without being killed. Even though this person was not one of the individuals with one of the high stigma crimes, it was the only way they understood to protect him.
After two years of inappropriately treating him for this and that, and considering his disciplinary issues, somebody actually placed a diagnosis of dementia. Since trial, this person was in a free fall with a diagnosis of dementia. Now his parole eligibility was not coming up for the next 25 years. There was absolutely no possibility for him to be released. When he saw me, he was crying and he said, “Miss, by the time I will be out of maximum security, I will not remember my name, let alone will I remember what I have done and why I am here.” The reality is that this person will not be released. There is nothing I could tell him.
This brings us to the second reason why this person was in isolation. If he is only eligible for parole after 25 years, there is nothing the parole system can do. There is no parole eligibility date coming up. The compassionate release system should have stepped in and at that point he should have applied to be released on compassionate grounds and paroled by exception. Section 121 is very clear that individuals serving life in prisons are not eligible for compassionate release unless they are suffering from a terminal illness. Dementia, as you know, is not a terminal illness.
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy is what people drafting the Corrections and Conditional Release Act said would be available for lifers. It has not been used in a decade.
Here is one individual who for the next 25 years of his life — and he will make it because dementia is one of those diseases where you can live a very long time — will go from one protective custody to another protective custody, from one isolation cell to another isolation cell. Why? Because our release system is deficient. We have incarcerated somebody who should not be there. He will not be deterred. He will not be punished. There is no penological purpose in having that person there, and yet there he is. Five per cent of the sample is stage 1 dementia, because that is what happens when you are aging in prison.
Mr. Kaiser: If I could just have 30 seconds? Consonant with my theme of referring to the international human rights standards, I commend the interim report in 2011 of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on Torture, which extensively deals with solitary confinement. The report condemns it as potentially amounting to torture.
In addition, the Mandela Rules, rules 36 and following, specifically deal with issues surrounding solitary confinement that you would, as my colleague has said, make it not only unsuitable, but unlawful in many circumstances outside domestic law, but under international human rights law.
Senator Pate: Professor Kaiser, I was very interested in the recommendations that you have made around oversight. One of the things you mentioned was Bill C-56, which is before Parliament. Even though it does have what looks like progressive steps, you are probably aware it provides Corrections the option to create exceptions. One of the things that we have heard a lot about, and we know it has often happened, is that where exception is provided it often becomes the rule. Part of the question is: Do you actually see that as likely to result in meaningful change?
You mentioned the potential for oversight and what the Mental Health Commission has done. You mentioned the Correctional Investigator, although theirs is an ombud’s function and they have no power to direct differently. You did not mention Louise Arbour’s recommendation for judicial oversight. I am curious about your views on that.
You did mention a role for the Senate and the House of Commons committees potentially. Could you please expand a bit on what you would see as a way that we potentially do this, and how we might actually have a role, perhaps, with the optional protocol? If that was implemented within Canada, could there be a role for a committee like this to review annually what Corrections is doing on a number of fronts? Could you cover those?
As well, when we were at the forensic unit today we heard staff talk about the fact that as services have been provided there, they are actually seeing an increase in charging of individuals who might otherwise be looked upon only for civil commitment, but because their beds are full they are actually looking for charges to apply. Sometimes these charges are as minor as disturbance or mischief, just to get them into the forensic system. One of the things the committee is looking at is the use of section 29 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. If you cannot do it tonight, would it be possible to get some of your recommendations on those areas?
Professor Iftene, I thank you for covering off what is not being used, the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. What kinds of recommendations would you like to see from the committee around compassionate parole and the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, and around, again, even section 29 options that might be available for those aging prisoners?
You mentioned medical assistance in dying and some of the issues. What recommendations would you have about how that could be better applied? Certainly, some of us have heard from prisoners who, because of how difficult their lives are in prison, are contemplating requesting assisted death. What an indictment of our system, that we might actually have prisoners seeking medically assisted death because of the prospects of not getting released or not knowing when they might be released whether because of mental health issues, or some of the issues you have raised.
Mr. Kaiser: Thank you for allowing me the extension of an hour to respond to your questions. I will try to be very succinct.
I too am concerned with Bill C-56, or in any other place of the possibility of exceptions being used. In the civil setting it sometimes is in the guise of necessity. The issue of exceptions and necessity are all a function of the complex factors that contribute to a prison or a psychiatric environment. I am loathe to see exceptions introduced when we are talking about fundamental human rights. I think the key to controlling them must be appropriate oversight.
Actually, I think one extremely useful thing that the Senate committee can do, among many others, is to look at the range of possible oversight mechanisms. Obviously, there may be some built within Bill C-56 so it may produce some improvements. The best oversight is always external in my mind. The potential for an oversight rule by Parliament, through the House of Commons and Senate, or by the courts, need not be seen as mutually exclusive. The Senate could usefully comment on what are the strengths and weaknesses of each form of oversight and make recommendations as to what would best protect the fundamental human rights of people who happen to be in prison, rather than simply prisoners.
You also mentioned in the latter part of your compendious question the whole issue of the criminalization of mental illness, which is a subject very appropriate for another day. I think it is a deep misuse of the forensic justice system for persons with minor offences only, who are non-dangerous, to be put through the rigours of unfitness assessments and possible NCR placements, or unfitness placements. I think that our society is best protected when those provisions are reserved for a very small minority of people who may, in fact, be dangerous, but not for others.
You may hear from Chief Judge Williams later this evening that many persons with mental illness complain about what they perceive as the “platinum card” for access to mental health services. That is the notion that, “If I am in trouble with the law, I will get access sooner than I would if I were not.”
Of course, if that happens, or even if some people believe it, that is a completely shameful situation because there shouldn’t have to be a competition among any persons, or groups of persons, for access to necessary mental health services.
I think the whole piece of criminalization, whether through the mental disorder amendments, or through other mechanisms that unduly control people and may have the effect of producing the view that there is enhanced access if you are in trouble with the criminal justice system, is something to confront head on. That is part of the broader problem of accessibility of services for people at large.
I do not know whether there is anything else you would like me to comment on now. Certainly, you have raised some very important and interconnected issues.
The Chair: If there are other things that you want to send in to us, we would welcome your submission.
I know you have given us some other things to read as well.
Mr. Kaiser: I have, like any bad professor, given you readings to take home.
Ms. Iftene: I will start with the issues surrounding release. I think very strong recommendations from the Senate might go a long way.
At the moment, the only thing that we have in the legislation that could count as sort of compassionate release is section 121, Parole by Exception. I would just say the recommendation and then explain it. I think it really needs a redrafting, a complete do-over. I think a recommendation completing scratching what is now section 121 and creating an actual system of compassionate release based on humanitarian grounds is what is needed considering the wave of people who are aging and getting sick in prisons.
The problem with Parole by Exception is that, as the name says, it is not necessarily compassionate release. It is actually an alternative way of releasing somebody on parole through the same parole system. I have submitted some of my written work on compassionate release that tracks the grounds of Parole by Exception. It is actually grounded in pretty much the same criteria as the regular parole system. It’s still based on risk assessment and other sorts of issues that I believe are little used when somebody is physically incapable, paralyzed, and physically incapable of committing any other crime at that point. How many correctional programs they have completed is completely absurd. The fact that the only compassionate release we have still looks at those issues in practice is an absurdity.
