THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 7, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:30 a.m. to study the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system.
Senator Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before we begin, I would like all senators to introduce themselves. We will begin on my right with our co-chairs.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: I am Patrick Brazeau from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Hartling: Nancy J. Hartling, New Brunswick.
The Chair: I am Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia.
Today, we continue our discussion on the issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system.
Today, we welcome Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada. He’s accompanied by Erin Courtland, Policy and Research Analyst, and Sofia Scichilone, Manager, Investigations. Both Ms. Courtland and Ms. Scichilone are with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
I see Senator Pate has joined us.
Senator Pate: My apologies. I am Kim Pate, Ontario.
The Chair: The floor is yours for opening remarks, to be followed by questions from senators.
[Translation]
Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as part of your study on inmate rights. I would like to begin by giving the committee an overview of our mandate and the types of complaints that we receive from inmates.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is charged with overseeing compliance by federal government institutions with the requirements of the Privacy Act. We receive and investigate complaints related to denial of access to personal information, or to matters relating to the protection of personal information, such as improper collection, use, disclosure, retention or disposal. My office also reviews and provides recommendations on privacy impact assessment reports, PIAs for short, public interest disclosures, and reports of material privacy breaches submitted by federal government organizations.
Of course, the Privacy Act applies to inmates in the same manner as other individuals. Over the past decade, Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, has consistently been on our office’s top five in terms of the volume of complaints we receive. Given this high number of complaints to our office, it is clear that personal information and privacy is valued by inmates. The issues raised by federal inmates largely relate to denial of access to their personal information, including time-limit violations of the access provisions of the Privacy Act. A smaller proportion relates to improper collection, use, disclosure, retention or disposal of their personal information.
The majority of privacy complaints related to time limits are well-founded. Setting the time limit issues aside, the majority of privacy complaints from inmates are resolved to the satisfaction of the inmate or are assessed as not well-founded. About one-third of breaches of inmates’ personal information in federal institutions involved health information — such as their medical, mental health, or substance abuse information — many of which were accidental disclosures resulting in the information being misdirected or left in a place accessible to others.
[English]
It is our understanding that your committee is interested in our views regarding disclosures of medical or mental health information by the Correctional Service Canada to the Parole Board of Canada.
While we have only issued one finding on this specific matter in relation to a complaint, I would like to offer some general comments about how the disclosure provisions of the Privacy Act would be engaged in this scenario.
Section 8 of the Privacy Act sets out the conditions under which personal information may be disclosed by an institution. It states that personal information shall only be disclosed with an individual’s consent, in subsection 8(1), or — and this is an important factor in this scenario — in accordance with one of the categories of permitted disclosures outlined in subsection 8(2) of the Privacy Act.
It is our understanding that section 25 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, gives CSC the authority to provide information to the Parole Board of Canada, to provincial governments, provincial parole boards, police and any other body authorized by the service to supervise offenders where it is relevant to release decision-making or the supervision or surveillance of offenders.
Given this authority, only if a disclosure met the requirements of section 25 of the CCRA would the disclosure fall within the parameters of permitted disclosures allowed by paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act, which states that personal information may be disclosed for any purpose in accordance with another act of Parliament, such as the CCRA in this case.
It is only through the investigative process that we could examine the specific circumstances of a complaint and make a determination as to whether a disclosure was made in accordance with the applicable provisions of the CCRA and, therefore, with section 8(2)(b) or some other appropriate provision of the Privacy Act.
Section 25 of the CCRA contains an obligation that information be relevant to release decision-making or the supervision or surveillance of offenders, which would be a crucial factor in our assessment of whether personal information was disclosed in accordance with the Privacy Act.
I will conclude by acknowledging that in this context the privacy rights of federal inmates must be balanced with the government’s objective of ensuring public safety.
Given the sensitivity of medical and mental health information, we support a principle of minimal disclosure to limit sharing to only that which is necessary and proportionate, while also recognizing there may be a need for the Parole Board of Canada or other bodies to have access to certain information relevant to release decision-making or the supervision or surveillance of an offender.
