THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 7, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met by videoconference this day at 2 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism.
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I am Gwen Boniface, senator from Ontario, and I have the pleasure of chairing this committee. Today we are conducting a public meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence via video conference. Thank you in advance, senators, for your patience as we adapt to this way of holding our meetings.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators to keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair and please avoid switching from one language to the other in the same intervention. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue. Please note that we may need to suspend during these times as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.
Finally, I would like to remind all participants that Zoom screens should not be copied, recorded or photographed. You may use and share official proceedings posted on the SenVu website for that purpose.
I would now like to introduce the members of the committee participating in this meeting: Senator Boisvenu, deputy chair of the committee; Senator Dagenais, deputy chair of the committee; Senator Dalphond, fourth member of the steering committee; Senator Busson; Senator Cotter; Senator Jaffer; Senator Martin; Senator McPhedran; Senator Moodie; Senator Oh; and Senator Richards.
Senators, to ease the flow of this virtual meeting, I have prepared a list of questioners starting with the Senate sponsor of the bill, followed by members of the steering committee and the rest of the committee members on rotation. If senators do not have a question, they are asked to signal this to the clerk via the Zoom chat. For both panels today, the witnesses have been given up to seven minutes for opening remarks, senators will be given four minutes each for questions for the first panel, and three minutes each for the second panel.
Honourable senators, today we are beginning our study on Bill C-228, an Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. For our first panel, appearing before us the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Richard Bragdon, M.P., Tobique—Mactaquac. As part of this panel, we also have the following officials participating: from Public Safety Canada, Julie Thompson, Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections, Criminal Justice and Aboriginal Policing Policy Directorate; and from the Correctional Service of Canada, Carmen Long, Director General, Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch.
Honourable senators, please note that the officials will not be delivering opening remarks today, but will be available to answer any technical questions from senators. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you all for appearing today. Mr. Bragdon, thank you for joining us.
Richard Bragdon, Member of Parliament for Tobique—Mactaquac: Thank you, senators and honoured guests. It is a distinct privilege and honour to be here today. I thank you for the opportunity to talk about my private member’s bill, Bill C-228, an Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. In layman’s terms, it is basically an act to stop the revolving door in and out of our prison system.
Recidivism is defined as the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend. We know that nearly 25% of those who have been released from federal prison end up back in federal prison within two years. The rate amongst Indigenous communities is nearly 40%. It is also a sad reality that the children of those incarcerated are seven times more likely to become incarcerated themselves. We must stop this cycle. This bill is not about reducing sentences or the amount of time served. This bill aims to address the ever-revolving door within our prison system and to break this perilous cycle that sees individuals consistently reoffend. Lasting societal change can only be accomplished when we work across different sectors to come to a meaningful solution.
I’ll never forget my first time visiting a federal prison. I was travelling with a gentleman by the name of Monty Lewis. He ran a non-profit organization that worked with those who were incarcerated and their families for a number of years. He said something to me on the way to that prison that has always stuck with me. He said something to the effect that you’ll never be in a place where there is a higher concentration of the worst kinds of disfunctions, symptoms of societal and family breakdown, violence, victims and perpetrators of abuse, addiction, emotional and mental health struggles and so much more than what you will find within these walls. He then looked at me to point out that you will also need to know that you’ll never visit a place where you’ll find a greater opportunity to witness the powerful effect of what hope, compassion, forgiveness, encouragement and the opportunity for another chance can do. I never forgot those words.
There are many working models, pilot projects and policies around the world that we can look at to develop a national framework that combines the best practices from around the world, whether it be, for example, the Peterborough model in England, where they utilize 14 different service providers from the private sector, non-profit sector, faith-based communities, public sector, governmental NGOs, et cetera. They made initial contacts with social workers, employers and skills development, and all this started while they were still in prison, but it began to form a pathway for them once they got released from prison that enabled their reintegration into the community to be much more successful. They had some tremendous outcomes. When you incorporate private-sector involvement, local jurisdictions, local government, non-profit and faith-based sectors, all working together in that interface, we can see some amazing percentages of reduction in reoffence and in reincarceration.
It is also in a model that I have become familiar with that is really amazing. In the “get tough on crime state,” of all places, in Texas, there is a model called the Texas Offenders Reentry Initiative. There was a local non-profit organization that got together with some private sector organizations and the state government and said, “We have got to do something to address the revolving door within our ever-expanding prison systems. How can we stop them from going back in repeatedly?” So they came up with a program. This program, I’m glad to report to you, has now graduated over 30,000 people over, I think, around 15 years. It had such great success, their executive director, Tina Naidoo, was awarded a Champions of Change award from the White House by Barack Obama.
These types of models are setting a pace by which perhaps we can take and contextualize that to the great Canadian work already being done here in Canada with groups you’re going to hear from, like the John Howard Society and other organizations that are working and coming alongside people to make sure we bring those numbers down.
I’ll close with this: I get excited about seeing this framework established and it becoming a model through which we can contextualize it to the provinces. Obviously, what may work well in Quebec may not work as well in B.C., and what works well in New Brunswick might not work well in Saskatchewan, but we can contextualize whatever we come up with to the local jurisdictions and the needs within those provinces and areas, and be respectful of those jurisdictions. I feel very much that we can put together best practices that will have a lasting impact in reducing overall recidivism.
The gentleman I referred to early on who gave me that statement was Monty Lewis. He is from Cape Breton. He has passed away, but he and his wife Lynda founded the organization that launched, basically, an outreach to those whose families were affected by incarceration.
Monty has now passed, but his legacy lives on. I believe that through this bill we could, perhaps, see many more Montys and Lindas arise and make a positive impact on others who have been in similar situations. Monty’s story is not unlike many others who have been incarcerated. He was abused as a little boy. He got involved in addictions. His life began to spiral. He became violent, but then while he was inside prison, someone came and visited him, kept working with him, kept believing in him and kept sharing good news with him. As a result, Monty had a major change in his life. He became committed to helping others who have been through similar circumstances.
I want to encourage you today to give this bill consideration. I would appreciate so much any input that you would have, but also any support that you would consider giving this, so that we can make sure we stop that revolving door in our prison systems and give people who are the walking wounded amongst us an opportunity for a new beginning and a fresh start. I believe we can do that by offering the greatest gift of all, which is the gift of hope and encouragement. Thank you. It’s an honour to be with you today.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Bragdon. We will open the floor to questions, starting with the Senate sponsor of the bill, Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: Thank you, Mr. Bragdon, for your remarks. Your passion for this work really comes through. It’s really nice to have you at this committee and that I have the opportunity to sponsor this bill in the Senate.
Mr. Bragdon, I wanted to ask you to continue on with what you had given as examples of best practices. I know the passage of Bill C-228 would require the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to undertake consultations with department officials in order to prepare this national framework. The officials are here, as you know. I’m giving you an opportunity, perhaps, to give your advice to the minister and officials in terms of what you learned in the consultations you did, as well as the best practices you spoke about, so that we can have greater success as we prepare this national framework if and when your bill is adopted. Would you speak a little bit more to the advice you would give to the minister and the officials here today?
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, Senator Martin. Thank you so much for sponsoring the bill through the Senate. I appreciate your efforts, insights and perspectives so much.
Yes, I believe very much that it’s got to be a collaborative approach, working with department officials that have years of experience and input. They would have ideas around some of the best practices they have observed that have had some really good impacts and outcomes here in Canada, which could be worked into a framework that the minister could lay out as a strategy for moving us forward on this initiative.
I agree with broad-based collaboration and broad-based consultation with those on the front lines making a real difference, whether it’s within the Indigenous communities, the faith-based communities, non-profits, the private sector and any of those that can speak into it effectively. Obviously, we need to collaborate with departmental officials who have had years of experience seeing many things come and go, and can say, “Okay, here is what we find works best,” and can find out how we can most effectively put together a framework that could be adapted to the provincial areas of jurisdiction as well. Perhaps some pilot projects could be rolled out, and we can see how effective they would be.
I think that’s going to be a key part of it.
Senator Martin, one of the things I have found in the deliberations is that so much emphasis has been put on the fact that no one sector has all the answers that are needed for this. It’s going to take a collaboration of all levels of government and various stakeholders.
