THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 12, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:02 p.m. [ET] to study the government Response to the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights entitled “Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons”, tabled in the Senate on June 16, 2021, during the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon. I am Salma Ataullahjan, a senator from Toronto and chair of this committee.
Today we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I will take this opportunity to invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Arnot: My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan. I live in Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba, from Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia. I’m substituting today, but I was part of this study, so I’m glad to be back.
The Chair: Welcome back, senators. This is the first time the Human Rights Committee is meeting. Happy new year to everyone. Welcome to all those who are following our deliberations.
For our first public hearing of the year, the committee will study the government response to its Human Rights of Federally‑Sentenced Persons report. This report was tabled on June 16, 2021, during the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament, following an in-depth study launched in early 2017, which spanned three different parliaments. The committee visited 28 federal penitentiaries and held 30 public hearings in Ottawa. The report, which included 71 recommendations, was followed by a motion asking for a government response on June 23, 2021.
Then came the Canadian federal elections, September 20, 2021. Following the elections, no government response was then sent or tabled.
On the committee’s decision, the motion asking for a government response was renewed on May 9, 2023, and the response was received from the Minister of Public Safety on October 4 of the same year. This is the response that our committee decided to study today.
This afternoon we shall have two panels. In each panel we shall hear from the witnesses and then the senators will have a question-and-answer session.
I will now introduce our first panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make a five-minute statement. With us in person at the table today, I wish to welcome, from Correctional Service Canada, Kathy Neil, Deputy Commissioner, Indigenous Corrections; France Gratton, Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs; Marie Doyle, Assistant Commissioner, Health Services. And from Public Safety Canada, Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Crime Prevention Branch.
I now invite Ms. Neil to give her opening remarks.
Kathy Neil, Deputy Commissioner, Indigenous Corrections, Correctional Service Canada: Madam Chair and members of this committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the numerous steps that the Correctional Service of Canada, also known as CSC, is taking to address the many issues and themes that were raised in your report on the human rights of federally sentenced persons.
I am Kathy Marie Neil, daughter of Mary Theresa Lanigan, who fought for fairness and justice; and granddaughter of Marie Laurette Delia Gagnon, whose kindness and generosity touched all who crossed her path. I am the great-granddaughter of Marie Rose Delima Ledoux, whose father and grandfathers fought in the Métis resistance of 1885. It is my grandmother’s strength and determination to survive the traumatic experiences of residential school that has been my inspiration.
I am the great-great-great-granddaughter of Cecile Desjarlais and Marie Brazzeau, women who were forced to leave Red River, unable to live peaceably in their homeland following the influx of Canadians from Ontario after the Métis resistance of 1869. Their values and strength are part of my blood memory, making me the person I am today.
I’m proud to be the first Deputy Commissioner for Indigenous Corrections at the Correctional Service Canada.
In my role, I am responsible for working closely with the commissioner to take meaningful action to address the over‑representation of Indigenous peoples within the criminal justice system and within our federal penitentiaries.
With regard to your report, I want to reiterate that human rights are essential to all that we do at CSC. Not only is a human-rights-based approach to corrections enshrined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, but it is also at the forefront of the development of policies, programs and practices that promote the safe and humane supervision of offenders. This includes the development of policies and the delivery of programs for vulnerable and marginalized groups in our care.
These policies and programs take into consideration each offender’s complex and unique needs. For example, new Commissioner’s Directives have been implemented, including one specifically designed to address the unique needs of gender‑diverse offenders. In addition, new initiatives have been taken, such as the Black Offender Strategy, which works to identify new opportunities to address the unique lived experiences and barriers faced by federally sentenced Black individuals. These are just two of the more recent measures taken by CSC to respond to the needs of our diverse population.
It is vital that we fully support the rehabilitation of federally incarcerated persons. Fundamentally, most of them will be released back into our communities once they’ve completed their sentence. It’s in every Canadian’s best interest that offenders leave our institutions better equipped than when they entered them, able to live the rest of their lives as law-abiding citizens.
Since becoming the Deputy Commissioner for Indigenous Corrections over nine months ago, I’ve been working hard to address many of the issues that you have identified in your report. It’s my mandate and job to work with partners to find collaborative solutions in relation to the best mechanisms for CSC to ensure the implementation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls to Justice and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action within our purview. I will continue to support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Before turning it over to you for your questions, I would like to highlight a few areas in which we continue to make progress.
Firstly, in your report you identified barriers for women in accessing the Mother-Child Program. To ensure that the program is as inclusive as possible, we are revising the definition of “mother” to be further inclusive of culture and various family structures, intergenerational parenting and kinship supports, as well as developing an awareness campaign to encourage greater participation.
Secondly, as it pertains to section 81 agreements, we continue to work with communities to ensure that federally sentenced Indigenous people have access to culturally relevant programming and supports for their safe return to the community. In fiscal year 2022-23, there was a 28.9% increase in the number of federally sentenced Indigenous people transferred to a healing lodge over the previous fiscal year, as well as a 10.5% increase in the number of successful transfers to lower security. These are promising signs which we hope to continue to build upon.
Thirdly, we agree that making investments in communities and working with local organizations furthers the goal of providing for the safe rehabilitation of offenders.
I am proud of the important investments that we are making in the Indigenous Offender Reintegration Contribution Program. Backed by $5.5 million, this program works to distribute funds directly to community-based Indigenous partners to facilitate Indigenous offender reintegration support by strengthening community partners and enhancing community engagement. While CSC has made important progress on issues pertaining to the delivery of programming and efforts of over-representation, there is more that we can do. And I plan on playing my role to bring about continued and positive change.
Senators, I thank you for what you’ve done to raise awareness of these important issues. As the Deputy Commissioner for Indigenous Corrections, I look forward to working with you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Neil, for your presentation. Before we go any further, we’ve been joined by two senators. I would like to ask them to introduce themselves.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
The Chair: We will now proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, you have five minutes for your questions and that includes the answer.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses, for coming today. I have a general question for all the witnesses.
The report in 2021 provided recommendations around adequate mental health during incarceration, addressing the over-representation of Indigenous people and providing supports for the reintegration into the community post-incarceration. I just ask Ms. Doyle, Ms. Gratton and Mr. Westmacott, what has your organization done specifically to address those concerns?
Particularly with Ms. Neil, I have a question. The Prairie regions, which are Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, face significant challenges in relation to over-representation of Indigenous people. You have a stated goal of creating a more equitable and culturally sensitive correction system. I’m wondering, what are your challenges in getting to that goal? How is it going so far?
Ms. Neil: Do you want to start with me?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Ms. Neil: You know what, the over-representation of Indigenous people is a significant challenge. I think it’s a significant challenge as a society, as well as all levels of government that we need to work collectively at. Some of the recommendations with regard to alternatives to corrections and investment at the front end are important factors when we’re looking at a 33% Indigenous admission rate with corrections.
Having said that, I think one of the key factors and areas that I look to enhance is really that community engagement and engaging those communities to be part of the answer. Staying in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and the importance of that engagement takes time.
I think some of the things that CSC has done recently that I’m very proud of is the Indigenous Offender Reintegration Contribution Program, wherein we’re investing in those communities to provide some of those supports to offenders on release, as well as building capacity in those communities to contribute to their structured release plan, as well as providing the services when they are on release in the community.
Senator Arnot: The coroner’s jury in the James Smith incident recently made a number of recommendations. How do you propose to address those recommendations specifically when it comes to the challenge to the Correctional Service Canada?
Ms. Neil: First of all, I want to say our hearts go out to all the victims of that tragedy within Saskatchewan. We are currently looking at the recommendations, and we will develop a response to that. Having said that, a few of those recommendations are in line with some of the work we’re already doing, specifically in relation to elders.