Thank you for the invitation. My colleagues and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will start questions with our two deputy chairs.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your testimony this morning and thank you for being here. I want to know how many complaints you received last year and upon investigation, how many of those were well founded. Could you give us an update on that?
Mr. Therrien: The first thing to say is the Correctional Service is an institution which is always among the top five or 10 in terms of complaints to our office.
In 2016-17 we accepted 397 complaints related to the Correctional Service of Canada, and the vast majority of these complaints related to denial of access issues. It’s important in the context of complaints made by inmates vis-à-vis the Privacy Act to understand that the complaints may be made because a citizen — here, an inmate — believes he or she has not been given the access to which they are entitled under the Privacy Act.
In the case of the Correctional Service, the vast majority of complaints we receive are in that category. Inmates are clearly interested, and properly so, in the personal information the Correctional Service holds about them because this matters for various decisions made by the Correctional Service or the Parole Board.
But in the years I mentioned, there were 37 complaints to our office related to other provisions of the Privacy Act, such as those that govern the collection, use and disclosure of information, where inmates believed, in these cases, that information was improperly collected, used or disclosed.
So there were roughly 400 complaints in 2016-17, and all but 37 were with respect to access to the inmate’s personal information.
As I explained in my introductory remarks, the problem with respect to the subject matter of these complaints is that the right of access often leads to delays beyond those provided by law. But in terms of the substance of the complaint, whether inmates do or do not receive access to information to which they’re entitled, either because of CSC actions or when we intervene through the early resolution process or conversations with the Correctional Service, CSC ultimately complies with its obligations in terms of providing access, but they do it late.
Senator Ataullahjan: So you found most of the complaints weren’t well founded?
Mr. Therrien: With respect to delays.
With respect to whether, at the end of the day, inmates received access, they are for the most part not founded or resolved. So when they were founded, we were able to resolve the situation between the inmate and the Correctional Service.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for being here today. I think it’s important that we look at this.
I wonder if you could clarify this denial of access issue. Could you give a hypothetical example of what the majority of complaints you received were about? By denial of access do you mean they don’t have access to material that has been gathered on them?
Mr. Therrien: I’ll ask my colleague, Ms. Sofia Scichilone, to provide details.
However, there’s a right of access under the Privacy Act subject to various exceptions, some of which have to do with the security of people other than the requester. When access is denied, it’s not that all information is denied. Often the question is whether exceptions to the right of access under the Privacy Act were properly applied by the Correctional Service.
I’ll ask my colleague to provide details.
Sofia Scichilone, Manager, Investigations, Office of the Privacy Commissioner: Honourable senator, that is correct. The inmate would make a request for a different personal information bank held by CSC. For example, they may request their medical or case management file, and they may receive all or just part of it.
Then they would file a complaint to our office. They believe there’s information either missing or has been exempted without the authority.
Senator Cordy: Do you also look at information gathered on prisoners that perhaps should not have been gathered? Would that come into effect by a prisoner requesting information?
Mr. Therrien: That would be the second category of complaint having to do with whether information was properly collected, for instance, or improperly collected. We have fewer of these complaints compared to access, but I’ll ask Sofia to provide details.
Ms. Scichilone: Yes, we do receive a minority of complaints dealing with the collection of personal information. An example would be an inmate who believes information was collected where it was not necessary or they didn’t authorize. So we would look at it on a case-by-case basis. But it’s a very small percentage of our complaints.
Senator Cordy: I’m also wondering when the prison system can disclose information on a prisoner. You gave examples to the Parole Board, the police, the provincial government, and spoke about the balance between privacy and public safety. Who determines what that balance is between privacy and public safety?
Is it written down somewhere?
Mr. Therrien: In the case of medical information, for instance, which I understand is one of your areas of inquiry, there’s this provision of the CCRA which authorizes disclosure where the health information is relevant to decision-making by the Parole Board for release or supervision. That’s how the balance occurs.
There’s a determination first by the Correctional Service of what they think is relevant for the purpose in question. We advise the Correctional Service — I would say in addition, but it’s closely related to relevance criteria — whether the information is proportional to the purpose, whether the disclosure would be minimally required to achieve the purpose of the Parole Board to make an informed decision on release.