I can’t overemphasize the role that the private sector is beginning to play on this and the successful models we’ve seen. What do I mean by that? I mean private sector companies and organizations that are willing to give men and women who are coming out of incarceration an opportunity at employment once they have had a criminal record. One of the biggest obstacles we have found in people successfully reintegrating is having opportunities for employment. Obviously, there are housing challenges. That’s where we need all levels of government working together to address this, but also incorporating those who are on the front lines of working with these people even while they are inside.
I hope that answers your question, senator. It’s going to take collaboration from all sectors to speak into this. When we do, I believe we can have a very successful framework put together.
Senator Martin: Yes, thank you for that. I really like what you say about the collaboration, the broad consultation and being able to work with the provinces and territories.
You talked about preparing a pathway. I’m going to address my next question to the officials from the Ministry of Public Safety in terms of the next steps that you would take in the event of the adoption of this bill, when it’s enacted. I’m sure you have worked on other frameworks before, so would you outline for us the next steps that you would be taking to assure the committee that this is a challenge that you will be able to undertake because of your experience? You must already know quite a few of the stakeholders.
The Chair: Senator Martin, I’m sorry —
Senator Martin: Am I out of time? I’ll go on the second round.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Bragdon.
Rehabilitating all inmates seems clearly impossible to me. There was a good case in point last week, in Quebec. A convicted individual named Bellemare, in Granby, was released. He is a child abductor I would describe as chronic — so a very dangerous criminal.
What provisions of Bill C-228 would ensure that these kinds of individuals do not get released? We often feel that the principle of release will continue to take precedence over the safety of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. It’s a very good question. I want to assure you, senator, that this in no way affects the amount of time served or required to be served. This framework comes into effect at the moment or at the time that someone has completed serving their sentence and they are being released back into the community. Obviously, if someone is a dangerous offender or a threat to society on an ongoing level, we expect the parole system and the public safety and corrections systems to do their jobs and make sure Canadians are kept safe.
This is about those who are being released, they have served their time and they are coming back to the community. How can we make sure that their re-entry is as successful as possible so they don’t go back into a lifestyle of crime or go back into a lifestyle of addiction that oftentimes leads to crime? How can we best come alongside and make sure they successfully reintegrate?
I hope that answers your question, senator. This is not about allowing someone to lessen the time they serve or about violent offenders getting out early or skipping some process. This isn’t about that. This is about how, after their time has been served and they are being released back into community, we can make sure they successfully reintegrate.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Bragdon, to be effective, reintegration requires a lot of prevention measures and, most of all, control measures. Budgets are needed for that. The safety of Canadians must also be taken into account. How much do you think this could cost at the end of the day? Has Correctional Service Canada talked to you about what must be invested in terms of human resources and control measures to improve the way things are done?
[English]
Mr. Bragdon: In the consultations we have had to this point, and in regard to the engagement we have had, what we’re looking at is not taking away from what is already being done to protect Canadians. For offenders who are coming back into society, if there are safety mechanisms and protections in place, those would continue. They would need to continue. This is about, again, those who have done their time. Perhaps they have served for different levels of offence or something else they have done. They are coming back in, but they lack the job skills they need to get back into society. Perhaps they are still dealing with some mental health challenges and addictions-related challenges, and they are needing to have the wraparounds to help them successfully move back into the system.
The cost savings to taxpayers for every person we successfully reintegrate back into the community is astronomical, because then it will be less of a burden for the cost of incarceration and less of a burden on Canadians for the cost of litigation and law enforcement. Also, when they become a taxpayer and a contributing citizen again, which is hopefully the aim, and they are employed, they are contributing back into the public coffers and helping to contribute to the economic welfare of the country as well.
All aspects of protecting the public needs to continue and we need to ensure the safety of Canadians first and foremost. We feel the best way of ensuring the safety of Canadians is having people successfully reintegrate back into the community and meaningfully engage back into the workforce and into their community networks.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Bragdon, welcome to the Senate. I really appreciate the work you are doing. I think that everyone participating in this committee meeting is favourable to rehabilitation. However, I am very concerned about your bill, as it seems to be lacking a prerequisite. You talk about the 25% rate of recidivism within two years after release. You know that the report of the Auditor General, published in 2018, stated that statistics on recidivism rates at the federal level are very much incomplete, as they do not take into account people who are incarcerated in prisons and are in federal prisons. The data I have indicate that about 50% of individuals who end up in federal institutions for the first time have already been sentenced to less than two years. Wouldn’t there be a premise to be made in your study to validate the recidivism data before addressing this issue?
[English]
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, Senator Boisvenu. I can assure you that the data that we are providing has been provided by the Correctional Service of Canada. It was based on the research we have done there. It’s relating to those who are being released from federal prisons after two years.
Obviously, many may have served time within provincial jurisdictions and provincial jail systems prior to entering the federal system as well. This was the data we received through the Correctional Service of Canada. Also, we know that those rates of recidivism are much higher amongst minority populations, and in particular Indigenous populations. That speaks once again to the importance that the most meaningful thing that we can do to address this challenge is to make sure that there is a successful bridge for people back into the community because we know what is currently happening; we are not getting the desired outcomes that we would like to see. All of us want to make sure that, if someone, after they have served their time and they are coming back to the community, we provide every opportunity possible to make sure their reintegration is successful. That means making sure we have a life-skills development component, education completion or 12-step counselling, or that we have circles of accountability, those wraparounds being put in place as well as opportunities for employment so that if they have employment, they have a job, they have a place to stay, then they can get back into having a successful reintegration.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Taking into account the fact that your study could lead to a potential review of rehabilitation programs, would you like the study to be carried out independently, rather than by the Department of Public Safety? Historically, Canada has never carried out an independent study on the performance of rehabilitation programs. Would you like that study to be carried out independently?
[English]
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. I would certainly be open to an independent review, because I believe the numbers will speak for themselves. If we get successful models that have worked in other jurisdictions and had really good outcomes that are being recognized and we start to roll out similar types of models here in Canada, I would welcome any type of independent review of that, because all of us want these types of initiatives to be successful and to have the desired outcomes, which is a reduction in the revolving door within our prison system so that once people serve their time, they are coming back into the community and are successful in reintegrating and not going back into a life of crime.
That helps victims, families, the individual and the community as a whole. I would welcome any form of independent review as well as the departmental review.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Will the bill have an impact on the decisions of the Parole Board of Canada board members?
[English]
Mr. Bragdon: This is after time is served, after time released. I don’t know the direct effect it would have on parole board decisions. The parole board is separate and independent, and they would operate. But hopefully if someone is out and they have successfully reintegrated and they are doing well and meeting their targets and they are on track and not recommitting offences, then that bodes well for everyone and the objectives of the National Parole Board of Canada, I’m sure.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, Mr. Bragdon, for being here today with us. I certainly share the goals of your bill, but my questions will be really for the officials from Public Safety and the Correctional Service.
All of that I thought would be part of the framework already in place and that we already make sure people won’t go back to criminality, they will integrate in society, find a job and training and all of that.
Could you indicate to the members of this committee, if this bill was coming into force, what will be changed within your daily operation and planning?
Julie Thompson, Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections, Criminal Justice and Aboriginal Policing Policy Directorate, Public Safety Canada: Thank you very much for the question. I’ll start and then pass it to my colleague from the Correctional Service of Canada if she would like to add anything.
It would be difficult to speculate at this current time about how the department would implement the framework, as the bill is currently being considered as part of parliamentary procedure, but I can reference two things that currently exist inside the Department of Public Safety. Perhaps my colleague would like to speak to programs that exist inside the correctional service.
Currently there are several different contribution programs that exist inside Public Safety that provide funding to community-based organizations to implement and carry out various programming related to recidivism, the reduction of recidivism and the reintegration of recently released people who have been incarcerated in federal institutions.
I would be happy to provide additional information on those particular programs, but don’t want to eat up your time with answering that. That information is available on the Public Safety Canada website. I can stop my answer there and then refer to my colleague from the Correctional Service of Canada to see if she would like to add any information about current programming inside the correctional service related to promoting safe reintegration and reducing recidivism.