We have recently completed an elders audit wherein we engaged with all of our elders to get their feedback in terms of how to support them better, how to increase their voice within CSC, get their input on how we address some of the recruitment and retention challenges we’re facing within CSC.
We were fortunate enough that in October of 2023, we were able to gather approximately 120 of the 160 elders that we have working for CSC at the National Gathering of Elders in Edmonton. In that, we were able to get their feedback in terms of what the key concerns are, how they think we can increase their voice and how can we support them in the very difficult work that they do. As a result of that, we have developed a national action plan, which includes, again, regular reporting and feedback to the elders. It includes review and update of Commissioner’s Directive 702, which is the Indigenous interventions, wherein we will write into policy some of the direct engagement or reinforcement of that position of respect for the elders and things such as the responsibility to give protocol and who gives the protocol.
In addition to that, we’re drafting a guideline of how to work with elders that really speaks to what ceremonies mean and the impact of those ceremonies so that we can inform our staff so they understand not necessarily what specifically happens in a Sun Dance but what is the impact of a Sun Dance? What are some of the teachings of the elders? How do we engage and ask questions respectfully of the elders in order to garner that information?
Senator Arnot: Thanks for that.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for your presence today and for your opening remarks. Sorry I missed some of it.
I have a few questions on the report, starting with the amount of daily pay and Recommendation 13 regarding the cost of living. Our study revealed that the most that can be earned is $6.90 a day, of which 30% is deducted for room and board and an additional 8% to access the telephone, which leaves them with little over $4. This is not nearly enough to cover their needs and certainly does not allow them to save up to build a better life once they leave. The recommendation is not specifically addressed in the government’s response.
My question is: What is being done by the government to keep up with the cost of living? I think this amount, if I’m not mistaken, has been the same for quite a while. I may be wrong. You can correct me. But that’s my understanding. Thank you. If you can answer that question.
France Gratton, Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, Correctional Service Canada: Thank you for the question. Yes, the amount has been the same for a while, but terms of inmate money, we’ve made some significant changes since the report. After some consultation mainly with inmates, a decision was made to abolish the room and board fees and other fees that were for the telephone system, so inmates don’t have to pay for those specific fees. That allowed them to have, I would say, more money.
We’ve also made some changes around the mechanics of the inmate pay, but there is more flexibility now in terms of transfer so they can transfer more money. We’ve also added to our policy the requirement for inmates to save money in preparation for their release.
Those are specific actions that were taken in terms of inmate money. In terms of cost of living, considering that there has been an increase in terms of costs in many things, there’s been some concrete initiatives in terms of inmate purchasing. One of them is that we’ve come to an agreement with different suppliers, so there’s more opportunity for offenders to buy goods, if needed, and this allows them to save a little more in terms of cost of living.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. Now, at the end of the day, each day, how much is a prisoner left with in their hands? Before it was $4. I couldn’t calculate as fast as you were speaking. Now what would they be left with every day?
Ms. Gratton: Me neither. I cannot calculate that. It would be more like in terms of period of pay.
Senator Jaffer: I’m not trying to ask a trick question. Perhaps you can provide that to us.
My question is, from my calculation the way I understood it, it was $4 a day they were left with. Now what would they be left with? You don’t need to calculate now. If you can kindly provide the answer to the clerk.
I have a follow-up question. I was with other senators visiting many prisons. One of the biggest challenges Black people had was with their hair products. People you contract with to sell things at the prison, the hair products always cost more than the products for other prisoners, for Black prisoners. Has there been a change in that?
Ms. Gratton: Some work has been done towards that as well. Part of the Black offender strategy that has been put in place — again, since the report — was to ensure that Black offenders get services.
Based on the consultation that we had with our Black offenders, this is one of the concerns that was raised. Now, it’s in our policy that all sites can procure such products so they can make it available for offenders for them to purchase.
Senator Jaffer: At a better price?
Ms. Gratton: Yes, the price on the market. At least now it’s available for Black offenders if they want to purchase.
Senator Jaffer: Can you kindly provide to the clerk exactly how much the cost is? Every prison I’ve gone to, Black offenders have said to me they always pay more than the market value of the product off-site.
Ms. Gratton: Okay.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. I’d like to follow up on that, because I remember — particularly at the women’s prison in Truro that we visited — it was not only the cost of the Black hair products, but it was also the cost of everything because they had to order it out of a special catalogue. They couldn’t order it from Walmart. I understand if you’re ordering it from wherever, it’s going to be checked when it comes in. They felt it was significantly higher.
Has that changed in the past few years since we met with the prisoners at the women’s institute?
The Chair: Before you answer the question, I would like to add, Senator Cordy, one thing we heard was that if somebody got the wrong size, and not what they had asked for, there was no recourse for them to change or send back any of the products.
Senator Cordy: Yes. The quality was often very poor, whether it was a T-shirt or whatever; it was very poor quality.
Ms. Gratton: Now we have more than one supplier, which allows for more flexibility. We also came to an agreement with Amazon. This is one option that gives more opportunity, if it doesn’t fit or if there’s a need to return what was purchased. They can get exactly what was bought.
I would answer your question by saying there have been some changes since the report. Now, there’s not only one supplier, there’s more than one, which gives more flexibility and opportunities for offenders to buy products.
Senator Cordy: I know in the report you sent back you clumped things together. Is there such a word? You put things together rather than listing the recommendations and what you did.
I’m a list person. I like to tick yes, circle or X things that still have to be done. Is there a reason you did it that way? I found that made it more challenging to compare apples to apples.
Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for that question.
Yes, there was a reason we did it that way. In essence, it is because of the number of recommendations that were included therein.
Generally, a common practice among government responses to reports depends on the number of recommendations there. If it becomes too unwieldy, it becomes difficult for Canadians to read the response because it’s long. The idea with this one is we wanted to capture the broad themes and direction of the recommendations that were in there and respond to those.
The other issue is there were a number of recommendations that were cross-cutting. The activities that were going on would respond to one or multiple of the recommendations, hence why we thought the most appropriate approach would be this thematic approach.
Senator Cordy: It made it more difficult.
My next question is based on access to community-based mental health services. That, of course, was a recommendation that came out of Ashley Smith’s death. I know those of us who were on the committee stood in the cell where this young girl committed suicide with people watching. It was something I don’t think we will ever forget, a young person doing that, and the trauma.
What is CSC doing since this report came out in terms of community-based settings for mental health assessments? When we travelled across this country and went to different prisons, I remember walking into a prison saying, these people should not be in a prison; they should be in a hospital or medical setting. Here we were having them in jail when it was medical help that they needed. What has been done in that field to make things better?
Marie Doyle, Assistant Commissioner, Health Services, Correctional Service Canada: Thank you for the question.
Since 2019, we’ve had the opportunity of an additional $74 million annually to support strength and care, including mental health care.
In 2020, we implemented an evidence-based approach to suicide prevention. Part of the $74 million allowed us to connect with external psychiatric supports and services, approximately $9.2 million.
At the same time, we’ve also been able to augment our in‑house capacity in terms of clinical social workers and nurses to better address the whole person, including the mental health needs of offenders who are within our care.
In terms of the partnership’s component, working very closely with thought leaders and experts in mental health services — the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH, The Royal Ottawa Hospital — in terms of our models and approaches; as well, looking to explore what might be available in terms of outside of CSC, opportunities for care.
We were able to extend the capacity at Pinel, a provincial facility, in terms of the number of beds. We’re going to continue to work with provincial authorities to try and leverage available supports and services at their facilities.
Our access to those facilities is entirely dependent on the clinical admission criteria of those hospitals, as well as patient willingness to participate in those programs, through continued work to expand what’s available outside of CSC but also bolstering what’s available within CSC, relying on external partners to inform those programs and services, has been some of the work that we’ve undertaken.