So all of these criteria — relevance, minimally, required, proportional — are the legal concepts that help give life to this balance between the right of the inmate to have their information protected, public safety considerations and ensuring the authorized bodies have the relevant information to make decisions on release or supervision.
Senator Cordy: So if information is given to a provincial government, provincial police force or a municipal police force, then they also have a responsibility for privacy of this information. Does that continue to fall under your bailiwick or does it come under provincial jurisdiction, and the maintaining of this confidential information?
Mr. Therrien: The decision by the Correctional Service to disclose is governed by the federal Privacy Act and is subject to complaints and supervision oversigned by my office. Once the information is in the hands of a provincial or municipal body, the information is also covered by provincial legislation with respect to privacy. In many cases you will see both the federal act for the disclosure part and the provincial legislation for the collection, use and disclosure. Both legislations apply to the same activity.
Senator Pate: Welcome and thank you for appearing here.
During your presentation, you mentioned that a number of the complaints are either not founded or they are resolved to the satisfaction of prisoners. Could you explain how that happens and what’s the process for determining it? Then I have a supplementary question.
Mr. Therrien: In that scenario, we are not dealing with delays; we are dealing with whether the inmate, who is making a complaint, in our view, has had their rights under the Privacy Act respected. In some cases — a minority, proportionally — we find these complaints are well-founded, and we make a recommendation to the Correctional Service to release the information properly.
In many cases, after we review a file, we may be of the view that some information was improperly withheld because an exception to the right was improperly applied. Rather than conclude, we will facilitate a conversation between correctional authorities and us and the inmate -- not necessarily the three in the same place -- to see whether we can come to a resolution. In many cases, essentially this is early resolution of complaints; this is effective.
Senator Pate: So when you intervene and the individual says they are willing to get the documentation, even though there actually has been a refusal to provide the information until your intervention, you see it as resolved, not unfounded?
Mr. Therrien: That’s correct.
Senator Pate: In examples where you have had to intervene because of delays, how long are the average delays prisoners are experiencing in terms of getting the information?
Mr. Therrien: Our information is that the current backlog faced by the Correctional Service is quite long. It’s in the order of two years.
Senator Pate: Would it surprise you to hear most prisoners and many non-governmental organizations acting on behalf of prisoners abandon those complaints after sometimes five, six years?
Mr. Therrien: It would not surprise me. Sofia, have we seen this phenomenon?
Ms. Scichilone: When we receive a complaint about a request for access to information by an inmate, CSC will typically prioritize the file. Within the complaint process, we try to deal with them as quickly as we can, pushing them for an action plan, a commitment date.
In terms of them withdrawing their request from Correctional Services, they would probably be the best people to ask.
Senator Pate: I have a supplementary question. Are you familiar with the research that has been done by the Correctional Service itself and by the Correctional Investigator about the success — or lack thereof — of the grievance and resolution processes?
Mr. Therrien: Not that particular process, no. Grievance generally as opposed to complaints for access, no.
Senator Pate: There has been, even at the court level, a recognition that the process has essentially not worked well, that in fact the pressure for people to withdraw charges or complaints or access requests is very significant.
Mr. Therrien: As I said, it is entirely conceivable that some proportion of inmates or people who assist them would abandon requests. I am quite clear that two years is not acceptable.
I’m not saying there is negligence at play, but two years is not acceptable. It is certainly not consistent with the time periods provided under the legislation, so there are improvements to be made for sure.
Senator Pate: Is the time period still 30 days?
Mr. Therrien: Yes.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much for your presentation.
I was reading in our Library of Parliament briefing package, on page 5, where it says personal information belongs to the person, not the service. Therefore, legitimate requesters are entitled to access, unless there is a valid, legal reason to withhold or exempt it.
I was just curious about that last part. If the information belongs to the person, what are these exceptions? Could you just elaborate a little bit?
Mr. Therrien: The Privacy Act has a principle of access and has a fair number of exceptions to access, starting from information that would relate to other persons. So in the file of inmate A might be information about B, C and D. So inmate A is not entitled to personal information of B, C and D. That’s one exception.