Carmen Long, Director General, Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch, Correctional Service of Canada: I’ll keep this brief, but the focus within the Correctional Service of Canada really is the safe reintegration of offenders. We take a number of different approaches to manage that. Of course, we provide effective programs in the institution and the community, programs that we know target those factors directly related to criminal behaviour; by teaching offenders how to manage those factors, they are able to better successfully reintegrate. We have correctional programs. We have employment. We have education. Those are fundamental and required through legislation for us to provide to facilitate the return of offenders.
In addition, one of the practices that is very critical for us is the case management piece. So every offender from intake to the end of their sentence is working with the parole officer and a case management team, and these individuals have reviewed the risk and the needs of the offenders. They monitor their programs, they provide the support and so they have a very active ongoing interaction with the offenders.
I would say for us in reducing recidivism, those interventions are fundamental.
Senator Dalphond: What is the level of implication of the community?
Ms. Long: We have a very active community presence within CSC. We have parole officers who are working with the offenders out in the community. We have correctional program officers and Indigenous correctional program officers. We’re providing ongoing correctional programs to offenders. We have community employment opportunities that are available. We have Indigenous community liaison officers. We have a number of individuals who work as a team in order to be able to provide a good view on the risk and needs of the offender and to be able to adjust the plan and the supervision strategy in order to mitigate risk but also to facilitate the reintegration of the offender back.
Senator McPhedran: My question is to the officials representing Public Safety Canada, and this is a question developed in consultation with Senator Pate.
During study of Bill C-83, the Senate emphasized the need for a judicial oversight of the correctional service to ensure cultural change within the service necessary to uphold human rights and promote reintegration. If Bill C-228 is passed, how will Public Safety Canada take into account the recommendations made by the Senate in favour of judicial oversight of correctional decision making during development of the national framework?
Ms. Thompson: Thank you very much. That is a broad-reaching question. I would have difficulty answering that question right now. Of course, the role of Public Safety Canada is to provide advice directly to the minister on such matters so, while I am unable to comment directly on that particular question today, I would note in general that, in the development of policies, development of programs, development of other tools and instruments, information is taken into consideration from a broad range of sources, including recommendations from Senate committees, et cetera. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. May I ask for a written answer to my question, please, when that is possible? Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Bragdon. Thank you for being with us today. It is also directed to Public Safety Canada officials who can answer.
Rehabilitation is a process that begins long before an inmate is released from federal incarceration. Given the record of major cuts to inmate rehabilitation programs over the past decade, what solid practical solutions do you envision such a framework should include during incarceration as an intrinsic component to a fulsome analysis of effective rehabilitation programs to support non-recidivism?
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you for the question, senator; I appreciate that. I agree that so much work can be done while someone is still serving their time on the inside and working in conjunction with the Correctional Service of Canada and obviously with the other programs going on inside the facility. What can we make sure is available while time is being served to prepare for release as well and how can we improve that? Is there a way we can make sure that what they’re receiving while incarcerated is also starting the work that will be necessary to form the linkages for a successful outcome upon release?
We need to be looking at the programming happening within, and I’m sure that the department is also doing this on a regular basis: examining, looking at it and making sure. But we and expertise from the outside can speak to that and say, okay, here are some models implemented in other jurisdictions around the world that are having success on the inside to prepare people for their release date so they can successfully reintegrate.
That is what this bill is really all about — looking at best practices within Canada, but also internationally that are having good and remarkable success in helping people reintegrate back into communities.
I’m totally open to those and that’s definitely part of the vision of the bill, which is how we can make sure that people are best positioned, upon their release, to successfully re-engage with the community and to reintegrate without going back into criminal activity.
Senator Moodie: My question is also in collaboration with Senate Pate and it’s about community alternatives to prisons. I’m directing my question to Ms. Thompson from Public Safety.
Section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act allows individuals to be transferred to Indigenous communities to serve their sentences in ways that can be vital for reintegration but which are rarely used in practice.
The Senate amendments to Bill C-83 aimed to ensure increased use of such alternatives to incarceration, in particular for Black and other racialized and marginalized groups, but were rejected by the government. If Bill C-228 passes, what steps will the government be taking to ensure increased use of provisions such as section 81 as part of the national framework?
Ms. Thompson: Thank you for the question. Again, it would be difficult to hypothesize or anticipate particular government direction as this particular bill is still subject to parliamentary proceedings. However, I could offer some information about a program that is available today called the Indigenous Community Corrections Initiative, where, in Budget 2017, $10 million over five years was allocated to try to reduce the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders in the criminal justice system by increasing community capacity and supporting the development of reintegration and alternatives-to-custody projects. Through that funding of $10 million, 16 organizations were funded and are currently conducting programming today.
For your information, examples of some of those organizations are the Native Counselling Services of Alberta, The Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of British Columbia, the Odawa Native Friendship Centre and others working on the important issue of supporting reintegration and alternatives-to-custody projects, particularly for Indigenous prisoners.
Senator Moodie: Mr. Bragdon, as you know, recidivism is an issue that impacts Blacks and Indigenous communities more than others. Could you speak to the conversations and feedback you’ve had with some of these communities? What is their feeling about the bill?
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator, for the question. I am thankful for the conversations I’ve had with Indigenous friends, but you will also be hearing testimony later at this committee from the Honourable Graydon Nicholas, a member of the Wolastoqey First Nation from my home province here in New Brunswick and former Lieutenant Governor for New Brunswick and a former provincial court judge.
This bill goes a long way in addressing some of the challenges that are there. One of the amendments that was proposed in the other place, at committee, came from the MP for St. John’s East, Mr. Harris from the NDP, and it was pertaining to this, looking at making sure access to all programs are available for all peoples, including obviously and especially for those who are of minority communities, who are Indigenous or Black Canadians. We gladly welcomed that amendment into the bill at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the House.
We want to ensure access is there and we’re making sure consideration is given for people to be able to gain access to services, people who most need it and want those partnerships to reintegrate successfully.
Senator Oh: Thank you, MP Bragdon, for being here. Have any Canadian provinces or territories applied a framework on recidivism similar to what is proposed in Bill C-228? If so, are there elements of this framework that could inform the proposed federal framework for Canada?
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. I appreciate it. That’s a great question. I believe there are individual models within each jurisdiction. Different provinces are working with different types of organizations and groups. Some jurisdictions are having, I’m sure, some good outcomes, maybe some better than others. That’s where I feel the role of the national framework is an opportunity to find those best practices across the country and territories to make sure that the ones getting the best outcomes are the ones made available and that the public is made aware of them, but most importantly, those who have the opportunity to implement these types of strategies will have access to those programs, both here at home but also internationally.
Senator Oh: I noticed in the report that recidivism abounds among the Indigenous males at 38%, greater than non-Indigenous males at 21%. It’s the same thing for females, at 20% compared to non-Indigenous females at 9%.
No one is born as a criminal. We are all born equal. Do you not think that it is more important to help a particular group, either Black or Indigenous people, before they get to prison, instead of after they get to prison when you come up with Bill C-228? I think you should emphasize before.
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. I agree. This bill is obviously geared towards reducing recidivism once time is served to make sure they never have to go back into the prison system, but you’re absolutely right. We need to do more on the front end to make sure that fewer people do become incarcerated and don’t have to go that pathway.
This particular bill addresses those who have served time. How can we make sure that they don’t go back into the system again?
Senator Richards: Thank you, Mr. Bragdon, for being here today. I’m from your home province. I’ve known Graydon Nicholas for years, and I think he is a fine man as well.
Alistair MacLeod was a friend of mine, a short-story writer from Cape Breton. He had a great line; he said people are better when they’re loved. I think that’s a fundamental line that should be used in our culture and in our society. The trouble with a lot of people who get into jail is they haven’t been loved. We know that. How is your bill different in formula compared to other bills or other situations that were used in the past? How is it fundamentally different, if at all?
Those people who get out and become recidivists, do they tend to commit more serious and greater crimes than when they were first incarcerated? I think that’s another danger. If you could perhaps answer that for me, I would be grateful. Thank you.