Senator Cordy: How many new beds are there?
Ms. Doyle: In terms of external beds?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Ms. Doyle: Currently, at Pinel there are 16 beds in total, as well as some additional beds for women.
The numbers in terms of capacity does remain low. Again, we’re continuing to work to expand those institutions that might be willing to accept CSC patients in terms of care.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Hello, colleagues. It’s good to be here. I want to expand on all of the questions that I’ve heard so far.
I don’t use the word “clumped,” I use “themed.” I understand exactly what you mean.
I’d like to start by saying thank you, Ms. Neil, for your personal introduction. It’s important to say these women’s names, so I appreciate that. Thank you.
I am also waiting for the response to Senator Jaffer’s question around Black offenders and Black products. I have also visited institutions. My understanding now is that Black offenders have to put aside part of that $4 a day to contribute to a Black History Month celebration, for example. It’s important to understand how much they have to be able to do those types of things that are important.
Coming back to Senator Cordy’s question, in the past when there were studies — and I will use the example of the 2018 report of the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women in federal prisons that had 96 recommendations. There was a specific response to each one of them. What have you done to respond to each of those recommendations since the publishing the report in June 2021? When you have a themed response, it’s hard for us to keep track. I would like to come back to that question and ask you specifically what you have done since the publishing the report that would respond to those 71 recommendations.
I appreciate that the themes are appropriate, but each recommendation was the subject of study, debate and specificity.
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you for that. A number of activities have occurred since the publication of the report — and, they were occurring even before the report — to address a number of recommendations specifically. I don’t have a list of this recommendation because we did it in a thematic approach. However, I can point out a number of activities that have occurred. My colleagues have already raised a number of them through the public safety side of things. For example, we have released the Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism which has a significant activity in terms of the approach that the government wants to take in terms of trying to ensure that individuals who have gone through the criminal justice system can get out of the criminal justice system and reintegrate into society while recognizing some of the key barriers, including access to housing, education, employment and those types of activities. This past November, we released an implementation plan on specific actions that can be done to support the Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism. That’s one example.
A number of activities have occurred to improve access to the Records Suspension Program which again allows for better reintegration and rehabilitation of individuals coming out of the criminal justice system. We have been giving greater access to record suspensions. Through the program, for example, $18 million was provided to 18 organizations to support individuals trying to access a record suspension.
Senator Clement: You say that all of those initiatives have been since the publishing of the report. Could that list be provided to the committee?
Mr. Westmacott: A number of initiatives have occurred that we could put together and provide. A lot of them are in the report, but other activities have occurred. As I said, we don’t have it down recommendation by recommendation.
Senator Clement: I’m more interested in what is new since publishing the response to the report. What have you done in response to the report? I don’t necessarily need 71, but I’d like to see what you have done. If you could try to tie them to specific recommendations, that would be good.
I would like to return to Senator Arnot’s comments about sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA. Is there a list there too in terms of how you’re addressing the increased need for access to those options? Can that also be part of that list?
Ms. Neil: We have a section 81 action plan that we’re addressing in terms of our efforts to increase the utilization of section 81 as well as to expand in under-resourced areas. We could share this section 81 action plan with you.
Senator Clement: Is that since the report or before?
Ms. Neil: It was finalized since the report. It has recently been finalized, yes. That is something since then, and it is a significant area of focus for us.
As well, we have funding in place for urban transition support and home community reintegration supports. That funding was in place prior to the report, but we have placed quite a significant focus on it and believe that in 2024-25, we will exhaust all the funds available for those supports with community Indigenous organizations where historically we haven’t used them all.
So again, progress in areas that may have already been there, but progress since the report has come out.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I believe that we are still awaiting a response with respect to the specific number of products. If time allows, I will come back to the recommendations.
In the response that was sent to us, on page 20 of the French version and page 16 of the English version, it is indicated that the Engagement and Intervention Model for resolving potential institutional incidents that might jeopardize the safety of individuals in your institutions was evaluated during the years 2020 and 2021.
You mentioned an action plan. What meaningful action has been taken so far and what meaningful results have been obtained?
Ms. Gratton: Thank you for your question; I can answer it.
The Engagement and Intervention Model was official introduced in 2018. Following its introduction, several measures were taken to review the model to ensure that it was effective. As you know, this model is focused on the individual and is built on principles. One of these principles is to always evaluate the situation to ensure that we are using the appropriate intervention.
The introduction of the EIM was followed by a lot of training for the staff and an initial review and an evaluation. These steps helped to determine that the model was appropriate and that we needed to continue to do a follow-up with every use of force, to ensure that the EIM is being used properly and that any concerns are communicated so that measures are taken.
Based on the results of the evaluation, we continue to provide training. Different scenarios were created and are used for training purposes, to help the different populations who have specific needs. This allows correctional officers to take ongoing training based on real scenarios and situations that are likely to arise.
More recently, a call for research was made to look specifically at cases of use of force on racialized individuals. Based on the results of that research, we have already engaged our National Ethnocultural Advisory Committee to hold discussions on the results of this research. We also hope to get advice from the committee on how to make any necessary adjustments.
Senator Gerba: We have also noted that recommendation No. 30 is not specifically addressed in the government’s response. It recommends that Correctional Service Canada cancel its policy that allows correctional officers to use inflammatory agents and provide training.
You talked about training, but is there a reason this recommendation is not specifically addressed in the government’s response?
Ms. Gratton: First, I think this is not specifically addressed because the response is broken down in themes. What is more, when it comes more specifically to the issue of inflammatory agents that correctional officers carry on them, this is a piece of equipment that is used when necessary. As I explained earlier, this tool is used in accordance with the Engagement and Intervention Model. It is not used in a context other than for managing incidents that require its specific use.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: So many questions, so little time. Thank you for being here with us. I tend to agree with Senator Clement that whilst our report was so very granular and specific, your themed response is like looking for straw in the wind. So let me try to get specific, particularly in terms of gender and federally sentenced women.
We made a rather specific recommendation — Recommendation 6 — to classify all federally sentenced women as minimum security. That particular recommendation is not addressed in your report. Can you comment?
Ms. Neil: I can comment with regard to the classification of federally sentenced women. The recommendation to classify all women as minimum security really doesn’t follow the legislative requirement of keeping safety and security of the institution and the offenders and staff at the forefront of all our decisions.
Having said that, we do use evidence-based tools to assign a security classification to offenders within our care that has recently been validated for Indigenous women as well as Indigenous men. That evidence-based tool — the Custody Rating Scale — is a tool that assesses the risk and is then combined with the professional judgment of our staff with an outcome of a security rating that is based on the institutional adjustment, public safety as well as escape risk.
Senator Omidvar: So you have a tool, and you are in operations, so you must know the answer to this question. Based on this new tool, could you give me a sense of the percentage of women who are classified as maximum or minimum security?
Ms. Neil: I don’t have the numbers in front of me.
Senator Omidvar: Do you see a trend line?
Ms. Neil: We do watch the trends. You know what? I don’t know actually, off the top of my head, for women, the amount classified as maximum security. The bulk of women are classified in the medium security range. Then we apply professional judgment to make sure that we’re taking into consideration all the dynamic factors, including Indigenous social history, to make the best decision based on the information in front of us.
The staff are also trained and have to be certified before they apply that tool and make those security classification recommendations to the warden.
Senator Omidvar: Can I assume that all federally sentenced women have been subject to this new assessment tool, or is it a work in progress?
Ms. Neil: The tool is applied to all women who have gone through the intake assessment process. After we compile all the information, then all women serving a federal sentence of over two years or more would have that tool applied.