There may be exceptions having to do with the security of the institution, with legal, lawful investigations that may be occurring. So all of these exceptions — and there’s quite a list — are lawful exceptions. We’re not disputing the appropriateness of these exceptions, but, when we have complaints, sometimes we find the exceptions were improperly applied.
Senator Martin: In the process of trying to get one’s own information from these files, would you say the Privacy Act makes it quite difficult for someone? Would they fall under many exceptions? Is it so tight that it’s next to impossible, and that’s why there are such long processing times? Is the act, in and of itself, needing some careful examination, amendments and/or improvements to sort of balance the need for privacy and those exceptions, as well as the person’s right to access his own files?
Mr. Therrien: That’s a good question. We made recommendations to Parliament, and particularly the ETHI committee of the House, about two years ago, on potential amendments to the Privacy Act. Some of the recommendations we made related to exceptions, but, by in large, there were not many recommendations of that order.
I’m saying the exceptions are not perfect. They can be tweaked. They can be improved. I think the problem is more that the Privacy Act, writ large, whether in the correctional context or other contexts, is a pretty heavy machine. It’s a formal process. Formality is necessary, at some point, if you want rights to be exercised, but I think there’s quite a bit to do in terms of having informal mechanisms to share information with inmates. That may help.
I know this is done, to a certain extent, in the correctional context. Criminologists, psychologists who relate with inmates, share information with the inmates, and that’s a form of informal disclosure of information that I think is helpful. I don’t have the exact solution, but the question of lack of timeliness perhaps could be improved, in part, through more informal disclosure.
Senator Martin: Two years just seems like a long time.
Mr. Therrien: It is.
Senator Martin: I have a question related to what Senator Cordy was asking. It was something that triggered a case I was aware of that involved a post-secondary institution where a student thought he was going in for just a meeting with a counsellor to get some advice, but, at that meeting, information was collected. Then there was a psychological assessment made about him.
If such information were collected on an inmate, does he or she have access to whatever was collected? That was a question previously asked, but I could see how that could happen quite easily in an institution like the prison system. I was just curious about whether or not the person whose information has been collected has access to know what has been collected.
Mr. Therrien: As a general rule, yes, including in the scenario you outlined. That’s a form of collection of personal information about inmates. As a general rule, the inmate concerned with that information, yes, has a right to access that information.
Senator Martin: But have you had complaints from inmates that information was collected without their knowledge at the time?
Mr. Therrien: Knowledge is not always required. There are certain provisions which allow for the collection of information without consent, but it has to relate to the programs administered by the Correctional Service.
Collection can occur in that context. There are still rules, primarily section 4 of the Privacy Act, which govern the situation here. Sometimes this leads to improper collection. We have some complaints, but, proportionally — I gave the figures — roughly 35, 37 complaints a year of that nature. There are not many complaints of that nature in comparison to the complaints that deal with the access to the information.
Senator Martin: Those complaints are ones you know of, but I wonder how many cases there are of such collection of information that may have happened.
In any event, thank you for your answers.
Senator Pate: To pick up on the point Senator Martin raised, if I could use -- with the family’s approval and because it has been public -- Ashley Smith’s example, where she was seeking information, she was legally entitled to the information. She put in requests for the information and then sought assistance to put in additional requests and then died before that — as you say, with the two-year delay.
The exclusionary exemption corrections tried to use was that, although you had already accepted a complaint about the delay, they could no longer confirm she actually wanted someone to get the information, wanted the organization to get the information and the individuals. So the decision had to then be appealed through the Privacy Commissioner. It then took two appeals because there were two requests. You had no authority to release — I’m saying “you,” sorry. The office had no authority to release the information because you can make a decision saying the information should have been released. I believe one of the requests or recommendations to Parliament was that you actually have the authority to then release the information, because you generally have it to review it. You don’t have the authority to release it. Then it led to two Federal Court decisions.
So five years after the initial complaint was put in, after two Federal Court decisions, corrections was ordered to release the information, and, in fact, even 10 years later has still not released all of that information.