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. Those are great questions. Obviously, the best thing that we can do is to make sure, on the front end, that we’re doing everything we can to put in place the best practices that are known around the world.
The idea behind this bill is this. I don’t believe nationally we’ve undertaken to establish a national framework of best practices and put together a strategy that can help overall reduce the rates of recidivism from coast to coast to coast. The aim of this bill is to make sure we’re looking at new and innovative approaches as well as those that have been tried and true, that are working well, in conjunction with and especially those on the front lines who are making such a difference here in Canada. If they are getting good outcomes in one pocket or region, perhaps part of that could be adapted and employed in other parts of the country.
The motive behind the bill is to provide a national framework from which the provincial and territorial governments can pull to contextualize their area of best practices. Then we’ll look at those and measure those over a period of time and see what is working well. It’s the hybrid approach that gets so much success. It’s not just the governmental aspect; they play a role. It’s not just the non-profit aspect or the faith-based community; they play a role. The Indigenous community plays a role. But it’s also the private sector coming alongside. It’s that partnership of various sectors that gets the best outcomes. How can we make sure there is a successful interface where we can pilot some of those types of effective programs to basically help us accomplish the objective we all have, which is to end the recidivism cycle?
Senator Richards: Mr. Bragdon, will we have the funds to do this? Will the money be given to do this? Will the money be used properly? These are questions that the public generally comes to ask, sometimes late but they come to ask.
Mr. Bragdon: A good question, senator. Look, I believe that this is an investment of funds that actually saves taxpayers money overwhelmingly and disproportionately. For every person we successfully reintegrate, we are saving taxpayers huge amounts of money. Think of the cost savings for those who transition successfully back into employment. The cost of litigation goes down. The cost of incarceration goes down. The cost of law enforcement goes down. The cost of the judicial process goes down. The cost of social services and the burden on the health care system go down. Because every person we successfully reintegrate comes off of those rolls of dependency and migrates towards contributing back into society. That helps not only them but also their families in the broader connection.
A case can be made for cost savings there. That’s why I believe governments will come alongside. I am glad to say — and I will say this, Senator Richards, very quickly — that I was so pleased with the all-party support we received throughout the process, overwhelming support with the governing party, as well as the NDP and the Green Party, all coming alongside us to help make this happen. I believe there is political will, and where there is political, there will be investment, I believe.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much for that.
Senator Busson: Mr. Bragdon, thank you again for coming along with the officials who are here to help us understand this important bill.
There is a saying about doing the same or similar things and expecting a different result, so this is refreshing. I certainly support where you’re going with this. It’s important, as people move out of an institution, that they are supported as an individual by a number of agencies in a wraparound support; one individual with all of these groups and services, all working to a positive result. It is so important. We’ve all seen the devastating results of failure, not just to the individual but to society generally. So I’m very supportive of this.
You quoted a very shocking statistic when you started your presentation. You said that the children of people who are incarcerated are seven times more likely to be incarcerated themselves. Does your vision through Bill C-228 include support for families as this moves forward, given the two results for the people who might be following the path of this revolving door and as a support for the person themselves?
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. That is a great question. It’s an area of passion, and I referred to the founder of the organization, Monty Lewis, a dear friend of mine who has passed. He and his wife founded the organization. He was the one who would often quote that statistic that the children of those incarcerated are seven times more likely to themselves become incarcerated.
I’m not exactly sure of the sourcing of that, but he was in that area for years serving, and he would quote that often in his presentations. He, himself, of course, had been incarcerated and worked through that process. He believed, and I believe many in this sector believe, that it’s not just the individual who is being released but it’s also the whole family who needs adequate supports and wraparounds so they are equipped as well for successful reintegration, where possible and where appropriate, making sure that the families have the support that they need.
Again, it’s that hybrid model that I believe will be most effective. It’s not one-size-fits-all. There has to be that fluidity in the nature of this framework so that it can be contextualized to the individual needs, to the family needs, to the community needs and to the provincial or territorial needs, being respectful of the context from which the individual is coming. That’s what’s so important with this model of framework; it has that ability to be fluid, not rigid but fluid. As we know, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and geography to geography and culture to culture, there are so many aspects that have to be considered.
The most successful models that I’ve personally seen are those that have the ability to contextualize, shape and meet the needs of those they’re working with. It’s not one-size-fits-all. What are the best practices and how can we make that contextualized to the area that will best lead to successful outcomes? Thanks for that question, senator; it’s so true, and I think we need to incorporate support for families and children as part of that.
Senator Busson: Thank you for that passionate answer. Thank you very much.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, Mr. Bragdon, both for being here and for the bill that you have been championing. It looks to me like one additional aspect of a career on your part to commit to social justice, and I applaud that. I’m with you 100% on that.
I do want to offer what I hope will not be too critical a set of observations. I speak about this from the perspective of having served as a deputy attorney general and deputy minister of justice responsible for corrections for five years during my career, maybe 20 years ago. I would say that, rather than provincial correctional services learning from the Correctional Service of Canada, the reality is and ought to be the other way around. My first criticism, quite frankly, is that this act is not called an act to establish a national framework to reduce recidivism, but a federal framework, which suggests that it will be developed by the Government of Canada.
The bottom line is that a lot of people are in provincial correctional services and correctional centres serving time. They often graduate to more serious types of offences. Sadly, in some circumstances, jails themselves can be a breeding ground for that. In provincial facilities like Saskatchewan’s, over 85% of the inmates are Indigenous. Models have been developed to try to address that. I’ll describe one to you.
When I was Saskatchewan’s Deputy Attorney General, we initiated a program to look at low-risk offenders and release all whom we could when they’d served the minimum amount of time; built the equivalent of halfway houses; moved correctional officers — jail guards — to jobs where they could help people transition to the community; reduced the number of people in our jails by 10% over two years and had, in total, one reoffender. That might not be the model of today, but I guess I’m suggesting to you that the Correctional Service of Canada actually can learn a lot from what provinces have done. The provinces don’t have to sit around and wait to come on board based on what the Government of Canada suggests.
I’m interested in the degree to which you and federal officials see the advantage of actually building a framework that learns from the provinces rather than the other way around. Thank you.
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, Senator Cotter. I appreciate so much of the expertise that you come to the table with today. Thank you for sharing that.
I couldn’t agree with you more that good ideas often flow from the ground up and those closest to the situation often come up with the best solutions in their areas of jurisdiction. The vision of this particular federal framework aspect is adopting the best practices from across and within our own country in different provincial jurisdictions, out of which all that can be pulled together to say here is what is working effectively in New Brunswick or the territories, here is what we’ve seen as good working models and organizations that have put together a really good structure and having successful outcomes. Also, internationally, there is the power of the federal government to be able to ascertain and gather information from the best practices in other jurisdictions that may be applicable within the Canadian context and, obviously, contextualized to each area, each province and each jurisdiction.
I think it’s so important that we are open and able to pull not just locally and not just within our own country but also from other jurisdictions that have some really good working models that we could pull from and it would be there as a framework. This could be up and get structured, and it does not take away from the provinces’ abilities to do their own types of reviews and establish best practices within their areas of jurisdiction.
Senator Cotter: Thanks.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Bragdon, I have to say, I really admire your motive for this bill, and I wish you success. I’ve been thinking a lot since you’ve introduced this bill in the House of Commons, and today you spoke about prisoners having histories of abuse and violence. In addition to reducing recidivism and helping with rehabilitation, do you also think we should be looking at strategies for decarceration?
I feel that prison seems to be the easy solution — send them to prison. But when I was a practising lawyer, I used to often say to people, you send them to prison but you don’t throw the lock away. Sooner or later, they come back. How will they integrate back into society? I’m really happy with the things you have said, because I think that it is a good first step, but have you given some thought to decarceration?
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, Senator Jaffer. I share your passion. Any time that we can create a pathway by which people can avoid and not have to go through the incarceration route, first by preventing them from entering a life of crime or committing violent acts, but often by addressing the issues at the core, that is a very big discussion and an area of need.
This particular bill is obviously addressing one aspect. When they’ve done their time, they’ve served their time and they’re in prison but they’re about to come back into the community, how can we best affect that outcome in a positive way? I think it’s through effective partnerships with our Indigenous communities, with faith-based organizations, non-profits and non-governmental organizations, and obviously the private sector. All can play a role. It’s in that sweet spot where they interface that we can develop the best types of models that will have the best outcomes.