First, it needs a complete redrafting in terms of its principles. There has to be grounding in humanitarian considerations. When people with dementia are years away from their parole eligibility, there has to be a fallback plan. Right now, there is a gap in the legislation that is not allowing them to be released. That is what the compassionate release provision should do.
Second, why does it exclude individuals serving life in prison if it is based on humanitarian grounds? Right now, it is not and that is why it has this exclusion. It would not exclude them if it were based on humanitarian grounds. The sample of 200 individuals that I worked with, half of them were serving life or indeterminate sentences. A significant number of people aging in prison are lifers. They are actually in need of this alternative form of release and liaison with community.
Again, I direct you to the written word that I have prepared where I set out the steps on how it could be reformed. I think a general redrafting from principle to application is needed very much.
I think that is particularly important in the context in which you have medical assistance in dying right now. Before CSC came up with their regulation of the medical assistance in dying, we had a meeting in September and had experts from across the country come together, including from Correctional Services Canada, and discuss how to best implement medical assistance in dying in the federal correctional system. We recognized the fact there is a need for prisoners to have access to it, as it is a medical procedure. Medical assistance in dying is but one of the options that an individual facing end of life should have. However, at the moment where you do not have palliative care in the institutions, you do not have options to be released and be with your family and have a multidisciplinary team. The concern that this is becoming the default option for these individuals is a very significant one.
However, my recommendation is not to make medical assistance in dying unavailable. I do not think that is good. I think that compassionate release under a new reform should be started immediately when an individual is diagnosed with a terminal illness or a chronic illness that might become a terminal illness shortly.
The criteria being used right now for determining eligibility for medical assistance in dying should be used to determine eligibility for release. Why is somebody who is eligible for assistance in dying not eligible for release in the community? It makes absolutely no sense. At that point, that somebody should be in the community where they can have the full ability to decide, to understand the options of their treatment, and to decide upon their course of action without any repercussion if they decide palliative over medical assistance in dying, and so forth.
I think compassionate release in the context of this particular group of people is crucial. I do not see a way for us to progress or go forward without significantly improving the ways of release.
Senator Pate: Could I be so bold as to request, if both of you are willing, you provide us draft wording for the oversight and for the compassionate release and RPM process?
Ms. Iftene: Yes, for sure. Absolutely, my pleasure.
Mr. Kaiser: Yes, and concerning oversight, for example?
Senator Pate: And more generally, and the role the Senate might play in that.
Ms. Iftene: Yes, absolutely. I did not address the issue of the Royal Prerogative. I did not even do work on it because there is simply nothing out there. I think I read something about it last year in the Office of the Correctional Investigator. It mentioned that in the last decade there has not been even one granted. Again, this would have a significant role to play, perhaps, for those individuals who would not be caught in the compassionate release or other form of parole. It would definitely be rarer if we had a properly functioning release system; nonetheless, it should exist.
I did not address either the issue of temporary escorts, which I think is a very important issue. One of the individuals had just lost his wife to cancer. They had been married for 30 years and his wife had fought cancer for the last six years of their lives. They had six kids together. He was not allowed to go see her during her final months of life. He had been in prison for 20 years. He was not a particular danger to anybody. He was allowed to attend the funeral though, so clearly he was not that big of a danger.
Many of the individuals who are old have aging parents who are dying and they will not see them again. They are not allowed to spend time with them at all. Again, the fact that there are release mechanisms, it is still not acceptable that temporary leaves of absence are unavailable. Let alone the fact they cannot even access their own medical appointments either because they cannot go unsupervised. I do not know why, but they are not allowed to in most situations because they do not have escorts.
Pittsburgh has a 70 per cent rate of individuals over 50 with significant problems. It is actually called the death camp. They have two escorts per day. Therefore, if you have five people that have a medical appointment that day, only two can go. The other three go to the back of the line and wait another two years to get an appointment to see an oncologist. They will probably not make it two years hence.
There is a significant problem in terms of options for going and seeking anything in the community.
The Chair: The last question will go to Senator Hartling.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
There are really important issues around mental health and aging population. We did see that when we visited a facility in the spring in Ontario. Maybe you can talk a little about palliative care. At that facility, we saw many people who were dying. I know we would like to look at some new ways in doing this, but where should they be? Should they be in prison in palliative care or should they be somewhere else? Do you have any thoughts about that?
Ms. Iftene: They should not be in prison. I don’t think that anybody who is dying should be in prison. That goes back to what one of the guys told me. He said, “I’ve been in prison for 30 years. Do you know what? I don’t know if I know how to live outside. So, I don’t know if I mind living in prison. I don’t know that anymore. But all I can tell you is I do not want to die in prison, because if I die in prison I will go through horrible pain. I will probably go in an unmarked grave and my family will never be released of the stigma and pain of knowing that their son died an offender.”
It is horrible. The kind of heart wrenching, terrible fear that these people are fostering at the thought of dying in prison is something that was present every second throughout my time with them.
There definitely should be better options for care when they get to that point. There is definitely a need for the Correctional Services to work with the federal and provincial governments to ensure that there is a transfer from prisons to actual community institutions that can take care of them if they do not have family to go to.
That is an extra activity and, yes, it takes money. Honestly, once it is done it doesn’t cost more than holding somebody who is dying in prison in solitary confinement, if we are talking money, which I do not think we should be when it is human life, but sometimes people don’t react to other things.
From all points of view it makes absolute sense, even if it means that it is partially funded by Correctional Services Canada, to ensure there is a way to transfer people to institutions that are actually able to give them health care without the security considerations.
There have been some attempts to move them to community correctional centres, which is better than prison. It is still a prison institution. It is still a correctional institution at its base. It cannot replace the care they would receive in a community institution, not to mention the issues surrounding the consent for end of life care, which shouldn’t be made in a prison facility.
The Chair: Thank you both very much for your time, your expertise and for all that you have promised to give us post this meeting.
For our final panel this evening we are pleased to welcome the Honourable Pamela Williams, Chief Judge of the Provincial and Family Courts of Nova Scotia, appearing tonight as an individual. Also appearing as an individual is Ms. Heather Finn-Vincent, Parole Officer, Correctional Services Canada.
Judge Williams, we will have you go first.
Hon. Pamela Williams, Chief Judge, Provincial and Family Courts of Nova Scotia, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. It is both a privilege and an honour.
I have been asked to speak about therapeutic or wellness court approaches in Nova Scotia for those with mental health and/or addiction issues who find themselves in conflict with the criminal law, with a view to providing alternatives to incarceration.
This is important because we know from research that our jails and prisons are ill-equipped to deal with this vulnerable population. We also know that incarceration tends to exacerbate their issues.
Mental health issues are at least three times more common in prisons than in the general population. We are told that 30 per cent of male offenders and 50 per cent of female inmates have identified mental health needs and most offenders have a substance abuse disorder.
I would add two observations to that based on my experience as the judge in the Mental Health Court. First, upwards of 80 per cent of people referred to the court have both major mental health and substance abuse disorders. Second, many who present as having substance abuse disorders have underlying and undiagnosed mental health issues often related to trauma.