That, to my knowledge, is actually not unusual, when you have to go to those extents. If that’s the situation when outside people, outside lawyers can be involved, what’s the situation for a prisoner who may be locked in a segregation cell without even any writing implements to put in a request to you?
Do privacy officers ever visit the prisons? I think I know the answer. This is not a criticism of you. How does a prisoner get access?
Mr. Therrien: Your last question, sorry, is whether we visit prisons? We don’t. We have conversations with the Correctional Service regularly on compliance with the Privacy Act.
I totally agree that because of the volume of complaints, which is understandable given the interests at stake on the part of inmates, the system, as I say, is a heavy machine that takes a lot of time. I do think that a big part of the solution is informal disclosure. When you say parole officers provide information, I think that would be a big part of the solution to the problem because the official, formal mechanism is a very heavy one that requires a lot of resources.
Another potential solution, of course, to the problem of delay is to balance resources at the Correctional Service with the volume of requests they are receiving. They have a good number of employees in the access to information and privacy office, but we see certain departments that have larger access to information and privacy offices. That could be part of the solution also. That’s for the formal process, but I think a fair amount of attention should be put to informal disclosure.
The Chair: That has led to a supplementary question from Senator Ataullahjan.
Senator Ataullahjan: At the risk of sounding ignorant, you said you don’t visit the prisoners, so when they have complaints, do the correctional officers come to you and tell you what their complaints are? How do you verify what you’re being told?
Mr. Therrien: We usually have conversations over the phone on individual files as opposed to personal meetings. That’s in the context of the investigation file. So this is a file review, essentially, based on our reading of the material and whether the information requested falls within one of the exceptions or not. That’s when we investigate individual complaints.
Because the Correctional Service is one of the top departments in terms of complaints, we also meet with them, not vis-à-vis individual complaints, but more generally, frequently, several times per year and in person. We have discussions about trends and so forth to try to improve the situation.
Senator Ataullahjan: Are you talking about the trends of the complaints?
Mr. Therrien: Yes. I’ll ask Sofia to elaborate because she’s an important player in these conversations about trends.
Ms. Scichilone: Certainly. Most of the complaints, as the commissioner mentioned, are related to denial of access or time delay. A lot of it is a paper exercise. We’re able to do our work through telephone conversations and face-to-face meetings with the access to information and privacy coordinator on a regular basis if there are systemic issues to address. I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Therrien: We don’t visit prisons, but we have conversations of some kind with inmates, say in the case of early resolution or cases that are resolved. That requires a conversation with correctional authorities, such as have you applied the exceptions properly, et cetera. When these cases are resolved, it’s because we have communication not in person, but we have communications with the concerned inmate who confirms to us that they think the situation has been resolved to their satisfaction. It’s not that we hear only one party.
Senator Ataullahjan: So when you have a complaint and it’s resolved, you go back to a conversation with the prisoner over the phone to see if his complaint has been resolved?
Mr. Therrien: It is not resolved unless we have confirmation from the inmate that he or she agrees that it’s resolved.
Senator Pate: I have a supplemental on that. It’s interesting. Just yesterday I received a letter from a prisoner who wrote to the committee and to me personally. He was articulating he had these issues but he didn’t want any staff to be in trouble. He was worried. The staff said, “You’re going to report you don’t have any concerns, right? Otherwise you’ll need to look for a new prison.”
So the kinds of pressure that get put on people to indicate that their matter has been resolved is also a function of the pressure, the unequal power they have within that position. If they actually get to the stage of putting in a complaint, the likelihood of it being pursued becomes more remote, depending on the pressures being put on them within the prison setting.
Mr. Therrien: It’s possible. Obviously that kind of pressure has not come to our attention, but if it did, we would investigate that kind of behaviour with vigour.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Good morning and welcome to you all.
I would like to ask two questions. My first question is about the principle whereby inmates are subject to the Privacy Act the same manner as other citizens. Are there exceptions to this principle?
Mr. Therrien: No, the same act applies to inmates just like other citizens.
Senator Brazeau: Without exception?
Mr. Therrien: No, not on the basis that a person is an inmate.