Not taking away at all from the concept of decarceration, I think anything we can do on the front end to prevent young people and others from going in the direction of criminal activity that leads to incarceration, and to provide the supports within the communities and the healthy examples within communities, that is obviously the best way to go.
This bill deals in particular with what we can do once someone has served their time. How can we make sure they have a successful outcome and that they don’t go back into the prison system? That’s the aim of this particular bill. Thank you, Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: If Bill C-228 is enacted, could Parliament evaluate the extent to which this federal framework for Canada is successful?
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. I believe the best way of doing that is looking at the rates of recidivism and making a comparative analysis of those who are not going through the intervention programs or the models that are being set up and those who are going through some form of community support and intervention on the outside upon release. I’m quite confident, as we’ve seen internationally, that the difference in success rates in reducing recidivism by those who participate in some form of program or support networking and those who don’t will be staggering. As we measure those outcomes of the models we’re tracking, I think it’s going to reveal some pretty significant and moving results.
Senator Martin: I’ve heard enough in terms of great questions and great responses, so I will yield the floor to the next senator. Thank you, Mr. Bragdon, for your very passionate and well-articulated answers.
Senator Dalphond: Mr. Bragdon, you referenced that you had broad support in the House of Commons. I didn’t notice the Bloc in your list of those supporting your bill. Do I understand that they are not supportive, and if so, why?
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. I’m not sure exactly as to the rationale. The only understanding I can gather is that they were concerned in regard to areas of provincial jurisdiction and it being a federal framework. I tried and I definitely wanted to assure them that this is not to interfere with areas of provincial jurisdiction. This is to put together a firm framework out of which the provinces and territories could download programs that they felt had the best outcomes and the best types of modelling that they would like to contextualize to their area or purpose. Senator, that would be the only reason that I came down to. Otherwise, in my conversations with the Bloc, they overall supported the concept of reducing recidivism through intervention, but it was around the provincial jurisdiction aspect.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I am wondering, MP Bragdon, if you could speak to us briefly about whether you looked at or know of programs that have similar goals to what you set out in your bill but have been particularly effective for women prisoners who are racialized or marginalized in other ways by our society.
Mr. Bragdon: Thank you, senator. In fact, the one model that I referred to and that Ms. Naidoo spoke about at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is a program that works with both men and women from minority communities, particularly those from the African-American communities in Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth and San Antonio. They have had over 30,000 people go through their program. They have had amazing success — incredible success. In fact, it was such a great success that it was recognized by then-President Barack Obama. They awarded Ms. Naidoo as a Champion of Change.
It was a model they felt others could try and emulate. It was a good partnership between a local non-profit, faith-based organization; the State of Texas, and companies like AT&T; clothing companies and others that agreed to provide employment opportunities. Then housing and urban development provided and helped with housing needs for those who were transitioning back from incarceration.
It was an amazing model, and I would love to see some of that tailored to the Canadian context. They worked extensively with men and women, and those of minority descent.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We have reached the end of our first panel’s time. I would like to thank Mr. Bragdon, Ms. Thompson and Ms. Long for appearing before the committee today.
For our second panel today, we are pleased to have before us The Honourable Graydon Nicholas, Endowed Chair in Native Studies, St. Thomas University, Former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick; and Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada.
On behalf of the committee, we would like to thank both of you for appearing before us today. The floor is yours for opening remarks, Mr. Nicholas.
Hon. Graydon Nicholas, Endowed Chair in Native Studies, St. Thomas University, Former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, as an individual: Thank you very much, honourable senators.
Good afternoon members of the Senate who are studying this private member’s bill, Bill C-228. I am grateful for this opportunity to share some experiences I’ve had. You have a copy of my statement to the members of Parliament when I testified on February 22, 2021.
I am a member of the Wolastoqiyik Nation from the Tobique First Nation. I am currently employed at St. Thomas University in the position of Endowed Chair of Native Studies. I teach students about the criminal justice system as it applies to Indigenous people.
The TRC Calls to Action numbers 30 to 42 indicate the need for reform in the sentencing and treatment of Indigenous persons in the criminal justice system. This is not the first time these reforms were advanced. The first national report was called Indians and the Law, written by the Canadian Corrections Association in August 1967. It contained 17 recommendations.
Other national reports have done the same. In particular, the Law Reform Commission report number 34, entitled Aboriginal Peoples and Criminal Justice: Equality, Respect and the Search for Justice in 1991 made important recommendations, in particular, recommendation number 2:
Aboriginal communities identified by the legitimate representatives of Aboriginal peoples as being willing and capable should have the authority to establish Aboriginal justice systems. The federal and provincial governments should enter into negotiations to transfer that authority to those Aboriginal communities.
I will refer to one more study that was done by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in a report entitled Bridging the Cultural Divide: A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada in 1996. The important recommendation was that:
. . . federal, provincial and territorial governments recognize the right of Aboriginal nations to establish and administer their own systems of justice pursuant to their inherent right of self-government, including the power to make laws within the Aboriginal nation’s territory.
I will repeat Call to Action number 42, which states:
We call upon the federal, provincial and territorial governments to commit to the recognition and implementation of Aboriginal justice systems in a manner consistent with the Treaty and Aboriginal rights of Aboriginal peoples, the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by Canada in November 2012.
Indigenous persons have a high and sad representation in penal institutions in our country. There are many factors that contribute to these statistics. Many are historical, many are because of poverty and many are because the current justice system does not reflect the values of their communities.
As I mentioned earlier, there have been many studies done to recommend fundamental changes in the criminal justice system, but not enough have been implemented. I want to commend the initiative of member of Parliament Mr. Richard Bragdon and the other members who have supported this important legislative blueprint.
I make the same request for your positive input and the endorsement of Bill C-228. Thank you very much. Woliwon.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholas. The floor is yours, Ms. Latimer.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: Thank you very much. It is an honour to be available to this committee and to share the views of the John Howard Society on Bill C-228. The John Howard Societies, as you know, are charities that provide services in more than 60 communities across Canada. Our aim is to further just, effective and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. Our charity is rooted in supporting the reintegration of former prisoners and in prison reform.
We enthusiastically support Bill C-228. There have been some significant tragedies that we have all seen. For example, Kimberly Squirrel died on the street three days after being released from a correctional facility. This is a wake-up call to all of us that we can do a lot better than we have done. This bill provides us a real opportunity to work collaboratively and to put together the best practices that allow our communities to be safer.
While there are differing opinions on the appropriate quantum of sentence and the best way to discharge a criminal’s debt to society, we all believe that when prisoners are ready to be released and come back into communities, we would like them to be law-abiding, contributing members.
I do not read Bill C-228 as a prisoners’ rights bill; I read it as a public safety bill. It is about ensuring former prisoners have the supports they need to keep everyone, including themselves, safe. A recidivism framework, therefore, benefits us all by preventing further victimization and preserving state resources.
The road back for former prisoners is a tough one. Many face loneliness; stigma; extreme poverty; discrimination in employment and housing; barriers due to race, religion or gender; inadequate identification; gaps in the continuity of mental and physical health care; challenges reuniting with families; unfamiliarity with new technologies; serious marginalization; and fear and hostility from community members. Post-release drug overdoses are high. Some utilize drugs and alcohol to ease their discomfort. Suicide rates are also higher among people in their first year after being released from prison.
Between 2003 and 2008, 66 federal prisoners died by suicide and 20 such deaths occurred while individuals were on parole.
Given the hardships they encounter, it’s a testament to the enormous resilience and willpower that the majority of those released do not in fact return to prison, but far too many do. There is more that we can do and should be doing to facilitate a successful reintegration.
A while back, Public Safety Canada gave the John Howard Society a small grant to do a series of podcasts in which former prisoners were interviewed by peers about the challenges they faced reintegrating back into communities with a goal of providing advice and support to others.
For those interested, that podcast is called “Voices Inside and Out.” While there were individual differences in the challenges faced, there were many key similarities in housing, employment and health care.