We are in the midst of what I would suggest is a “cultural revolution” of sorts. Slowly we are starting to rethink how best to address harms in relation to people, policies, and practices in the criminal justice system. This is, in part, due to the overrepresentation of racialized and vulnerable persons.
Instead of simply criminalizing human behaviour, we are developing strategies for reducing harms by getting to the root causes of the offending, which include mental health and addiction issues often related to poverty and systemic and racial discrimination.
Therapeutic, problem-solving, and wellness court programs within the criminal justice system offer alternative approaches to address accountability, reparation of harm and rehabilitation. One such program is the Nova Scotia Mental Health Court which was established in 2009.
Briefly, the program is available to those 18 years and older, whose offending behaviour is connected to their major mental health disorder. In addition, they must live in HRM and have access to services here. The court must also be of the view that the risk that person poses can be managed within the community, and that there are services available to address the issues at hand. Of course, Crown consent is required for admission into the program.
Our court sits one afternoon per week. It is preceded every week by a morning pre-court meeting where a collaborative, consensus-based multidisciplinary team discusses issues related to admission, support planning, and follow-up. The program is unique in that it takes a “person-centered” holistic approach. It is offender, not offence, based. The only offences precluded are those outside the jurisdiction of the provincial court, that is to say murder and treason. We take a trauma-informed, recovery-focused, risk-needs-responsivity approach. Wellness and safety are the paramount considerations.
As well, victims are encouraged to engage and participate, whether it be through a victim voice statement, or in the case of guilty plea, a victim impact statement, or they could provide input into a support plan. If they choose, they could be involved in a restorative process. They could simply wish to be updated on the participant’s progress within the program.
Under the umbrella of the Nova Scotia Mental Health Court Program there are three additional programs: the Judicial Monitoring Program; the Court Monitored Drug Treatment Program; and more recently, the Alcohol Pilot Project, all of which are responses to specific needs.
The Judicial Monitoring Program is for those affected by trauma, but for whom there has been no diagnosis of a mental health disorder. Recently we have come to realize — the lightbulb has come on — why we do not have many Aboriginal and African Nova Scotians in our Mental Health Court. The reason is that they do not have formal diagnoses, which is one of the criteria. Why do they not have diagnoses? Many of them are suspicious of the health care system, or they are stigmatized and they choose not to participate in such a program. But we know by the information that we receive about their horrific backgrounds that they are very much traumatized by the events in their lives. A lot of them are from very marginalized and vulnerable populations. Culturally appropriate interventions and responses are crucial.
The Court Monitored Drug Treatment Program is a partnership between the Mental Health Court and the Dartmouth Opioid Treatment Program, which is supported by the Nova Scotia Health Authority. One of the unique features of this partnership is that it is an “in-kind” collaborative, sharing of resources, as opposed to any kind of federal or provincial money to help support the program. The downside, of course, is we have only eight beds available to us in the Opioid Treatment Program, which allows us to have those folks in our Court Monitored Drug Treatment Program, but at least it is a start.
The Alcohol Pilot Project is a very recent addition. Traditionally, alcohol has not been one of those mental health disorders — even though we know it is a mental health disorder — that has been a qualified diagnosis because of the fear of the floodgates opening. Alcohol is a huge problem in this province.
Recently we decided to take three test cases of chronic alcoholics who have come into conflict with serious matters before the courts. Presently we have two folks; one charged with robbery; and the other with some serious break and enters. We have partnered again with in-kind resources with rehabilitation, residential programs within the city. We are working with these folks for up to 24 months while they are in residential care, and then while they continue to be monitored in the community.
As you can see, central to our work are strong community partnerships with community mental health, with the local forensic hospital, with the Mi’kmaq Legal Support Network, with Veterans Affairs, with shelters, transition and recovery houses and supported housing, to name just a few. We liaise with the Aboriginal court worker who provides support, and arranges for not only sentencing circles, but “circles of support” for the folks who are in our programs so that we can build support around their plan for recovery.
Since 2016, our court has partnered with Veterans Affairs. It was a rather unique opportunity. Veterans Affairs were looking at the establishment of perhaps a Veterans court, similar to what they have in the United States. However, it was discovered very early on that the number of veterans in Canada was not sufficient to support independent stand-alone courts, so our court was approached. They were considering three across the country, and Nova Scotia was chosen as the pilot site to partner. There are veterans’ caseworkers attached to the Mental Health Court for veterans who find themselves in conflict with the law, often because of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and substance abuse.
Peer support has been identified as a gap in our program and it can be an effective intervention, both moderating the effects of life-challenging events and providing a sense of empowerment. Currently we are working on the development of a proposal for peer support and for a worker within our court.
We have several court programs across the province. Additionally, we have a new court that is about to open at Wagmatcook, an Aboriginal court, which will be both a wellness and Gladue court, but also full service provincial court, for two Aboriginal communities, as well as the residents of Victoria County.
There is, without a doubt, great interest in the expansion of wellness court programs provincially. We have put together a working group of more than 40 partners from government — Justice, Health, Community Services; from the community, both in terms of those with lived experiences from the university community and the judiciary — to look at providing a framework for the expansion of these kinds of court programs across the province.
In the back of the booklet that I have supplied you will find the terms of reference for this project. Currently we are working on a framework with best practices and non-negotiables, in the hope that as programs are expanded there is some uniformity in terms of policy and procedure, even though there will be regional variations as we go.
Dr. Linda Courey, who is about to retire, is a Senior Director of the Nova Scotia Health Authority. She and I have been working together for the last two to three years to get to the point where we can bring these people together and try to establish a way of moving forward so that we can expand this project across the province.
November 2019 will mark the 10-year anniversary of the Mental Health Court. Already we are working on a qualitative and quantitative evaluation project. It will have two main objectives. The first is to examine the health, social, and justice outcomes for people who have been referred to and/or participated in the court. Second is to understand the underlying ideologies, approaches, processes, and mechanisms of wellness court programs, and how these shape program design and opportunities for an individual’s recovery.
My apologies for my extended opening remarks. It is challenging to describe the work of the Nova Scotia Mental Health Court in such a limited timeframe. But I do leave with you, in addition to the Terms of Reference, a Power Point presentation that sets out in much more detail the Mental Health Court program. It may answer some of the questions that you have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Judge Williams.
Heather Finn-Vincent, Parole Officer, Correctional Services Canada, as an individual: Good evening. I am honoured to have the opportunity speak with the Senate committee that seeks to assist vulnerable populations in our prison system. This work is very important, and I thank the committee for allowing me to take part in the process.
My name is Heather Finn. I have worked the frontlines of our correctional system since I became a social worker in 2004. Today I would like to speak about a regional committee I helped develop, pertaining to African Canadian offenders in the Atlantic region. Our committee began with myself, as an institutional parole officer; community parole officer, Jude Clyke; and senior manager, Ed Muise. The committee was formed a little over a year ago in 2017, in an effort to examine the overrepresentation of Black offenders. I need to strongly emphasize today this committee is not a revolutionary or innovative idea in the Atlantic region. There have been countless staff and community members who have dedicated their entire careers to studying, educating and advocating for Black offenders in the correctional system.