Senator Brazeau: Okay. I will continue with my second question. At times, has Correctional Service Canada clearly violated the Privacy Act? If so, what would be your role or the role of the commissioner’s office in such a situation?
Mr. Therrien: You’re talking about serious offences, if I understand correctly. When we evaluate a complaint, it’s generally because the request for access was not answered in the time frame set out in the act. In such a case, the act has been violated. We therefore make recommendations so that the request is dealt with more quickly. Similarly, when information is not disclosed by Correctional Service Canada because it believes that a certain exception applies and if we believe that it does not apply, there’s a clear violation of the Privacy Act.
I do not distinguish between minor offences and serious offences. We become involved whenever the law has been broken. Under the act, we can recommend that the institution comply with the act, that is, to process the request by the appropriate deadline and disclose the information if we feel it should be.
However, because we have no power to issue orders, we cannot order a department or Correctional Service Canada to comply with the act.
Senator Brazeau: In that case, based on your experience, once you have made the recommendation, does Correctional Service Canada respond quickly and positively to your recommendations?
Mr. Therrien: Generally speaking, yes.
[English]
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for being here.
Maybe you’ve already answered this, but to get the basics, suppose I’m an inmate in a federal prison. How do I know about the Privacy Act and how this works? Who explains that to me? I don’t know if it’s you, Sofia, who can answer that, but how does the process work and how do I know my rights?
Ms. Scichilone: When inmates make requests under the act, when they receive their response, they are informed of how to make a complaint to our office.
Senator Hartling: But how do they know in the beginning, like when I’m there? Is that general knowledge? Do we know that we have those rights and what the Privacy Act is? How do we know that? Who tells us that?
Mr. Therrien: Good questions. Our role, at least our most direct role, is to inform complainants when we receive complaints of what the process is.
But we have not played a role so far in ensuring this information is provided to inmates upfront. We can certainly inquire to the Correctional Service as to how they do that and whether we can assist in some way.
Senator Hartling: Thank you. I think people are already feeling somewhat without rights, and when we visited prisons, nobody said, “We shouldn’t be here.” Most people said, “We know we’re here for a reason.” On the question of rights, and how I know if something is bothering me or my privacy is being violated, how do I work with that? I think that would be important to know.
Mr. Therrien: Yes. We’ll contact the Correctional Service on that point.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
The Chair: We look forward for getting more information on that from you.
Now we’ll go to second round.
Senator Pate: One of the areas where they’re supposed to provide that information is in the prisoner’s handbook. Certainly, there are human rights manuals that get distributed by some organizations like Elizabeth Fry and by lawyers. We know that’s some of it.
Picking up on some of those issues, one of the things recommended in the past to the Correctional Service of Canada to deal with some of these issues is computer access. Computer access could allow access to families and private information in their files because their personal information is actually computerized, as are educational opportunities.
The reason corrections has historically used privacy for not providing access is it would or could potentially violate privacy interests of prisoners. I’m a techno-twit, but I’m told by people who are more technologically advanced than I that it would be possible to set up computerized systems where one way of dealing with these very access issues would be for individuals to have immediate access to the parts of their files to which they are entitled, if they had access to a computer. They could have a code to have access to their loved ones, to provide information to their loved ones when they wanted to, by limiting access in ways technology now allows.
Historically, as you’ve already identified, the reasons corrections has used for not providing copies of information are interests of privacy. Yet my understanding is both your office as well as lawyers and judges and others have argued that, in fact, it’s really not privacy issues that limit; it’s more issues that come down to what corrections describes as essentially security issues, not privacy issues.
Is it your view by providing that kind of computer access in the way that in the past prisoners used to have locked boxes they could keep all of their paperwork, when they actually were given — and still are sometimes — the reams of paperwork. But instead they could have access through computers if they had their own code, much the way they do with the telephone system?
Mr. Therrien: I just want to make sure I understand the scenario you’re describing.
If privacy is said by the Correctional Service to be an issue, I’m assuming — correct me if I’m wrong — what you’re proposing or suggesting could occur would be inmates would have access to a computer in a common area, with appropriate restrictions on access that would deal with the privacy issue. But the concept would be access to information in a computer in a common area, as opposed to the cell of the inmate?