Many prisoners felt that the correctional authorities had not adequately prepared them for release. Many individuals did not even have acceptable government identification. Prisoners who rely on prescription medication were released with only two weeks’ supply. CSC’s own study found that, among a group of 40 prisoners with severe mood disorders and psychotic disorders, only 31% had formal clinical discharge plans upon release. This is a recipe for a problem.
The challenge of navigating municipal, provincial and federal requirements demands creative solutions. Those individuals who receive help from peers, from criminal justice organizations, family or good Samaritans value it enormously.
It is in this environment that Bill C-228 would be tremendously impactful. It would ensure that the key elements for a successful transition are identified through a collaborative effort. I would hope this effort involves those with lived experience; those from organizations that provide reintegration services; representatives from provincial, federal and municipal governments; and Black and Indigenous communities.
The bill’s requirement for the Minister of Public Safety to report on the implementation of the framework’s progress would be an important impetus to move it from beyond words on paper to something that is alive and serving Canadians.
In conclusion, the John Howard Society of Canada urges you to support the passage of Bill C-228. The truth is that not enough is being done now to support the reintegration of prisoners. We can and must do better to ensure that those who are released from custody are supported in their efforts to successfully and safely reintegrate into society. The framework to reduce recidivism is an important means by which we can work towards reducing crime and making our communities safer. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Latimer. We will open up the floor to questions starting with the Senate sponsor of the bill, Senator Martin. I will remind all senators that you have three minutes.
Senator Martin: Thank you to both Mr. Nicholas, and Ms. Latimer of the John Howard Society of Canada.
There are so many questions to be had. My first question is to Mr. Nicholas. You said there have been so many studies; there have been previous commissions. You outlined this history of information. Yet we are here where we are today. You’re asking us to endorse this bill. Obviously, I’m the sponsor, but would you speak to why this bill would be important, knowing that we have bodies of information? We know what we should be doing. I would like to get your further explanation of the need for this bill.
Mr. Nicholas: First of all, the most important part is in having discussions with our First Nations leaders — our Indigenous leaders, I should say, because it would include the Inuit as well as the Métis — and with Indigenous women as well who have their voices.
You have to have this dialogue. This bill and other studies are great; believe me, they are, but, unfortunately, the organizations represented in government, the different departments, have not put the funding resources forward to make it a reality. That’s because not too many people at our community levels know of these reports. I know them because I study them, and that’s part of my responsibility as someone who teaches students. But, within the community, when you mention these to some students, they ask how come they have never heard of this. They have never heard of it because the reports are long, and, second, there are no discussions. What is fundamental here is that it says the Minister of Public Safety in consultation with the representatives. I think that’s important.
Once this bill does pass, then the discussions will progress. Believe me, I could have quoted more studies. I just thought these were the more relevant at this stage.
That’s why I would answer that it is important. The sooner there are engagement and discussions with our Indigenous leaders, believe me, with the well-minded people in different departments, things can develop in a positive way.
Senator Martin: Yes, I agree with you. Thank you for informing us of that.
Ms. Latimer, quickly, I am concerned regarding the children of former inmates and the seven-times-higher risk that they might enter that sort of life. Are there programs that you do, personally? Is this one of the best practices that we should be looking at?
Ms. Latimer: It seems to me that if you’re successfully reintegrating people who have been in custody, it’s going to be beneficial for their family members. There is a real absence of knowledge about the actual impact it has on families, including children, to have someone in custody, particularly if they are not being treated fairly and not being given a clear roadmap about how to get back into the communities and be seen to be a father or mother to their children and supporting them in the best way that they can.
My view is anything that supports successful reintegration is going to strengthen the families. You’re going to have problems with those families anyway because they are going to be bruised, having had someone involved in the criminal justice system. There likely needs to be some counselling and some additional work there.
Senator Martin: Thank you for your good work as well.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I will put two questions to each of our guests, and I thank them very much for joining us this afternoon. Ms. Latimer, can you tell me when the last independent study or the last assessment of rehabilitation programs in Canada was conducted?
[English]
Ms. Latimer: I agree with you, senator. I think they do need to be independently reviewed. I am not aware of when they were last independently reviewed. I know that the Auditor General did an audit of the programs that were preparing people for release, and the results were not all that strong. In terms of the actual efficiency of these individual programs, I do think they need to be evaluated.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much. The answer was that such a study has never been carried out.
Mr. Nicholas, my next question is about using faith-based considerations in rehabilitation. The use of religions to help offenders rehabilitate may carry a high risk. In Canada as in other countries and in Europe, we have seen extremism in penitentiaries where people practising certain religions have had a very negative influence on other inmates.
Doesn’t the use of religions to support offenders’ rehabilitation carry a risk of them developing extremist behaviour?
[English]
Mr. Nicholas: First of all, for Indigenous people there is no fear of Indigenous spirituality. I think it’s the people that are in the organizations that are more afraid of us because of what we’re taught.
I think it’s going to help our people, because our spirituality includes all of us. It’s your identity. It’s your nationhood. It’s your whole being as a community. So this should never have ever been seen as a threat unlike previous legislation back in the 1890s where they tried to kill Indigenous spirituality. We know of the devastating consequences in residential schools that resulted from that. Our people are very attuned to Indigenous spirituality, and that in fact is what will help us to become whole.
So I’m not sure what the other members of society in terms of institutions would think, but for me I see no problem.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Latimer, do you know of any cases where people pushed toward a religion or influenced by certain individuals may have adopted extremist behaviour?
[English]
Ms. Latimer: I think the religion you’re probably most concerned about is the Muslim religion. I have had no evidence at all that there have been prisoners being converted to a radical view of Islam. In fact, if anything, the existing Muslims will have a more moderate effect.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Just to correct you, I did not name any religion.
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Nicholas.
Recidivism among Aboriginals is especially high. As a former police officer, I still believe that people who are in prison are inmates because they have committed crimes, and not because of their background. Your involvement in universities and organizations representing First Nations surely provides you with an enlightened vision I would like to hear about. I would like you to share with us your analysis and your vision concerning reasons that explain those cases of recidivism among Aboriginals. Is it due to specific elements that differ from those affecting other inmates?
[English]
Mr. Nicholas: I understand your background. Let’s get the criminals off the street. That’s the motive of a lot of agencies. We have to protect the public, so we warehouse people in these institutions.
For us as Indigenous people, we didn’t have a system that is Indigenous. There is nothing in there that helps our people, because the people, they don’t understand our language, they don’t understand our culture. When they walk away from that institution, how have they been helped in their identity?
That’s the question that needs to be answered. Are there people who work in those institutions who are knowledgeable about our culture, who knew about our values, who knew about our spirituality? If they are threatened by this, believe me, there will never be success for anybody. We will make sure that the institutions are full.
The sad fact is too high a percentage of our people, men, women and youth, are in institutions and they do not get rehabilitated currently.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: As far as I understand, you are advocating a totally different justice system, with other Superior Court judges or another Supreme Court, right?
[English]
Mr. Nicholas: Well, honourable senator, I have been at this many years. I was a provincial court judge in the province of New Brunswick for 19 years. Even when the institution of sentencing circles was brought in, there was a lot of reluctance from those involved because they didn’t understand how our people dealt with the rehabilitation of our people. They felt threatened by it. Well, you will always be threatened by somebody if you don’t understand what it is. But the fact of the matter is that, rather than just being a high population in institutions, we want the numbers to go down as well. The only way they will go down is if our people are in institutions where we play a major role. That’s it. There is nothing beyond that.
A lot of studies, believe me, have been done. I could quote you dozens of studies, but so far it has not scratched the surface. So this is an opportunity in this bill to say, “Okay, let’s bring in a new way of looking at this. Let’s involve Indigenous partners in carrying this out.” That would be a major step, believe me, if that happened.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today. My question is for Ms. Latimer. Thank you for what you said. Your organization has been involved in reintegration and community work for so many years. Do I understand from your comments that, so far, there has not been a kind of integrated program by the Minister of Public Safety to work on the development and implementation of an integration policy to reduce the risk of recidivism?