I have shared a sampling of some reports with the Senate committee today, one of which dates back to 1998, where recommendations are still relevant but have not come to fruition. These individuals have forged a path and started change with little resources, and our committee is merely carrying the torch lit long ago by these individuals.
This Senate committee has already heard from numerous witnesses who quote the alarming statistics with regard to Black offenders. We know that Black offenders are the fastest growing sub-population in corrections and that Black people account for approximately 8.1 per cent of the federally incarcerated persons while they make up only about 3 per cent of the overall population. In the Atlantic region, these numbers are, unfortunately, much higher with the Black offender population hovering around 10 per cent in the last 10 years.
Just this week we examined numbers where Black offenders made up about 11.4 per cent of the population. These are approximates. When we look at these numbers against the general population of Atlantic Canada, we see a population of only about 1.4 per cent who identify as Black.
Our group was developed based on a shared interest and concern around these numbers and an acknowledgement that the awareness around Black offenders was lacking. This contributed to the silence and perpetration of the problem.
Raising awareness in the region, therefore, became one of the group’s primary mandates to help drive change. Our other directives later included reviewing quantitative data around reintegration results. We also wanted to enhance services by recognizing culture as an important part of assessment and rehabilitation. We also wanted to enhance community engagement in order to assist offenders and release planning and successful reintegration.
In the last year, we have completed some tasks and developed new goals with respect to these four mandates. In order to raise awareness, we sought and received approval to dedicate a full day of training to every parole officer in the region on Black offenders, as part of the mandatory continuous development training. We developed this training, which encompassed history, theory, and practical knowledge that parole officers could use in their day to day in working with Black offenders.
We presented similar information to senior managers in an effort to ensure continuity so that they could understand parole officer recommendations and some of the concerns that were being brought forth.
We developed information and resources for parole officers to assist in their day to day work. We are currently working to provide access to this information, via the internet, which all parole officers can access and with the possibility of putting it on the National Responsivity Portal.
We will be providing submissions to an International Corrections and Prisons Association conference, on these progressive initiatives to make imprisonment and community supervision more humane and effective. We are hoping to put forth some information on that.
In order to create strategies, we have asked for particular sets of data to be collected and tracked so that we are able to focus where our efforts are needed most. This would be data around reintegration results, such as percentage of parole releases, percentages of day paroles reviewed, suspension rates, and the amount of sentence served by an offender prior to first release. Those were some examples of what we look at.
In order to develop practices around reintegration strategies, we have looked at numerous results, information, recommendations, and pilot projects that have occurred in the past in an attempt to determine which ones were beneficial. We also spoke directly, of course, with the inmate population to get a perspective on what they felt was needed.
In order to enhance services, we have done a number of things. One of our committee members, Jude Clyke, is now in a fully funded position, which has really been instrumental in accomplishing most of the initiatives of our committee. He is dedicated in a full-time position to look at some of the goals and how to accomplish them.
We have examined the use of culturally relevant programs, projects, and activities for offenders. These include the continuation of cultural events, such as escorted temporary absences to the community. We are also looking at the importance of that in the assessment process.
We have explored the possibility of training staff members in conducting cultural assessments in an effort to strengthen an understanding of an offender’s behaviour leading up to and including criminal activity. This would be consideration of Black offenders’ social histories in making recommendations through the prison process. Every decision we would implement throughout the course of an offender’s sentence would be similar and involve, for example, looking at the lived experiences of history, and also what is in the present and how that is affecting behaviours and that sort of thing.
We have worked with the Diversity Committee to strengthen a more diverse staff, but also recognize the importance of training White staff to be more culturally competent. They make up the majority of our staff and, unfortunately, we need more cultural competence with the staff. This year the middle management training focuses on some diversity and cultural competence in the workplace. That is a positive step forward.
In order to address community engagements, we have linked with community partners that specialize in mental health, employment and education. Jude, for example, has visited about 45 community groups who are interested in assisting Black offender reintegration. We are hoping to develop a resource package so that when offenders are released they have this information on hand. Also, along with that we want to develop resource fairs in the institutions so that Black offenders can network, gain awareness, make connections to help better prepare for their release. To complete some of these tasks we had to rely on staff from a number of different departments. There is a lot of willingness in this region to assist. While we have made great strides, we hope to continue this work until there is no longer a need for the committee. Certainly, we are not there yet.
This concludes my opening statement. I thank you once again for allowing me to share this information today.
The Chair: We will take senators’ questions, starting with Deputy Chair Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Your presentations have been excellent.
Judge Williams, I would like to speak about the Mental Health Court and I would like to congratulate Nova Scotia. I think we have been doing some really good things like the Mental Health Court, the East Coast Forensic Hospital, at Burnside and the Domestic Abuse Court which is starting off. If we can find better ways to help people, instead of being punitive and taking them out of the community, I think it is a win-win for everybody.
How does one gain access to the Mental Health Court? You spoke about the lack of Aboriginals in using it because they have not been diagnosed, and you gave reasons for why they have not been diagnosed. How does a person access it?
Second, if Aboriginals are not accessing it, what outreach is being done to encourage them to take part?
Ms. Williams: I may have misspoken. We do have African Nova Scotian and First Nation participants in the program. But I would have anticipated the numbers to be higher, given the number of Aboriginals and African Nova Scotians in the criminal justice system itself.
Referrals can be made to the Mental Health Court from any of the five courts in Dartmouth and the four criminal courts in Halifax. It is the team that then determines, based on the criteria, whether or not the person is eligible for the program. It does require that there be acknowledgement of responsibility, not necessarily a guilty plea.
One of the features of the program is if a person successfully completes, then the charges are withdrawn. That is particularly helpful to individuals who may not have a criminal record. Even if they do, it is not compiling charge upon charge. Anybody can be referred, and it is the team that makes the decision whether or not someone gains access.
Senator Cordy: You mentioned the peer support program. When the Social Affairs Committee was doing the study on mental health and mental illness, peer support seemed to be one of the things that worked extremely well. In fact, the first quote on the first page of a report is from Roy Muise, from Dartmouth, with the Schizophrenic Society. He worked as a peer support person for those who had schizophrenia.
Who would you expect to do peer support? Would it be those who have been incarcerated with mental illness, or those who have mental illness and have dealt with it outside, or both? How would you envision this peer support working? It seems that people who are in those situations identify with somebody who has walked the walked, and not just somebody who is speaking about it.
Ms. Williams: Ideally, a peer support worker would be a graduate from the Mental Health Court. Up until recently there has not been much funding available or training. Some funds came available this month, which we are trying to access. We have identified two graduates who are actually working with us on the 10-year anniversary evaluation and also part of our wellness working group of 40, who are looking at expansion across the province. These are two very bright, capable, caring, charismatic individuals who would like nothing more than to be able to be peer support workers. That is what we would like to see.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Finn-Vincent, I may have the statistics wrong but I know that there is a high population of Blacks within the criminal system. Did you say 1.4 per cent of Nova Scotians identify?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: Not Nova Scotians; Atlantic Canada.