Senator Omidvar: And you’re implying that most women are in the medium security?
Ms. Neil: That’s my understanding.
Senator Omidvar: Your understanding. Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question. Recommendation 55 of the report called for Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, to cease the use of routine strip searches of federally sentenced women. This recommendation was noted but not addressed. Does that mean that CSC has eliminated or reduced the use of strip searches?
Can you give us data on the number of strip searches that have taken place in the past five years?
Ms. Gratton: Thank you for the question. We use strip searches when required and based on information or risk. Searches are conducted in the most discreet, humane and sensitive manner. Searches are conducted by trained staff and in women institutions by the same sex as the offender.
One thing that has changed since the report is that we have been piloting body scanners in two institutions: the Bath Institution, which is a men’s institution in Ontario, and one at the Edmonton Institution for Women. One of the goals with piloting the body scanners and eventually to procure some is to reduce the number of strip searches when applicable. Again, this is part of the initiatives that are being put into place.
The Chair: You said the strip searches are done in a discreet manner. What does that mean? What is discreet about a strip search?
Ms. Gratton: Well, depending on the situation that we are faced with, we would ensure that it’s conducted in a way and in a space where there is as much privacy as possible. We would ensure that we conduct searches in those manners. Like I said, staff are trained. We have a specific way of doing those searches, and staff are trained to do that when they have to do a strip search or any other type of searches.
The Chair: Why wasn’t this recommendation addressed? Recommendation 55 was not specifically addressed. What was the reason?
Ms. Gratton: In the response?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Westmacott: I’m not sure if there was any specific reason on why one recommendation was addressed or not. As I mentioned, it was more thematic, so it wasn’t going through and saying this recommendation or that recommendation.
I don’t have a specific recollection on why information about that specific one did not make it into the response.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: May I ask — following Senator Omidvar’s question — if you can provide us as to exactly how many women are in different classifications because you were — I felt — guessing. Chair, I don’t know how the rest of the members feel, but when preparing for this questioning today, it has been extremely hard. We spent so much time on this report — ad infinitum — if I may say so, and we meticulously worked this out. Then you, Mr. Westmacott, and your team, just decided to theme it. I don’t know if we can, chair, but I would like you and steering to consider if we can ask them to answer the questions again as we set them out because it is very difficult to ask questions when it’s oranges and apples. I think we need to revisit this because we spent hours on this report. We are not receiving the answers that way.
I leave that with steering to think about. I have one question: In all the prisons that I visited, one of the greatest challenges was from Muslim offenders — women and men — that first of all, in their food, not eating pork was often not respected. I’m not going to repeat what they were told when they asked, but I was shocked by the answers they were getting. So faith is not respected. More often than not, we were told that their rugs were either cut up — by whom, they couldn’t tell — or thrown away by the cleaners. That’s what they told me. The cutting of the rugs was not done by the cleaners. Very rarely were they given a chance to worship together. You may not have answers to this now, Mr. Westmacott, but I can tell you that in every prison we visited, we found it very challenging to hear from Muslim offenders — men and women — that their faith was not respected.
This was not in the report but was something we found out when we were visiting the prisons because of this report. Can you expand on that, or will you provide an answer?
The Chair: Just to clarify, the rug Senator Jaffer is referring to is the prayer rug. We heard from some of the Sikhs that they had a hard time getting some of the religious books too.
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you for that. I’ll turn to my CSC colleagues to reply to that.
Ms. Gratton: I can speak to a couple of things. In terms of diet and menu, you were probably told during your visit that an offender can ask for a specific diet, and that would go through an established process. I don’t know if you were told that. I don’t know if there were some exceptions, but there are possibilities for offenders to ask for a specific diet that is based either on health concerns or religious or spiritual reasons. That procedure is already in place. That would be for the first part of the question.
For the second part of the question —
Senator Jaffer: With the greatest of respect, Ms. Gratton, I do not see it as a diet thing. I think it’s a religious thing. Where the offender comes in and they say they are Muslims, they shouldn’t be requesting a special diet. That’s what they eat, okay? That’s number one.
Number two, if they are requested, when will they get it? Can you inquire please and let this committee know whether religious dietary norms are followed, or what happens with prayer rugs, with a room to pray together?
Now I do understand there are security reasons. When we went to visit some prisons, people were not in specific cells. They were not in isolation. They were in open — I forget the word. We were often told that there were great restrictions in practising faith, both for Muslims and Sikhs. If you can kindly find out and let the clerk know.
Senator Cordy: Getting back to the 16 beds for mental health services community beds, where are they? Are they all in one spot or are they spread out?
Ms. Doyle: Thanks. I want to correct that it’s 15 beds for men and 5 for women, so 20 in total. Currently the beds are all located in L’Institut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel, the forensic psychiatric facility; but as I mentioned, we are continuing to explore the willingness of other hospitals and institutions to enter into MOUs with us, which is the means by which we can secure care for offenders in outside facilities.
As I mentioned, the challenge is that it is entirely dependent on those institutions’ clinical admission criteria and the willingness, of course, of the patient to participate in those. It’s definitely an area we will continue to explore as we look to strengthen.
As I said, we were able to augment our capacity within CSC but at the same time wanting to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to augment what is available outside, but we don’t control the willingness of those external institutions in terms of being willing to partner with us. It’s an area of ongoing priority, absolutely.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. One of the things we heard a lot about when we travelled was racism and sexism. We heard it certainly about prisoners who were treated poorly because of their race or because they were females. That’s not even talking about transgender, which was very challenging for them.
When we travelled, we also heard, which surprised me, staff asking us if we could meet them in private, and it was about racism and sexism. We heard this across the country, people saying, “Could I meet with your committee this evening?” and we actually took them off site and met with them.
This is not all employees, certainly, but all it takes is one or two or three to make life very difficult for other colleagues who work with them or for prisoners. Do you have statistics on this? Are you aware of this? What is happening?
Ms. Gratton: I don’t have the specific statistics. I don’t have them with me, but we regularly do a public service employee survey. We would be able to extract information from the results of the survey.
Senator Cordy: Are these surveys confidential? They certainly didn’t want to speak publicly with us. As I said, we met them off site.
Ms. Gratton: They are confidential. We recently conducted a survey within CSC based on the audit of culture, so the result following that survey will inform us and will help us identify actions.
Maybe I could speak to actions that were taken since the report, and it’s the development of the anti-racism framework. CSC takes this very seriously. CSC created a new directorate, built out an anti-racism framework, engaged with all of the Excom members on the different actions. As of now, we are working with our audit and evaluation sector to develop performance measurements to then have concrete actions and indicators.
This is based on consultation that took place with offenders. Since the report, there has been training given to staff. There has been some training on unconscious bias and anti-racism training.
The Chair: Thank you. We are running out of time. Maybe you could send us a written response to Senator Cordy’s question. I think we would all be interested. We are hearing about training, and we would like to know what is being done and how successful that training has been.
Senator Clement: I fully endorse the request for additional and more specific information, especially what new initiatives there have been since the publishing of the report.
Ms. Neil, in your opening comment you said something about the increase of Indigenous persons being transferred to healing lodges. I want to reference the following from the most recent Correctional Investigator report.
Releases via Section 81 from 2012 to 2013 were 72 using 84% of Section 81 beds. Section 81 releases in 2022-23 were 92 using 66% of Section 81 beds.
So 92 for 2022-23 out of more than 4,000 Indigenous people in prison. Can you speak to that? It doesn’t seem like things are getting better. Things are in place, but the decarceration is not happening for Indigenous people.