Ms. Latimer: I believe that the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada take as part of their mandate to support the successful reintegration of former prisoners. My view is that not nearly enough is being done, and it needs to be beyond those two agencies in terms of promoting a successful reintegration. For example, people come out of prison without even identification cards. You can’t do anything without identification. They don’t have skills training. They don’t have educational levels which allow them to find employment. Housing is extremely difficult for them.
These agencies, they may be in a halfway house or a community residential facility for a while, but after that they are left trying to find housing on the street. Far too many of them end up homeless and in shelters, which is another formula for trouble, particularly if they are battling any kind of substance use problems.
My view is that so much more can be done and that this bill really does provide an opportunity to take a look at some of the examples that are working really well in Europe and to build that into our plan. I agree that it needs to be far beyond the correctional authorities, that it is good to have Indigenous organizations and organizations like the John Howard Society and other community groups participating in this. Former prisoners will tell you what they needed and what they didn’t get and what would have helped them. I think that’s invaluable.
Senator Dalphond: I find it troubling that this is not already the practice.
Ms. Latimer: I do too.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: My first question is again in collaboration with Senator Pate. I’m going to ask Ms. Latimer if she could answer this question. Section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act allows individuals to be transferred to Indigenous communities to serve their sentences in ways that can be vital for reintegration, but which have been rarely used in practice. How will Bill C-228 encourage access to community alternatives to prisons, including via section 81, for Indigenous peoples as well as for other racialized and marginalized communities, and what other measures are needed to support Bill C-228 in achieving these types of outcomes?
Ms. Latimer: Thank you, Senator Moodie. I think of what MP Bragdon was suggesting, that this bill would really take effect at the point when people are coming back into the community. So it wouldn’t necessarily put pressure on the correctional system to release people on parole early or to take advantage of the very beneficial options like those you find in section 81 that would allow prisoners to be transferred into Indigenous communities where they could become reintegrated or integrated with their culture at an earlier phase. I don’t necessarily think that it would have a big influence on the section 81 transfers. I think we probably need to find a different mechanism to bolster the use of section 81 provisions of the CCRA.
Senator Moodie: Thank you. You talked a little bit earlier about using innovative strategies. Are there any new and innovative strategies that you would hope the government would take or implement as part of enacting this legislation?
Ms. Latimer: Yes. As a matter of fact, we’re working with CMHC on a housing initiative to try to use prisoner labour and expertise to help improve the housing stock that might be available to try to relieve the release of too many former prisoners into homelessness. This would be an example of something that could be done.
Employment opportunities are also key. We did quite a bit of work on looking at prisoner-based cooperatives. In Britain they have something called Through the Gate prison cooperatives where the cooperative begins in prison and continues on into the community and provides some kind of economic continuity and support for prisoners as they’re coming out. These would all be very interesting to try in Canada. I think if we looked at international examples and consulted our own creative imaginations, we would come up with a lot of good ideas that could make life a lot better, reduce recidivism and better protect Canadian society.
Senator Busson: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to both of our witnesses. They obviously bring a great and valued perspective, given that both of them have existed at the pointy end of the stick, so to speak, when it comes to this incredibly difficult problem. I spent a little time at the pointy end of the stick myself in my other life, and I believe that we’re absolutely on the right track with this bill.
I’d like either or both of you to express your opinion around my observations when it comes to recidivism and ask you to what extent you feel that drug and alcohol abuse plays a role in the sad statistics around recidivism. If you agree that this is a significant factor, do you believe that this bill should demand culturally appropriate drug treatment as a focus, given that real and effective drug treatment programs are neither short term nor inexpensive? I’d ask either Mr. Nicholas or Ms. Latimer.
Mr. Nicholas: When I was a provincial court judge and I would have to sentence people either to two years less a day or two years depending on the nature of the offence, almost everyone wanted to go to the federal institution — not because they would be eligible for an earlier parole, but the fact of the matter is that the methadone treatment was available at federal institutions and not at the provincial level. That was the criteria. Then they said, well, once we get out of jail, then the methadone program can continue for us because the federal coffers are a little bit deeper than the provincial ones. I was shocked when they wanted it, but I said, “If you want to go to the federal institution I’ll give you 36 months,” because I knew that after six months they would be eligible for parole. You want to make sure they’re there to first detoxify, and if they’re on the methadone treatment that they will continue during their parole period as well. That was my experience.
Ms. Latimer: I would add that this is really a significant problem. A great number of people commit their offences under the influence, and they battle some serious addiction issues as well. There are some really good examples of programs that have worked very well. There is, for example, Guthrie House, which is run provincially in B.C. with the John Howard Society. It is a peer-supported house on the grounds of the prison where peers support people living in a drug- and alcohol-free environment. I thought, boy, that’s going to be bad; if one goes down, they’ll all go down. But, in fact, that isn’t what happens. They support each other in their sobriety and their drug issues.
I think there are some very interesting and innovative approaches that we should try to address that, which is a significant problem.
Senator Busson: Thank you for your answer. As an aside, from my experience, people will point to the expense of these programs, but there is a lot of data to show that, ultimately, there are cost savings to committing to these long-term programs. Thank you very much for your answer.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much for being here today. My question is for Mr. Nicholas. You were a judge for 19 years, and you dealt with many Indigenous cases over those years. In my own life I’ve known many people who have gone to the other side of the law. Most of the time it was because of addiction. Not always, but most of the time.
Did you see an improvement over those 19 years in the number of people you had to incarcerate who were Indigenous, and do you think that there’s hope that it will change in the next 10 or 15 years?
Mr. Nicholas: I was a judge from 1991 to 2000, until I was elevated to a higher seat. In my experience, in Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, the addictions would begin with a simple drink, such as a drink of beer in high school or at a party, and then get out of hand. Then they got into harder alcohol. If they were into drugs, marijuana was the introductory drug and they went on and on. When you get into the hard drugs, this is really what causes a lot of psychological and physical change in an individual who would appear in front of me. They would be deeply depressed, deeply wounded and deeply into a point of almost asking, “What’s the sense of living?” As a sentencing judge, you have to try to give hope to whoever appears in front of you. This is why I would try to make sure that the programs are there so there would be a kind of counselling session, either methadone treatment if they didn’t go to provincial institutions or some kind of psychological testing.
I can tell you, Senator Richards, in New Brunswick there are not enough psychologists, not enough counselling agencies to do this work in a good way. When I left in 2009, as I look at the papers now, it’s still the same way. Most of the people who appeared in front of me, believe it or not, if they had a Grade 8 education, that was wonderful; but they were unemployed. A lot of them had a lot of serious mental problems, and unless these were addressed in the future then this is the only life they would know. That’s a sad fact for me to say. Hopefully, there is hope in the future for these kinds of programs that the member of Parliament wants to bring into being, but it’s going to have to be an investment of money.
Senator Richards: Right. Thank you very much. That was my next question — will we have the resources to help?
As I say, I came from an area that had a lot of crime during different parts of my life, and almost all of it had to do with drugs and alcohol. Not everything, but almost all of it had an association with that. You are right, they would appear in court utterly ashamed of what they did and not know at times why they did it. I’m hopeful that this bill passes and there will be resources to help.
Senator Oh: Thank you, Mr. Nicholas and Ms. Latimer, for being here with us.
Mr. Nicholas, you have great experience, with 18 or 19 years as a judge, and you do a lot of work with Indigenous people. It seems a big part of the bill here is in relation to Indigenous people. Do you think this bill goes far enough to take care of the Indigenous people, and if not, what is your suggestion?
Mr. Nicholas: Thank you very much, senator, for that question. We need to make sure that in those institutions and in the provision of the studies, Indigenous people have to be very much a part of that. Many parole officers and probation officers are not Indigenous. They don’t understand our communities and they are the ones who will help these individuals who come out of institutions to make that adjustment into public life again. This is why I’m such a proponent in trying to make sure more of our Indigenous people are involved in the treatment programs, our elders and our other professionals, to make these programs successful. However, funding will have to be identified for that purpose.
Ms. Latimer: It’s extremely important that these measures be appropriately tested and, if there’s adequate evaluation, the benefits of investment in terms of long-term savings should be pretty clear if the elements of this are well tested.
I believe you were asking what more needs to be done for Indigenous people.