Senator Cordy: Did you say 11 per cent of prisoners?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: It was approximately 11.4 per cent. It involves those in the prison system who identify as Black, divided by the number of people in the prison system in Atlantic Canada.
Senator Cordy: I know that you are a parole officer, so you are dealing with things after the fact. Has there been anything done to bring those numbers down? That is huge; 1.4 per cent of the population and 11 per cent of the prison population. Clearly, we are not doing something right early on.
Ms. Finn-Vincent: Clearly, yes. There have been some initiatives. They have not been consistent. These initiatives are coming and going and that is leading to more frustration and anger within the prison population. That also contributes to the problem and it contributes to a silence. I wish I had the answers for why this is so.
I mentioned the recommendations made in 1998. Had those recommendations been implemented or had there been a more consistent effort, maybe we wouldn’t be seeing those statistics today. That is all I can offer.
Senator Pate: Thank you to both of you, and it is always fun to have my classmate back.
I think you were here, Chief Judge, when I spoke about some of the issues we noticed when we were at the forensic hospital today, in particular, the fact that we heard from staff and this evening from Professor Kaiser about people being criminalized essentially because of the perception that they will get treatment.
Certainly, I know that you are aware that a number of us have criticisms about special circumstance courts being developed, not instead of, but often preferentially to the development of preventative services in communities; things like better mental health, more robust outpatient and inpatient facilities for everybody in the community.
What kinds of measures do you see being put in place given that, in most cases, where these courts have worked well it is because individuals like you are there ensuring that there are oversight and accountability mechanisms? As I am sure you are aware, when key individuals, the champions, have moved on for whatever reason, sometimes then the flaws of those processes are really exposed. I am interested in what kinds of avenues you are seeking to try and address those preventative pieces. You did mention some. Could you expand on them?
I am interested, in addition to providing the discharges, in how often the no-block type of conditional sentences are being used in situations where you would normally have a prison sentence? I noticed you are focusing on alternatives.
As well, have you looked at getting rid of the Crown discretion component, the requirement that the Crown must agree to some of those diversionary approaches? Have you looked at how you might actually apply it, even to murder situations where you have certain circumstances? I am thinking particularly of the number of women and young people who are reacting to violence. You mentioned the past trauma and the histories of violence that so many of the women experience.
I recognize this is multi-prong question.
From Ms. Finn, you were talking about looking at one of the issues being on increasing release. I am curious whether your committee is looking at encouraging your own Correctional Service of Canada to change the policies around section 81 and section 84 to ensure that; one, indigenous prisoners have access, but also non-indigenous prisoners? As you know from the planning for those provisions back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, the whole legislation was supposed to be human rights legislation aimed at reducing the numbers of people in prison. Yet the policy has significantly limited the application of the law. If it is not something that you are already looking at, is there a recommendation from this committee that might help you to actually look at policy changes?
Are there other recommendations that either of you would like to see that might usefully come from this committee?
Ms. Williams: These wellness courts, or therapeutic courts, were established because we were the court of last resort. The criminal courts were being inundated with folks with mental health and addiction issues because the health care system was not, for one reason or another, able to respond. It was a last resort.
I am not sure that we are at a place where, if adequate resources were made available in the health care system, people, especially marginalized and vulnerable people, would access them. We have got a lot of work yet to do to get there. In the meantime, if people are committing crimes and being charged and are coming before our courts, then we need to provide alternatives that are more humane, more individual, more holistic.
I think sustainability is another point you were making. I made the point that I think that we are in the midst of a cultural revolution. People are starting to realize that these programs do work. There is an increasing number of judges on our bench, for example, who are really keen to become involved in these programs. My wish list is that one day we will not need specialty courts because we will have these approaches used in every court in the province when people are coming before them with mental health and addiction issues.
In terms of removing Crown discretion; number one, that is not possible with section 720, subsection (2) of the Criminal Code, which requires the Attorney General to give permission to have someone delay their sentencing to go through a treatment program. Quite frankly, in our instance, we have a Crown who very sparingly uses the veto power. So, very rarely are people not permitted to participate in the court.
A lot of people do not enter guilty pleas. But there are some who do who have serious criminal records, whose risk is fairly substantial, who have been charged with very serious crimes. We often look at sentences that do not involve periods of custody or involve short periods of custody, or maybe have to involve longer periods of custody, but we follow them while they are in custody and we follow them during their community sentence portion as well.
We have had three cases in the Mental Health Court of attempted murder. We cannot do murders because that is a Supreme Court matter. We have had three attempted murders. We have had multiple robberies. We have had aggravated assault. We have had some pretty serious crimes that have gone through the Mental Health Court. The charges have been withdrawn in some of them at the end of the day because it was very much based on the circumstances at the time and did not reflect that the person really did not pose a great risk to the public once the mental health and addiction issues were under control.
I think I answered your questions.
Senator Pate: You mentioned people committing offences. We heard this afternoon about police taking individuals to hospitals, them not being able to get access and then them actually essentially searching for a charge, a mischief or some fairly minor charge, to be able to trigger the Mental Health Court process. Would you be aware of that as a phenomenon that is coming?
Ms. Williams: That would be a very small percentage of the individuals that we see. Some are charged because they live in a care facility and they may have assaulted a care provider and there may be a policy at the Small Options Home, or wherever they are living, that they be charged. Believe it or not, the police have been one of the champions of alternatives because they are the frontline and they would prefer not to have to deal with these people, not to have to charge them.
Ms. Finn-Vincent: I will try to answer this question as best I can. In terms of policy, our committee has looked at policy and practices that are not particularly helpful to African Canadian offenders. I think it is more to do with a lack of policies and lack of procedures versus procedures that serve to harm them.
What we have been hearing is the ethnocultural portfolio really does not encompass Black offenders. It encompasses it in our policy, but when we are looking at the overrepresentation, certainly it seems that Black offenders may get lost in that shuffle so to speak. We have been hearing that quite a bit. That is not particularly helpful.
In terms of section 81 and section 84, there has been some discussion around whether or not they do apply to other offenders. I cannot comment on that. I just do not have the legal expertise to say whether or not it applies. But what I will say is what is often dictated is done. If there is an obligation to look at section 81 and section 84 releases for offenders, then it is typically done when it is a legislative obligation. If the interpretation is that is not something that ought to be done, then it is sometimes not done.
What I will say, and one of the things that we tried to convey in the parole officer training, is that while we are waiting for the slower wheels of policy change or legislative change for Black offenders, we can still incorporate a Black offender’s social history into an assessment. There may not be specific policies and obligations similar to Indigenous offenders to incorporate Aboriginal social histories. The parole officers are very adept at doing that. We have been trained for years on how to incorporate Aboriginal social history into recommendations, how to consider things through a cultural lens. It is not that difficult of a jump to then sit down and talk with a Black offender to get some history on the culture that person has once lived in and is currently living in, to then get a full understanding of what led to criminal activity, the current attitude, the current level of motivation and engagement. It creates that understanding and it creates a context. That is the whole point of looking at things through a cultural lens. It creates a context and a conversation and a dialogue that is needed.