Ms. Neil: I can speak to the focus that we have right now on the Section 81 beds as well as the utilization of the Section 81 beds and the healing lodge beds. We have approximately 450 beds, and right now I believe we’re at a 75% utilization. I watch these numbers quite regularly and have created a quarterly results report which reports the utilization of those beds to all of the regional deputy commissioners on a quarterly basis. Should we see them begin to decline, I will engage with those regional deputy commissioners in order to increase those as well.
I am pleased to say that there has been a 28% increase in the use of those beds. I believe that part of that increase is as a result of pilot structure in the Indigenous initiatives division in the Prairie region wherein enhanced resources have been allocated which focus specifically on the utilization of Section 81 beds.
Senator Clement: And those quarterly reports are public? You release them?
Ms. Neil: They are not public. We do have the Indigenous Corrections Accountability Framework, which is a public document that is released annually. It’s going to be published at the end of this year. We were behind in them, but we will be all caught up by the end of this fiscal year.
Senator Clement: You’ll understand we need to see more information and more response to the report.
Ms. Neil: I do understand. Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to thank the witnesses for agreeing to participate in this study. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our second panel. Each of the witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.
With us at the table, please welcome Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada; and Nyki Kish, Associate Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. I now invite Ms. Latimer to make her presentation, followed by Ms. Kish.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: Thank you very much, senators. It’s great to be here. The John Howard Society of Canada is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the government’s response to the important report made by the Senate, Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons. I would first like to thank senators for the efforts made to consult so broadly, including with prisoners, for this particular study.
The response from the government is characteristic of responses to recommendations proposing changes to correctional practices — a thematic approach rather than a recommendation by recommendation assessment. The response is general, with a heavy dose of what is already being done, and a focus on what laws and policies intend or are meant to achieve rather than on the actual metrics and results. There is a vague agreement to all the recommendations but no commitment as to when they might be implemented.
There is an increasing frustration by those making recommendations about CSC’s failure to implement them. Both the Correctional Investigator and the Auditor General appeared before a parliamentary committee and complained that they are forced to repeat the same recommendations and they are not implemented. Just last week, the coroner’s inquest into the death of Terry Baker noted CSC’s failure to implement recommendations made three years prior to Ms. Baker’s death by a coroner’s inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, who died in the same cell in similar circumstances as Ms. Baker. The coroner’s jury into Terry Baker’s death recommended that 27 of the earlier recommendations be implemented more than a decade after they were made.
This resistance to change is a frustration shared by those of us seeking to ensure that the rights of prisoners are respected. While there are many important recommendations in the Senate report, I would like to draw your attention to abusive solitary confinement, which was touched on in the Senate report in recommendations 33 and 34.
Courts of appeal found that administrative segregation provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act violated prisoners’ Charter rights not to be subjected to cruel punishment and to have principles of fundamental justice respected when they are placed in isolated confinement. The court also cautioned against placing those with pre-existing mental health conditions in administrative segregation.
We have shared with the committee a research report published last August indicating that the Charter deficiencies of administrative segregation have not been corrected by the Structured Intervention Units, or SIUs. Charter violations relate to cruelty — a prolonged solitary confinement — which is prohibited by the United Nations as a form of torture and was capped by the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision at 15 days, and the independent external decision makers’ failure to safeguard principles of fundamental justice in placement decisions.
Given the concerns that were raised about the implementation of the legislative reforms, a very robust parliamentary review provision was included. In Bill C-83, section 40 requires that Parliament conduct a comprehensive review of the bill at the beginning of the fifth year after the review clause was proclaimed in force, which was June 21, 2019, and the bill requires a report recommending any needed legislative reforms within a year. The review should have begun last June, and a report should be forthcoming in about four months.
In conclusion, when recommendations touch on non-compliance with law or Charter protections, then a different standard of oversight and accountability is required. After acknowledging findings of abuse in the Structured Intervention Units, neither the Minister of Public Safety nor the Minister of Justice, who has a statutory duty to ensure that public administration is in compliance with the law, chose to act. Parliament also has not acted on its statutory requirement to begin the comprehensive review of Bill C-83, which should have started in June 2023.
Admittedly, respecting the rights of prisons is like not winning politics. That is why we are so grateful to the Senate for taking on the difficult challenge of promoting the rule of law and ensuring that prisoners’ rights are respected. An agency of the state should not be allowed to ignore the Charter and laws, particularly when that results in an erosion of mental health and cruelty, even torture, of our fellow citizens.
The John Howard Society hopes the Senate will demand better responses to some of the recommendations it made in its report, with commitments to timelines, deliverables and metrics. The John Howard Society of Canada also hopes that senators will continue their important oversight work through visiting prisons.
I really want to thank senators for their excellent work in that regard, and I look forward to any questions you might have for me.
Nyki Kish, Associate Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: Thank you for having me here today.
The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, or CAEFS, monitor conditions in penitentiaries designated for women and supports 22 organizations nationally that provide vital services to criminalized people pre-, during and post‑incarceration.
Every day, we work to address the very real problems outlined in the senators’ report. Calls from our organization are in chorus with your excellent recommendations and, indeed, with a host of reports and oversight bodies all saying that many things are going wrong on the ground in penitentiaries and that a great deal of human suffering and loss are the result.
Unfortunately, the government’s response misses a real opportunity to address the important concerns and recommendations raised. Instead, the government describes what it’s doing right.
I do not want to minimize or negate positive efforts. We appreciate the government’s continued commitments. However, the response does not represent the realities in penitentiaries where, today, human and legal right violations continue to be rampant and have many rippling effects into communities that worsen public safety outcomes for everyone.
The reason the programs and initiatives listed in the government’s response haven’t and aren’t capable of resolving the problems they speak to is because they are not fundamentally addressing the very needed and long-called-for changes.
We have penitentiaries filled with people who don’t need to be incarcerated. They are there via poverty, mental health, discrimination and addiction. We subject people to long periods of incarceration, with virtually no access to technology.
Few programs adequately prepare people to be employed in the community. The good programs listed in the government’s response reach but a handful of the total incarcerated population; yet every incarcerated person is subject to incredibly expensive and barrier-laden processes to maintain contact with their families. So while programs designed to encourage strong family bonds will be helpful to some, programming is not the needed systemic solution; affordable phone rates, accessible visits and decarceration are.
Visiting rooms in prisons designated for women are notoriously mostly empty, and it’s not because people do not have families and communities that love them. It is because of the many barriers to visiting people in prison.
Women and gender-diverse people are being involuntarily transferred across the country at alarming rates, being taken to prisons thousands of kilometres from their family, community and culture, especially from the Prairies, which the Senate report addresses.
But as a marker of success, the government responds by listing the Private Family Visits program. I agree that it is essential. However, in practice, people are incarcerated far from their families, there aren’t enough visiting units for everyone and during the pandemic they were closed and turned into isolation units. Today, the Edmonton Institution for Women still doesn’t have an operational private family visiting unit.
The government’s listed solution to marginalized people being in prison is to understand risk and integrate that more intersectionally into correctional planning, but this will do little if it is blind to the punitive conditions, by design, that engulf it. Poor nutrition, isolation, lockdowns, intensely restricted movement, menial work for dollars a day while people have families to support in the community — those are the foundational problems keeping people who want to lead good lives marginalized, vulnerable and in cycles of incarceration. It works against reintegrated goals.
The response doesn’t mention many recommendations, including 38, which speaks to the very broken grievance system. People in prison don’t know how to use it; they are fearful to use it; and many times when they do use it at its lower levels, the staff responding do not have a strong grasp of law and policy. Yet this is their only mechanism to address rights violations, such as health care, another area that desperately needs authentic attention.
Incarcerated people experience accelerated aging and a life expectancy drastically reduced versus the general population.