Senator Oh: Yes.
Ms. Latimer: There needs to be culturally relevant programming for them and you need to involve people who understand their culture and what makes sense for them. You also need to talk to individuals, regardless of their race and ethnic background, to find out what they need as individuals to succeed. Many of them have gained comfort by being exposed to their culture and this has been a huge asset to them. However, we need to figure out whether that’s the case.
Other ethnic groups — and I’m now largely talking about Black community members — have not had the opportunity to get that kind of relevant programming that Indigenous people are starting to get. What we find with the numbers is that Black prisoners’ recidivism rates are relatively low compared to other groups, yet their progress in terms of getting to lower levels of custody within the custodial system and getting parole is lower and there’s a disjuncture there.
The Chair: Sorry, Ms. Latimer, we’ll have to leave it there.
Senator Cotter: Professor Nicholas, welcome and thank you for joining us. It’s hard to think of where your career could go next. Maybe you should join the Senate. Also, Ms. Latimer, it’s excellent to see you again, and thank you for joining us.
My question is largely in relation to the culture of correctional services and particularly the culture of the Correctional Service of Canada as being a kind of impediment to progress here. I want to recount one small anecdote. I had mentioned in the previous panel that I’d served as the deputy minister responsible for corrections in Saskatchewan for five years, and I was basically coaxed by Indigenous leadership at a First Nation just outside Regina, the Standing Buffalo Dakota First Nation, to come out and do a sweat lodge. They had a keenness to introduce sweat lodges into the correctional centres in Saskatchewan. I was a middle-aged White guy, and had little understanding and probably not much engagement on that. The experience was powerful and difficult, but a real insight for me, so that in a small way I got a glimpse of a cultural need and shortly after that we put sweat lodges into all the correctional centres as a way of healing with respect to people who wanted to tap into their Indigenous spirituality.
However, I’m sure there were all kinds of other shortcomings on my part that never got the cultural dimension. I am significantly worried that, as supportive as I am of this bill, the cultural barrier and the cultural resistance — not necessarily out of meanness, but ignorance — will prevent us from being as successful as we might be. I would ask you both to comment on that.
Ms. Latimer: I will speak to it in terms of Black prisoners, mainly because I was concerned about that statistical issue that I raised in the answer to the last question.
I’ve been talking to a lot of Black prisoners about whether or not the programs are aligned with their culture and why they’re perceived as being more problematic and getting slower release rates. One of them said something that really resonated: “They’re providing me with programs to prepare me to reintegrate into a White, middle-class neighbourhood. That’s not where I’m from and that’s not where I’m going,” so that’s a complete mismatch. Yet when they reintegrate into their own communities, they do relatively well.
We need to find out what we’re missing, what we’re not understanding about the supports that actually help them that may not be what the White, middle-class community would find beneficial or would help them. I agree with you, Senator Cotter, we need to bridge it out and try to understand this better.
Mr. Nicholas: The Senate is fortunate because I’m already 75, so I wouldn’t cause any problems in your chamber. However, you mentioned sweat lodges, and I’m really grateful you did so; that’s the spiritual dimension I’ve been trying to talk about in my presentation and responses to questions by other senators.
The spiritual component for our people is so important. In essence, that is who we are. When that was made a criminal offence back in the late 1800s and never restored, that created the problem. Right across this country, the federal and provincial governments that administer these programs must appreciate the significance of spirituality for our people. We’re not talking about other people, we’re talking about our own people. That is the healing that is needed. Once that is recognized, promoted and supported, you will see major changes in the recidivism rate.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Nicholas, are you aware of any changes made by the CSC and the federal government following the 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision on Ewert v. Canada, which requested CSC to stop applying some of the risk assessment tools to Indigenous prisoners?
Mr. Nicholas: No, I’m not aware of that at all, but it would not surprise me because you’re dealing with an institution that is very rigid. It almost has a military history to it, in which it says the precedent is this way, the prisoners are here, they’ve got to do their time whether they like it or not and eventually they’ll get out. Again, what this speaks of is the absence of the Indigenous voice. The institution does not know who our people are and what our needs are.
It’s nice to have the Supreme Court of Canada make decisions such as that, but I’ll give you an example. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated in the Gladue decision that for every Indigenous person to appear in front of a sentencing judge the Gladue report should be done; in other words, find out the cultural background of an Indigenous person as to why these offences are committed.
Here in the province of New Brunswick, the Government of New Brunswick is not following that Supreme Court decision. Why? I can’t answer that. It is the authorities at this level who would have to respond to that. It’s a shame, because our culture is very important. You can’t deny that and it shouldn’t be denied either. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Latimer, do you know of any?
Ms. Latimer: I don’t believe that they have changed the risk assessment tools. I can’t say that they have or they haven’t, but I don’t think that they have. They were going to try and validate them through a study out of the University of Saskatchewan, but I don’t know if that materialized into something that would lead them to have changed their risk assessment tools.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much.
Senator McPhedran: I’d like to begin by asking both panellists, please, if you have any more information about the statistic that was quoted to us about a seven-times-greater likelihood of the children of prisoners and former prisoners offending, finding themselves in the criminal legal system and ultimately in prison. We weren’t given any kind of a source.
Ms. Latimer: I don’t have any information on that. I apologize.
Mr. Nicholas: I can only speak from experience as a provincial court judge, Senator McPhedran. It’s sad to know that, in my 19 years as a provincial court judge, I dealt with grandfathers, fathers and the children, a third generation, who appeared in various criminal offences in front of me.
It’s sad when you look at their situations, but when you look at the poverty that these people lived in, the very limited educational achievements that they have had and the limited opportunities they had for work, the only thing they knew was the criminal world and how to sell drugs or how to break in somewhere and fence what’s taken, just so they could support a terrible habit.
That’s what I’ve seen in my courts in 19 years; three generations. If it goes on through three generations, I’m not sure about the next four. That’s really all I can add to this. But I do thank you for that particularly great question that you’ve asked.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for the responses. If either of you know of any research being done that would test this statistic, I think our committee would be very interested. I don’t think any of us are willing to accept a statistic that doesn’t have a research source but that is quite stigmatizing in and of itself to the children of prisoners and former prisoners. Thank you if you can provide any further information by writing to this committee.
My quick second question is a version of what I asked the previous panel. We don’t have anyone from a civil society organization on this panel with very focused gender-based analysis. Do either of you know of programs in Canada where there has been success that has been seen and documented in responding to the particular needs of racialized and/or otherwise marginalized prisoners who identify as women?
Ms. Latimer: I’m not familiar with any particular studies on that. There are some distinct needs of racialized people, which includes a lot of trauma and the need for trauma-based approaches. There have been some studies that have looked at the effectiveness of trauma-based approaches but I don’t know whether those approaches have been applied to that particular group. I can look for you and see if we can come back with something, but off the top of my head, I’m not familiar with them.
Mr. Nicholas: I will have to do the same, senator. I think there are programs dealing with Indigenous women out in the West but I have to look for them and forward them to your office.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. My question is about the bill and the fact that this is the development of a framework. Have each of you been invited to make any additional specific recommendations or proposals to quick-start this bill, shall we say, in the event that it is passed?
Ms. Latimer: The John Howard Society was approached about the bill early on and we liked it almost as soon as we read it. We’ve been very supportive of that.
We did make a couple of suggestions, which were really minor, about how the bill could be improved, and I think those were adopted before it was introduced in the House of Commons. Then there was another change that I quite liked that the House of Commons included, which was to take a look at those risk assessment tools and make them culturally relevant, which I think is a plus for that bill as well.
Mr. Nicholas: I haven’t been involved in discussions. That may take place after. I would encourage you to include Indigenous voices. You need our elders involved in order to improve the system. That’s what I would contribute at this stage.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, we’ve reached the end of our panel time and I’d like to sincerely thank Mr. Nicholas and Ms. Latimer once again for appearing before the committee today.
Senators, before we adjourn, I wish to advise committee members that the steering committee has agreed that next Monday, June 14, the committee will hear from one panel of witnesses for 90 minutes followed by clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Honourable senators, I thank you for your participation today.
(The committee adjourned.)