Senator Pate: When you are doing those social histories, given what Professor Jones raised earlier, and I think you were here for that as well, how often are you looking at the interconnection between indigenous and African Nova Scotian individuals who have history in both communities and both cultures?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: Actually, that is very relevant. I would tend to agree with what El Jones said. I would also add that Black offenders sometimes can be hesitant to identify as indigenous. There have been some conversations about the perception that they are trying to get some other privilege or those sorts of things. They are very hesitant. I have read cultural assessments on both that give a perspective from the Aboriginal point of view and culture from Black history. Again, one is dictated and one is not. Obviously, we would see more Aboriginal social histories.
Senator Hartling: Ms. Finn, when you are doing the training is there resistance to cultural change and bringing it into a workplace? How is that working? What is your sense of that?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: I think you are right. With any change there is some hesitation. I believe the hesitation would be around not knowing and lack of awareness. I did a separate presentation at my site even before the training was approved, which was a very good thing. What was readily apparent was people really had no idea. Here you are, you are a parole officer in the Atlantic region and you have no idea that Black offenders are overrepresented at the rates they are. Once people realize that, I do find they are motivated, particularly parole officers.
I had feedback from one manager who called me personally and said that after the training people were looking through their caseload and saying, “I see what you are saying in this training.” They were going back through their caseloads and looking and saying, “Okay, this applies.” They were excited to do that. But the change is gradual, unfortunately. I think these baby steps will pave, at least, a bit of a way. I have heard from other staff who say that they have not been optimistic, but this has been the most optimistic they have been in a while. That is promising.
Senator Hartling: Do you have things such as celebrating Black History month or Aboriginal Days? Do you have those kinds of celebrations in the workplace? Are they incorporated?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: Yes, we do. Are they enough? That is up for debate. We just had a symposium done by the Employment Equity and Diversity Committee, which received fantastic feedback. We did have cultural ETAs to the Truro area. That often happens during Black History month. We have been doing those for years. The feedback that we are getting is we need more of those; once a year is not enough.
Senator Hartling: Are the prison inmates involved?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: Yes. At the symposium it was staff and the inmates were not involved. We would actually process the escorted temporary absences for offenders who were interested in the cultural ETAs to go out with staff and learn as a group.
Senator Hartling: I just wanted to thank you for your good work on the Mental Health Court. We did have one in New Brunswick, but I do not think we have it now. It is quite a loss. I really appreciate that good work to bring it back to our province. Thank you very much.
The Chair: On the second round we have Senator Pate and then Senator Cordy.
Senator Pate: That is an excellent point, Senator Hartling. I am looking forward to it being incorporated in all courts and no need for special circumstance. I think that might be a great observation for our committee to make which would be very helpful.
Ms. Finn-Vincent, you just mentioned cultural ETAs. One of the things the committee has heard a fair bit about is the number of escorted temporary absences that are granted by the Parole Board, or in some circumstances the Warden. How many are being cancelled — the wording now tends to be “postponed.” because of staff shortages or lack of availability? Professor Jones talked about the access issue in terms of lack of available community escorts. From your observations, what are you seeing in terms of those trends in this region?
Also, one of the things we have heard a lot about is the interest of, particularly women prisoners but men as well in post-secondary education. The Grand Valley Institution has the Walls to Bridges program, which involves university courses being offered to women in the prison with community students going in and participating as well. Are you aware of any tracking that has been done around the levels of post-secondary education before 1992, when post-secondary education was eliminated in the federal prison system, until now? How was that linked, particularly for women, to success in the community? How many were able to gain employment because of that access to post-secondary education?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: To answer your first question on ETAs, I am unaware of any concerns that were raised in terms of ETA cancellations. If overtime is to be incurred or if there is a lack of staff, those ETAs can be cancelled, 100 per cent. There has been a bit of a commitment with the cultural ETAs, in particular, to say that there is staff dedicated and they will go forward.
I am unaware of any of the cultural ETAs that have been cancelled as a group. New security information or those sorts of things, for example, may impact upon some ETAs. But I am unaware of a cancellation of a group ETA that day due to staff shortages. There has been a commitment because a lot of work goes into them. We want to make sure that people get there.
Your second point around post-secondary education, I am actually not aware. I would not be able to confidently speak to whether or not that will be impactful. I was actually unaware that post-secondary education was offered at one time.
Senator Pate: Do you know how many prisoners are permitted to go out on unescorted passes for post-secondary in this region?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: I am unaware of the numbers. I know it has happened. I just know examples. There would be examples of UTAs being granted or ETAs being granted to facilitate an individual’s schooling. That would start inside and sometimes it would assist in day parole, obviously, through the gradual release process. That would be a pretty good sell for a day parole.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Finn-Vincent, I am just wondering what percentage of parole officers are members of visible minority groups in Atlantic Canada?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: I don’t have the statistic on that. I do know that there are some institutions where there are none.
Senator Cordy: How about guards? Would you have any idea?
Ms. Finn-Vincent: Again, I would not have the exact statistics. Once again, there is not a lot.
The Chair: Thank you.
I have a whole list of questions, but I am not allowed to ask them. We are out of time. I do have to ask one. This is compelling. I opened the envelope and I wish that I had not because I found the Sapphire report from March 1998, 20 years ago almost to the day. There may be some people in the room who were part of those community consultations. I was one.
I decided to look at the recommendations. The first recommendation was the creation of the position of an African Canadian liaison, or community in-reach worker. We have heard that same recommendation as part of this study. What happened? Why wasn’t this recommendation implemented? Any ideas you have on that? Anyway that you could enlighten us would be helpful.
Ms. Finn-Vincent: I wish I knew. I think it is a question of priority. I think it is a question of awareness. It is very complex. I think that when we are looking at the priorities listed in our system, the priorities have been, rightfully so, with indigenous offenders, mental health, women offenders. Those are identified as special populations. I do not know if African Canadian offenders have been lost or overshadowed by some of those priorities. That is a possibility. If that is the case then I think the Atlantic region certainly would highlight the need based on the fact that this has been ongoing.
Again, it really contributes to that frustration. People who were very energetic in 1998 and had all these great recommendations, here we are years later and maybe no further ahead. As you said, we have heard those recommendations of the Liaison Officer, of culturally sensitive programs, those sorts of things. It just creates that lack of trust that we see in the system. I wish I had a better answer. I would estimate that is about that.
I mentioned about the ethnocultural portfolio before and offenders being lost, or Blacks as a unique group being lost. That is a possibility, as well. I think there is systemic and institutional racism in our system. This is some of what we will all have to be tasked to do. This is an issue that every single person has to be involved in. This is not a Black issue. This is a human issue. I think that is the take-home for everybody. This is going on in our region and we have to address it.
The Chair: Thank you.
Judge Williams and Ms. Finn-Vincent, thank you both for your testimony this evening.
We will now move into our open Town Hall. If there are any members of the audience who have been sitting here since 6 this evening and want to give testimony on the record, we would ask you to come forward and take up the empty seats around the table.
I know the evening is getting late. People are hanging in, which is wonderful. We have three people who are interested in speaking. We will ask you to state your name for the record, as you speak. If we give each of you about five minutes, does that work?
We will start with Treena Smith.
Treena Smith, as an individual: My name is Treena Smith. I am a person with lived experience. I have been in and out of provincial jail for about 15 years due to my alcoholic addiction. Growing up, I was a ward of the court.