I could spend days providing you with other specific examples across each of the four themes the government addressed, but each month, CAEFS publishes letters documenting issues incarcerated women and gender-diverse people face. We situate those within a law and policy framework, so I’ll be submitting a current sample, they really unpack the gaps between the listed initiatives and on-the-ground realities.
Respectfully, everyone is quite aware of the listed obligations and commitments of the CSC and government, but to resolve the longstanding problems within Canada’s prison system, we need to honour the chorus of voices and the specific recommendations that clearly express the need and path for change.
Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you. We will go to questions.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to both of you.
Ms. Latimer, I just marvel at how many years — I want to say as long as I’ve been in the Senate, but I’m not sure — how do you do it? I don’t need a response from you; I just want to say, “bravo.” You are an amazing woman. Thank you for the work you do. I have the greatest respect for you.
That doesn’t mean I don’t respect you, Ms. Kish; I respect you, too. You have to be a special, kind person to do this. Thank you.
My first question is to you, Ms. Kish. It’s really bothering me: In our report, we recommended that Correctional Service Canada cease the use of routine strip-searching of federally sentenced women due to the degrading nature of this often unnecessary practice that often revictimizes women, especially if a woman has gone through sexual assault. Our recommendations have not been addressed.
You have heard about the theme. I’m not impressed by the theme. Mr. Westmacott is sitting here, so I’ll say it again: I’m not impressed by that. Even then, this has not been answered.
Could you speak to the consequences of such inaction? Do you believe there are alternative ways to better support these women, given that our recommendation does not seem to have been implemented yet?
Ms. Kish: Absolutely.
Strip searches are proven ineffective when reports have been released about what is found. When populations in prisons designated for women experience strip searches, it is mascara and harmless items deemed as contraband when it is done. Those are in very marginal instances of the circumstances. However, the impacts are significant.
I want to expand upon the previous panel’s comments that they’re only instituted in limited instances when there is a risk for them. It is just about any time. It is another barrier. People don’t want to have visits with their families because they know, at the end of the visit, even though the visit is supervised by correctional staff and there’s a uniformed officer sitting and watching them, they’re having to experience a strip search by somebody in uniform. It’s awful.
Recently, during the Terry Baker inquest, the jury put forward the same recommendation for the CSC to stop in prisons designated for women. We will hope that some change comes.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
My next question is to you, Ms. Latimer. You’ve heard me say this over and over: I’m definitely not satisfied by the government’s response to our report. In fact, I want to put it on record that I’m more than disappointed, because we really spent a lot of time on this report. We didn’t get a proper response. Hopefully, steering can convince them to prepare a proper response and come back.
There are some significant gaps, especially given that many of our recommendations were not specifically addressed and have not been adequately implemented.
How do you interpret the government’s response? Which recommendations do you believe we should insist getting a response regarding? That’s a very tall question. You might not want to put it on the record now.
Ms. Latimer: I like all of the recommendations. Many will improve the policy and the operations within CSC, and many will really strengthen support to avoid discrimination and to support rights.
There are a lot of rights abuses that go on in prisons. Clearly, I agree with Ms. Kish. The grievance system is totally dysfunctional, and it acts as a barrier to people seeking recourse to other legal remedies. It really is something that is very negative for prisoners who have a cause of action and want to pursue it. I would go with that.
I think you cannot underestimate the extent to which people’s physical and mental health care are not being treated with the same quality and attention that they would have in the community. I listened to the last panel talk about trying to get people into psychiatric facilities and having to have MOUs and all of that. I do not understand why the Canada Health Act specifically excludes only federal prisoners — only prisoners serving two years or more — from the definition of insured person. It looks like a total act of discrimination. If they were insured people, there would be some obligation for universal health care. I do not understand why a sentence would deny a person who is already covered by provincial health care from losing that coverage. That’s not a consequence of the criminal sentence; that’s a consequence of an artificial constriction that’s imposed on them.
I would really bear down on all of your recommendations around health and mental health. It is an absolute mental health crisis in there. When Howard Sapers appeared before the Terry Baker inquest, he pointed out that 80% of women and 73% of men admitted into federal custody require psychiatric follow-up, which means there are about 8,000 men and well over 600 women that require psychiatric follow‑up. At the time, Grand Valley Institution for Women would probably have had 150 or 160 women who needed psychiatric follow-up, and they contracted for three hours of psychiatric services per week. It’s just not within the ballpark of what’s needed to address these concerns.
I don’t know why CSC isn’t stepping up to the plate, saying they need more resources and need to do better, rather than trying to tell us that everything is all right, that they’ve got more money and that slight increments are addressing their problems.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Ms. Latimer as well. The report that the John Howard Society created in August — the Rebecca Rabinovitch report — is very comprehensive. It seems to outline that with solitary confinement and administrative segregation — the new name is Structured Intervention units, or SIUs — nothing has really changed. The problems are all the same, such as limited oversight, lack of accountability and lack of action by governments. Have you gotten any response to your report from any government — provincial or federal?
More importantly, I’d like you to drill down and explain to us what you think we could be doing here in the Senate. What do you think needs to occur to give incentives to Correctional Service Canada to respond positively to these fundamental human rights violations?
Ms. Latimer: With respect to the Structured Intervention Units, I think there has to be legislative reform. CSC can be consistent with the legislative framework, and the Charter violations are still present. The framework is too lax. It needs to be significantly tightened to ensure that those problems are addressed.
One of the things CSC does is play games. It will argue that it doesn’t have solitary confinement and administrative segregation and that it doesn’t have this and it doesn’t have that. One of the recommendations we made to the Terry Baker inquest, which they adopted, was to ask the government to come up with a definition of solitary confinement that is consistent with the United Nations’s definition of solitary confinement — which is 22 hours a day in a cell without meaningful human contact — and have that apply throughout the prison estate.
What’s more troubling to the people in the Structured Intervention Units and to some of us is this proliferation of isolated confinement under different names, which seems to have been a consequence of Bill C-83. I really think there needs to be a comprehensive review. If the senators could urge fellow parliamentarians to take a look at that clause that requires them to do the comprehensive review, I think that would be extremely helpful.
Senator Clement: Thank you both for your work. I endorse Senator Jaffer’s comments about your work, Ms. Latimer.
I want to come back to what Senator Arnot was talking about. In the government response, they say the practice of administrative segregation or solitary confinement was abolished and replaced with Structured Intervention Units in 2019. They’re very categorical. However, we know that there are contradictory accounts. What do you say to those who may be listening to these contradictory accounts? What are we to believe?
Ms. Latimer: Solitary confinement is not a place. It’s a set of conditions that someone experiences in a prison, which is isolated in a cell for 22 hours a day without meaningful human contact. The idea of not addressing that squarely is a problem because we know what it does to people’s well-being, their mental health and their prospects for correctional reform. It’s just not a very helpful mechanism for dealing with people.
We part company a little bit on this because our view is that you do need to separate prisoners every once in a while. In men’s institutions, they’ll be coming at each other with knives. If you cannot separate them quickly for a short period of time, somebody will get hurt. That has to be a temporary measure while you figure out what the problem is and then sort it out. It shouldn’t be an ongoing adjustment that people are living in circumstances that are hurting their mental health so badly.
Senator Clement: I wanted to ask you about Bill S-230, particularly on the mental health piece. The government’s response has mostly spoken about provision of mental health services in prison by CSC. How does that response compare to measures recommended by this committee and now proposed in Bill S-230, namely the transfer to provincial health care systems? Can you comment on Bill S-230?
Ms. Latimer: As I said in one of my summations to the jury, you can’t be mad at a dog because it can’t climb a tree. CSC cannot deliver mental health care in an effective manner. It’s blinded by security requirements. It sees issues of mental health as acting-out behaviour or attention-seeking behaviour, and they’re just not well equipped to deal with it. I think there needs to be independent oversight to get people out of the prison system whose mental health is bad. First of all, they shouldn’t be defaulting into the prison system, but the deterioration of mental health while they’re in the prison system requires some independent oversight of people’s health while they’re there. There are a lot of problems with what are really Axis I disorders. People have no idea what’s going on.