Senator Pate: In actual fact, it was people within corrections who proposed they have access within their cells. That was before computers were done away with, so now most people can’t get a computer themselves. But if they had access to their own computer, they could do it in their cell; otherwise, it would be a common area, library or school area that they would have access to. But they would have their own code to get in to see their own personal information.
Mr. Therrien: I’ve not looked at the reasons why you say that currently the Correctional Service does not allow inmates to have computers in their individual cells. So that may be well-founded or not; I don’t know.
I’ll just say technology may well help. That’s your basic question. There are a number of modalities that would have to be looked at, but I don’t see why technology would not assist in reducing delays. At the very least, it’s an issue that we would be glad to discuss with the Correctional Service as to, most generally, how to address the delay question, which is unacceptable. We have these discussions, but we can pursue them with more vigour. We would certainly be open to having a discussion as to how technology could help in reducing these delays.
Senator Brazeau: Would you happen to have any data available or examples of complaints you received specifically by indigenous inmates?
Mr. Therrien: We do not have statistics other than general statistics based on inmates. But then within that population, we do not distinguish between groups, other than men versus women.
Senator Brazeau: If you receive a complaint, would you even know if it would be an indigenous inmate or not?
Mr. Therrien: Not necessarily.
The Chair: Following up on that question, would you see any benefit to bringing an equity lens to your analysis of the data of your complaints, so looking at issues like whether or not they’re indigenous, as Senator Brazeau has mentioned? Also, I would be interested in gender, in persons with disabilities and so on.
What are your thoughts about that? Do you see some benefit in your overall reporting of complaints from inmates, breaking that down using a social justice kind of lens?
Mr. Therrien: It might be helpful.
To be frank, I’ll go back to my description of the Privacy Act system as a very heavy machine. Just to have the machine operate to deal with complaints, ensuring that basic provisions of the Privacy Act, i.e., timeliness and respect for the right of access and no overuse of exemptions are occurring properly, we’re struggling with the resources we have. So perhaps for that reason we’ve not gone into the kind of analysis you’re suggesting.
I would be interested, certainly, to have discussions as to what would be the added value. I’m not saying there is no added value, but I’d like to know what others think would be the added value of this kind of analysis. Then we would make decisions in terms of prioritizing this kind of analysis.
Senator Pate: Do you keep track of what security level the individuals are when they’re making the requests or putting in complaints?
Ms. Scichilone: Are you referring, senator, to the type of institution that they’re at?
Senator Pate: It’s based on the questions that Senator Brazeau and Senator Bernard just asked.
If you’re in a maximum-security setting and let’s say you’re a woman, you’re held in a segregated condition, so it’s about your ability to access paperwork and pens and things. I’m curious whether you get more complaints from those who are in lower security as a result. They would have more access to the information and the tools to actually put in a request or complaint than those in the prisons for women, indigenous and Black women, for instance, who are overrepresented in maximum security and segregated conditions. For men, perhaps the SHU and some of the maximum-security units, it may be similar. But it struck me as to whether you have any of that data, because that might be useful for us to see as well.
Mr. Therrien: I’m informed that although we don’t keep statistics, we cannot but see the institution the inmate is complaining from, and a high proportion of complaints come from maximum-security institutions. So what you’re raising is whether various situations — segregation, security level or another — might influence the actual access to the rights that individuals have.
That’s an interesting point. If we step back, I would say we kind of know what the problems are. We know delay is a problem throughout the system for inmates. It may be there are variations, depending on the factors you’re describing, but we know there’s a big problem in terms of delay.
I would start by continuing the conversations — and you’re making good suggestions on other factors to bring to the conversations we have with the Correctional Service — to solve the problem as a whole, technology being a case in point, because the problem is seen everywhere.
The Chair: Thank you all very much for being here and for your testimony today. We appreciate your time.
I have just one question for the senators: Is it agreed that, for the purposes of the public hearing in Kitchener on Thursday, February 8, that quorum be three members of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)