I really wanted to touch on people with addictions who go to court and are put on probation, and the kind of conditions the courts are putting on people with substance abuse issues. They are putting on these no drinking clauses, or no drugs, no alcohol. Clearly, people with these addictions continue to use, so we get put on four or five different probation orders. Every time we are breaching the three clauses on every single order, and you have four of them — keep the peace, be of good behaviour, and the drinking and drug use — you have 12 breaches right there. Then you go to jail to deal with your breaches. They will then put two more years of probation on you. You go to jail, get out and have two years’ probation.
One of the other points I also wanted to make is about the areas in the city where the transition shelters are located. The ones in Halifax/Dartmouth are typically in areas that are known for drugs and alcohol. In my circumstances, the areas are not well located for the women.
I think the amount of the probation for the clauses for the substance abuse users should be looked at.
The Chair: That is very helpful. Would you be willing to take questions from any of the senators?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Senator Pate: I understand you and some of the women that you have been working with, or that you have been in custody with, have been working on some ideas of things that could help prevent women from going back. Not just the issue of the breaches, but some other ideas. Would you be comfortable describing some of what you have been talking about and what you think women need?
Ms. Smith: We started working on a documentary called, “Conviction,” with some ladies who came into the jail about two and a half years ago. We are basically talking about what we need from society to keep ourselves out of prison. We have been working on a documentary that will be out next year which stemmed from some of our personal stories and that sort of thing, in a more creative, artful way. Then it kind of stemmed off into trying to look at opening a transition house, perhaps, in the country and having women work on the land; making jobs so that they do not have to get out and go on social assistance; making a paycheque; getting their independence back and their self-worth. It has been an honour to work with them.
I also work with the Elizabeth Fry Society. They are absolutely wonderful and some of the most supportive people that I have personally dealt with, in and out. This is the longest I have been out in probably four years, so I am doing all right.
Also, as an addict, I have tried reaching out for help. I am not an everyday user. I am what they call a “binge user.” About a month ago I tried to get into detox. I went on a week span and tried to get into detox and tried and tried and tried. Basically, I was told that if I am not out there killing myself every single day, I am not as high a priority as other people.
Then I went to addiction services. They are telling me they can give me successions. They deem when you are okay, or when you are able to be a productive member of society.
When I was trying to get into the detox, I was like, “Well do you know what? I will go to jail and detox that way.” That is an unfortunate way to look at things.
The first time I went to jail I was scared to death. But now I am comfortable there. I am just as comfortable in prison as I am out here. It is a hard ride. I see so many wonderful women with potential who have a chance and have tried to reach out, and there is so many people. This pile is just getting bigger. There are wait lists, evaluations where somebody has to deem what you need, but you cannot say what you need yourself. You have to have somebody else doing it for you.
I think the transition house would be helpful.
We are also thinking about having people with lived experience be peer support workers. I think you mentioned earlier people who have walked the walk. I know for me, personally, I will open up and feel a lot better talking to somebody who has walked the same path of life as me. I am not saying that professionals are not educated and can be helpful, but I just think that it would give people the comfort of having somebody there who is in the same boat.
The Chair: That is very helpful. Thank you.
We will move on. State your name, please.
Bernadette Hamilton-Reid, as an individual: Good evening, senators. Bernadette Hamilton-Reid, community of Beechville, and pleased to be here. I pay homage to my ancestors of the African continent.
I would first like to open up with the reason for the Senate being here, to listen to what the community has to say and also the esteemed speakers here. What results or what are the expectations from the community in this process? I am wondering what can go forward from this process? Is it recommendations that will go forward to make change?
The Chair: Certainly, yes. This is part of a national study. The study started last year. When the report is tabled in the Senate it will then be public. We have been certainly hearing many recommendations and we will make sure that information comes back to each of the communities that we have visited.
Ms. Hamilton-Reid: Thank you. In saying that, there are many issues that have been brought up this evening, from 6:00 until now, from the esteemed speakers.
The big one that hits me as an African Nova Scotian, being here seven generations, is the employment issue. Many of the speakers spoke about the lack of African Nova Scotians and Indigenous people who have been hired in the prison system. Ms. Finn-Vincent just gave the statistic that 11.4 per cent of the Black population are in there, but yet we are 1 per cent of the population. I think that is something that seriously needs to be looked at.
It is not only the employment positions of guards and such. As somebody else said, it is the management level where policies are being made and changes can be made, and many of our leaders need to be there. Also, some of the frontline workers, as this young lady just said, it is better if you can speak to somebody who looks like you and understands your thoughts.
Ms. Finn-Vincent spoke of the cultural lens. You should not have to be trained to have a cultural lens. If you are born with cultural lens and you have that cultural lens, you will always be thinking that way when you think of your inmates. Some people get it, some people don’t get it and some people don’t want to get it. It is important to have a lot of workers who represent the population that is in the prison. I do not know how we can do that through employment. There are many reports out there, such as the Ray Ivany report, that show where employment needs to take place at the federal level to ensure that all bodies are represented.
I know many people that have gone through the Mental Health Court that Judge Williams has put through. It has saved lives and I think that is something that really needs to be enforced and needs more encouragement. I know she says, “Hopefully there will be a time it will never be needed.” As we just saw from the Sapphire report in 1998, we have things in education, the Black report from 1994. There are reports out there for years and years that have recommendations that don’t get acted upon. That is why a lot of these resources are still needed. I don’t think there will be a time when we will be able to get rid of a Mental Health Court. There are educational needs. African Nova Scotians and Indigenous people just do not have the will of the population, especially when that majority population does not have that cultural lens, so it’s a big jump. Hopefully, in our lifetime, we may see that.
I have many family members, relatives in the transition homes. That hits home for me because a lot of our transition homes in the city are in spots where the offenders are easily tempted to reoffend. We really need to look at where these transition homes are being put. Maybe some rural communities do not want them there. We have to think about the people you are trying to rehabilitate and what the process is for them. If they can have easy access to the drugs, the alcohol, the things that put them in jail in first place, then what is the incentive for them to stay out?
Also, the curfews and the stipulations at some of these transition homes are very loose. They leave at 6:00 in the morning and they can come back at 12:00 at night. Sometimes at 4:00 they have to come and claim their bed, but they can still go out until midnight. Who is monitoring them? There is really no training. There is no work within those homes to help these young people be rehabilitated and to give them services. I think we need to look at our transition homes and what services are being offered. Taking them off the street is fine, but we need to be able to rehabilitate them and give them life skills and courses that they can really look into to help themselves.
Again, it is resources outside the system. When they do come out again we put them on the streets with no resources. Some of them do not even know how to get a driver’s licence. They cannot get a social insurance number. Lo and behold, good luck in trying to find a job.
We have so many organizations that could be mandated, or at least have it within their jurisdiction to hire young offenders. A lot of organizations in the cities across the country rely on government money to sustain themselves. In order to receive that government money, they should have to be willing to have a percentage of their employees made up of young offenders, or offenders that cannot be rehabilitated, that cannot get a job otherwise. They should have a program in place where they are being monitored by their parole officer or somebody that watches in on them. They should have a team of peers that are willing to help them integrate.