Senator Clement: By “independent,” do you mean “outside of”?
Ms. Latimer: Absolutely, yes. The John Howard Society’s position is that health care should be the responsibility of the provincial health care providers and not CSC.
Senator Clement: What about Bill S-230?
Ms. Latimer: I think it’s a good step in the right direction to be able to transfer people outside. I think you’re still going to run into these MOU problems. As they said in the Terry Baker inquest, they don’t always take our people. These are people coming from the prison. Health care should be administered according to need. If the person’s mental health needs are such, then the health care provider that’s responsible for all the citizens in that particular jurisdiction should provide the health care. There shouldn’t be these artificial barriers that happen now.
Senator Clement: I have a question for Ms. Kish on the barriers to sections 81 and 84 in particular. You’ve outlined barriers to different kinds of things, but what about those?
Ms. Neil talked about awareness campaigns. Can you comment on whether that’s appropriate? Is it enough?
Ms. Kish: We have not seen results yet. Most people who are incarcerated aren’t aware of these types of release processes. I remember that years ago, Kim Pate went into the prisons and tried to tell people about them. Even when incarcerated individuals become aware, when they bring these to their institutional parole officers, they’re often given misinformation. The primary workers in charge of them and even communities don’t know the processes. People are very unaware that legislative solutions exist. I think Correctional Service Canada has no problem writing into people’s correctional plans very specific programming requirements. The onus shouldn’t fall on individuals to have to learn about and then advance their own 81 releases.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: As others have said, thank you so much for what you are just starting to do, Ms. Kish, and what you have certainly been doing for many years, Ms. Latimer. It’s not always that people react to your suggestions well. We certainly appreciate you coming here and helping us out when we are reviewing what we heard back from the government.
I agree with you that mental health is at a crisis level in the prisons, and I am interested how we are going to deal with it. We spoke earlier with the government panel. They have received $74 million a year, so they have set up 15 beds for men and 4 or 5 for women in one part of the country, but that is certainly not a national plan whatsoever. It is a crisis, so we’re dealing with that.
Is that $74 million being used in the right way? Have you had time to analyze it?
Ms. Latimer: I haven’t had any clear indication of how that $74 million is being used. I think it would be good to find out how it is being used. I suspect it could be used better, but I really can’t speak to it because I don’t know what they are doing with it.
Senator Cordy: It’s hard for us to know unless we know how it’s being spent.
Ms. Latimer: Yes.
Senator Cordy: Health care overall, when we visited the prisons — this not just in Nova Scotia but across the country — one of the things that stood out for me is mental health would have been number one, but also dental care. We heard prisoners saying that they had infections, they couldn’t eat, and the dentist came into the prison rarely. There was a long list of people requiring care.
Ms. Latimer: It is not optimal by a long shot. Maybe the government’s dental care plan can be extended to the prisoners as well, because they certainly need it. They can’t afford it.
I remember speaking to one mother. What they offer are extractions. There is no root canal possibility. She had, “I’m happy to pay for a root canal. I want him to keep his tooth.” We made some inquiries, and the cost of it would be incredible, because she would have had to pay for the guard’s time to take him in to have the root canal done. It becomes prohibitive.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for all of this information. You also spoke about solitary confinement and how it is supposedly gone, but is it or isn’t it? That would be up for debate, I guess. We have just gone through COVID not that long ago.
Ms. Latimer: Yes.
Senator Cordy: Is the prison system setting up contingency plans in case we have another pandemic? It could be anything. Do you see any plans in place so that we’re not going to get into solitary confinement all over again because there is, supposedly, no other way around it?
Ms. Latimer: It was very troubling for a lot of us that the prisons’ response was being advised by Public Health in terms of the profound isolation that was imposed on prisoners as a response to COVID. It was really brutal. I did speak to the parliamentary secretary who was responsible for emergency preparedness and said, “I think you need to wrap dealing with prisons and preparing them for emergencies into the plan.”
In fact, we’re doing a bit of research on the effects of climate change and extreme heat and cold in the prisons. As prisoners will tell me, the living units are not air-conditioned. There was the heat dome in B.C. this past summer. It must have been brutal in those prisons. It can be very bad for them.
Yes, we need to be thinking ahead.
Senator Cordy: Long term.
Ms. Latimer: Yes.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you for being here. I commend you both for your work, especially Ms. Latimer.
You both talked about the inmates’ complaints process — which is largely dysfunctional, in your own words. However, it is a rather important system and a way for these people to stand up for their rights. What do you think it would take to improve this system to ensure that it fulfils its essential role?
[English]
Ms. Kish: Right now, in the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, there is a clause requiring incarcerated people to attempt informal resolution with a staff person prior to submitting a complaint. When people are trying to utilize the grievance system in prison, they are being told to talk, essentially, to the people they are in conflict with and who are in positions of power over them. It’s making them not do it. People are very afraid.
In our organization we go in monthly and try to work with people and provide confidential channels to do this, but despite our office’s best efforts, we can’t get out from under it. It’s a systemic problem, and it requires legislative change.
The external bodies such as the Human Rights Commissions, they won’t touch the cases in most circumstances unless there is an evidentiary record developed. Then, of course, the CSC measures its departmental performance by the numbers of successful grievances, so the numbers are very skewed.
Ms. Latimer: I would also say that the access to legal counsel and other avenues for asserting rights claims are really restricted. There are not nearly enough Legal Aid support and other things that will allow people to challenge these issues.
To the point Ms. Kish was making, there is retribution. When Senator Jaffer was talking about prisoners being consulted, one of the Muslim prisoners I helped get before the visiting panel when it came to the prison subsequently told me that the correctional officers had told him that he was in trouble because he had ratted them out to the Senate committee. He was subsequently moved into, at that time, administrative segregation in another institution. It’s hard not to think that there is a causal connection between voicing human rights complaints and having significant repercussions.
Senator Gerba: What can be done? Do you have any recommendation to make it work for them?
Ms. Latimer: To make it easier, yes. They should have better access to counsel. It’s very difficult. For example, I had a call from a Black prisoner last week who is having his security rating overridden because they suspect gang membership, which is a very common thing that happens to Black men. He was very upset about this. It’s very hard to address it. I actually wrote to CSC, but I don’t know if anything will come of it.
It would be very interesting to look at security overrides and whose security rating is being overridden to a higher level and why. I don’t know if you’re finding a lot of subjectivity in that.
Ms. Kish: Absolutely. Right now, 27% of all federally incarcerated people have life sentences, and every single person under this sentence is overridden to maximum security. Last year in the Edmonton Institution for Women, I think there were seven Indigenous people admitted with life sentences. That’s an automatic two years in maximum security.
You’re right; returning to creating choices, we know that women and gender-diverse people are being over security-classified. There is that 10% discretionary area that the previous panel was talking about. I would contest that it’s not an unbiased or reliable tool, and addressing the security rating system could lead to excellent systemic change.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I believe that governments, regardless of which governments they are, have an intention to improve things, and whether this improvement is incremental or transformational, it’s normally incremental.
Ms. Kish, I noted you did say that some improvements have been made. Could you tell us a few of these improvements in this sea of what I see as obfuscation and confusion based on the response they have provided us?
Ms. Kish: I think I’m with you. I maintain a level of optimism. With my organization, we have teams who work every month with the prison management teams at the ground level to try to resolve issues. Our advocates report the issues that incarcerated individuals raise with them, and they try to resolve them where possible.