It has to start with an employer who has a will and also the culture in their organization, that they are comfortable having somebody around who has offended. They should not have to self-identify, “I am an offender.” They should just be welcomed into an organization and be able to work. I think we really need to look at that.
I am a strong Baptist Christian. I know there are a lot of prison ministry churches that go around. My mother is part of one of those prison ministries. When she goes — of course, she cannot tell you who they visit, she comes back and tells us the stories of young men and young women who are crying because they did something simple, yet they have sentences that really do not fit the crime. I think some of the crimes that some of our people are charged with — and when I say “our people,” I mean African Nova Scotians because that is the culture that I relate to — do not fit the time that they have done. I think you really need to look at that because there have been studies that show that the non-African Nova Scotian may steal and get five days. An African Nova Scotian may steal and get five years. There is really a disproportionate number of people incarcerated for the wrong reasons, and the term that they serve is not appropriate to their crime. They feel bitter when they are inside and they hear about that stuff. They say, “I know somebody that got out before I did and their crime was worse than mine. Why am I still here?” We really need to look at why they are put in there, how they are put in there, and what happens when the judgment is incorrect.
A lot of times our African Nova Scotians cannot afford the top-notch lawyers that can get them off like other populations can. That is part of the problem too. How do we get fair justice out there and fair service for our youth, and for other people who may not have the dollars to do that?
That is my five minutes? I have much more, but thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you.
Do any senators have a question for Bernadette?
Thank you for the information you have shared.
Ifo Ikede, as an individual: Hi. My name is Ifo Ikede. I am Izoko from the West Coast of Africa, Niger Delta. I have been here about 28 winters now.
I just wanted to address a few things that have not been spoken about. One was how the justice system affects immigrants, especially immigrants of African descent. There are sometimes issues when there are cultural practices that are legal where the person came from that are not explained to people when they arrive here. Often people get into conflict with the law not because they are actually trying to violate any rule, but are just trying to live their lives.
We have kids who are being abducted, or taken away from their families, either because the parents did not know they had to register them for school or their method of discipline is different from what is “accepted” here. I do not think there is enough leniency given to that. When you have a child that is taken away and put through the system then you have cases like what just happened and what is still happening to Abdoul Abdi and other people like that — those who have experienced not just the loss of their family connections, but also the system that abuses them and then punishes them for what the system has created. I think we need to be conscious of that.
Also, in this society, Africans and Black people are often seen as violent by default. When we go through the criminal and justice system we are often found “guilty until proven guilty.” It is very rare that we are considered innocent regardless of what the evidence says.
There is also a need for cultural competency, not just from having another Black Nova Scotian, because the fact that somebody is Black does not necessarily mean that they can relate to my cultural background. There are multiple cultures in Africa, so it is important to also be sure that if we are trying to have someone work with someone that they are actually familiar with the cultural practices of that person so that they do not just end up unintentionally creating some injustice.
Talking about rehabilitation, it is important to look at how insurance companies work, especially in the non-profit sectors, because often times some people might want to volunteer in the community. In a number of non-profit boards, their insurance requires that people not have a criminal record. I know that there is currently a little bit of a push to have them require criminal record checks on every one, It is not necessary to have the criminal records as a deterrent.
Those are just some thoughts I wanted to share, and I would love some feedback.
The Chair: You were less than five minutes. Thank you so much.
Do any senators have a question for Ifo?
Senator Pate: I do not have a question but thank you for raising the issue of criminal records. Individuals have come before the committee and talked about the importance of being able to get rid of criminal records for all kinds of things; volunteering in your child’s school, recreation. You have just raised it as well. Is there anything else around that? It affects employment, education, your ability to interact with your children.
Thank you also for raising the situation that Abdoul Abdi is facing, and the fact that having been raised in the child welfare system he does not have citizenship. It is really the responsibility of the child welfare authorities who took him into care. The fact that he is now facing deportation as a result of that is a significant issue that we have not explored before this committee up until now. Thank you for raising that.
Mr. Ikede: Thank you very much for asking that question. That reminded me of something I forgot.
What I would love to see is to make it illegal to ask about criminal records for jobs or positions where a criminal record would not have any effect. For example, if you are applying for an entry-level job at most fast food places, one of the options in there is a criminal record. We have a system that is putting people through some sort of correction system, but once they have finished the sentence they should not be further punished for having that criminal record.
I am blessed that I understand how to run businesses and how to make money legally. I am a hustler, but I hustle legally. If I was not blessed with those skills that I learned back home, based on the fact that I do not qualify for a whole bunch of stuff, and based on the fact that I was arrested in my own home when I called the police over an issue that was happening. I was the only Black person there so it was assumed that I was the one who was causing the trouble. Now I have a criminal record.
I am self-employed and that gives me some advantages. But we have a system that does not actually account for the fact that Black and Indigenous people are often criminalized for things that are not even their fault. The system just decides, “Okay. Now you have a criminal record. You cannot apply for anything,” without any context of knowing what exactly happened.
In my case, I was in my house and someone was threatening me and I called the police. So, now if I am threatened, what do I do? I cannot trust that the police will show up and actually defend me because they arrested me in my own house.
The Chair: Just when we thought we had heard all of the horror stories, we hear one more.
This has been a marathon evening. I want to again thank all of the witnesses. I want to thank the three of you for coming forward. Thank you for feeling empowered to use your own voice here this evening.
We have heard a lot this evening. We have heard a lot about mental health and disability issues that are not being addressed. We have heard about prisoners who are aging with chronic health conditions, chronic mental health conditions. We have heard about a report that was tabled in 1998 about Black offenders and recommendations that were never implemented and are still relevant today. We have heard about immigration. We have heard about the intersection of different systems, such as child welfare. We have heard about the school to prison pipeline. We have heard about race and anti-Black racism and the impact, not only on offenders, but also on their support people, their advocates, their family members and also on Black staff. We have heard a lot from you this evening.
Believe me, trust me when I say that we will take it all under advisement as we continue our study, as we continue the fact-finding this week in the Atlantic region. Your voices will be with us, the stories we have heard this evening will be with us. It will be part of consciousness as we continue with the study.
Thank you for your interest. I have been told that this is probably the largest public hearing that the Senate committee has ever had. That is on you folks. Thank you for being here and thank you to the Black Cultural Centre for hosting us this evening and providing us with a facility in the community that we could use for this purpose.
At this point I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.
Ms. Hamilton-Reid: Senator Bernard, before you adjourn, can I just say on behalf of our community, as we are here, that we are so proud of you being in the Senate and what you are able to bring to our issues that you are able to bring forward. We know that you will continue in the struggle.
The Association of Black Social Workers, of which I know that you are a founding member, have many resources and can help in this process because many of them you helped train, and they are ready to do the work. The Senate needs to know that. I know you cannot toot your own horn all the time, but we will toot if for you and let them know all the good work that you have done and we really appreciate it.
We have to give kudos to our sister, El Jones, for all that she does in this community, putting her life on the line for many of the prison inmates. Thank you.
The Chair: I actually wore a wave cap and I am thinking how cool it would be if I wore my wave cap into the prisons this week? I will try that on for size.
(The committee adjourned.)