In most of the circumstances, we don’t get the resolution that we want, but what we see is that the listed initiatives have the right intent. So over and over again, we see programs that seek to address marginalized people in prison and systemic racism. But what we keep telling them, what all the oversight bodies keep telling us is, when we offer solutions, and then they say, “Okay, we care about this now,” the responses they institute do not result in the changes that are needed. It’s lost.
We’re here as a sector and we put so many resources, time — our whole careers — into making these solutions. As stakeholders and partners, we want them to work with us more meaningfully.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Ms. Latimer: I would say that the John Howard Society is keen on the federal framework to reduce recidivism. We think that promoting and working with a lot of organizations that deliver services in the community, allowing in-reach of those organizations into the prison to help with reintegration planning so that people hit the ground with a bit of a reintegration plan will make a real difference. We’re keen to see that unfold in a strong way.
We like the five pillars that are intended to be strengthened, which are housing — you release someone into homelessness, you’re stacking the deck against them — employment, education, health and positive social networks.
Senator Omidvar: [Technical difficulties] could result in a report to the government, what are the recommendations that you would like to see in our final report based on this mini-study, which do not necessarily refer to what we have already said but refer to their response?
Ms. Latimer: I think that you’re well on the way of asking for recommendation by recommendation response, and it would be good to know. There may be an honest disagreement. They may decide “the reason why we didn’t respond to that is we don’t think this is workable because of”— and they are going to give you a security reason, which is fine. But at least then you know what you’re working with.
But when they lump it all together and they stir it all up, it comes back at you as sort of a passive aggressiveness: “We like all your recommendations. We’ll get to implementing all of them at some point, but we’re not going to tell you when and we’re not going to tell you which recommendations.”
Senator Ataullahjan: Ms. Latimer, you did say in the beginning, and I think we should take note of that, that they should respond to us with evidence, metrics, timelines, benchmarks and transparency. Could you elaborate on that?
Ms. Latimer: As I just mentioned, I like the federal framework to reduce recidivism, but they have yet to define what they mean by recidivism. It’s hard to know whether you’re reducing it when you’re not operating with a baseline.
For example, I suspect that the recidivism rates for Indigenous people are likely higher than they are for others. Interestingly, they are lower for Black prisoners, so that suggested their whole risk calibration is off in terms of dealing with Black prisoners. But it would be good to know what additional supports are needed for those who are having trouble on the reintegration front.
I would suspect if we could get some granular data that those who are released on parole do much better than those released at statutory release, and that they do much better than those released at warrant expiry. But we don’t have the data or the metrics. We’re interested in community safety. We would go after your higher-risk people. If this person is coming out at warrant expiry because you think he will commit a serious violent offence immediately, he is our kind of person. We need to work with that person to try to see what we can do to change that.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you both of you for the work you do. You can see there is a lot of admiration here.
You’re there to keep an eye on what is happening. We had three different parliaments. We had 28 visits, 30 public hearings. Some of us or maybe all of us expressed disappointment at the government response. It was almost disrespectful — we had 71 recommendations, and they were just kind of lumped together.
Ms. Latimer: And for all the people who appeared before you, prisoners and everyone else who offered their testimony and took a bit of a risk in doing so.
The Chair: This is something we will be bringing up at the steering meeting. As you said, if you don’t have an answer for a recommendation, just say so if it’s something that hasn’t been looked at or hasn’t been worked on, instead of just lumping everything together.
Maybe with steering’s decision there is something we can do. We reserve the right to call the government officials back.
I don’t know who touched on it, but last year I was in B.C. and we were talking to some of the incarcerated people. Specifically, the South Asian men said, “Every time we see another South Asian, you know there is familiarity in being with your own kind, the language.” And he says, “When we start talking, we’re automatically told, ‘You all belong to a gang. Move on. Move on.’” They were finding that very difficult to deal with.
Are our prisons culturally sensitive? Because Canada has changed. You have people of many backgrounds, races and religions. We heard about problems with praying and with food. Do you see any change in all the years that you’ve been working on this?
Ms. Latimer: I have seen some change. I deal with a lot of Muslim prisoners who had a rough go of it. I think they are increasingly being able to celebrate and mark their holidays and get food. They like the brothers making the food for the brothers. There is something, but it doesn’t translate well. They have all these ethnocultural advisors, committees and all of this stuff, but that information doesn’t penetrate into how prisons actually work, so it’s very slow. I would say there is some improvement.
Ms. Kish: The reason why incarceration needs to be used as a last-case measure is it’s going to become problematic in all these different ways. Twenty or thirty years ago, there used to be much more emphasis on the liberty of the person and their needs being met. Now when we’re seeing people’s diversity it’s becoming integrated into security and punishment logic, so it almost becomes weaponized against people in many instances.
The CSC tells CAEFS often that they are not responsible for the populations who come into their care and custody. But there are a number of legislative mechanisms to get people back out into the community far earlier, if not at the beginning of their sentences. We would argue that for every community, because in prison, sorting people, all the intent becomes lost in the outcomes. The only answer that will work is using incarceration as a very limited measure, and then moving people to appropriate community-based settings.
Senator Jaffer: Were you in the room when the commissioners were responding?
Ms. Latimer: The panel before this one? Yes, I was.
Senator Jaffer: One of my questions was about daily pay of $6.90. Ms. Gratton said that now they didn’t have to pay for boarding and lodging. Is that what you have heard as well?
Ms. Latimer: I have heard that during COVID they relented on that. I was worried when COVID ended, but I think they have decided to waive the room and board entirely, which is good. I would say, Senator Jaffer, that it is only the elite prisoners who are getting $6.90. Most of them are getting $5.80.
Ms. Kish: Maximum. It starts at $2.50.
Senator Jaffer: I don’t know what you mean by “elite.”
Ms. Latimer: The crème de la crème, the CORCAN workers.
Ms. Kish: Very few, a very small percentage.
Ms. Latimer: Yes. It is not the average wage.
Senator Jaffer: What is an elite prisoner?
Ms. Latimer: I meant one that has one of the best jobs. They are paid for their work, right?
Ms. Kish: Yes. No disciplinary charges.
Senator Jaffer: Our study found an incredibly high prevalence of infectious disease in federal penitentiaries. Although your response recognizes the need for better health care services, it does not address the need for preventive care to prevent infections and spread of such diseases.
There was a complete lack of dental care. There wasn’t a response. It says, “We are working on it,” but there was no response to dental care. You already responded to Senator Cordy on that. I just wanted to put it on the record, and because of time, I will stop.
Senator Clement: I want to come back to a question that Senator Cordy raised around COVID. I wonder if the committee might consider requesting a COVID update. The prisons I visited in the last few months, a lot of restrictions had not yet been rolled back. It might be interesting for this committee to follow up on that.
I want to come back to Indigenous women. I’m trying to understand what you meant by “addressing security rating systems.” Senator Omidvar asked earlier why we aren’t starting women at minimum security.
We know that some Indigenous women are labelled as dangerous and violent. Then they have roadblocks to all of those section 81 and 84 options. Can you speak to those barriers? What should we be looking at to address them?
Ms. Kish: They give you a security rating based on points. The more points you have, the higher your rating. If you look at the criteria used to gain points, it’s marginality and disadvantage. It is: Does a person have access to their family? They are not looking at if a person has a family who loves them. The question asks: Does this person have a family who has the resources to come to the prison? If no, that’s a tick against them. Does this person have Grade 8 education? What is the education level?
All of these social factors where we know the social causes of integration become used in that specific scale to increase people’s security ratings. Poverty, marginality and disadvantage are directly translated into risk. That assignment is given to women and they are over-security classified. When women and gender-diverse people are kept in higher security classifications, their mental health deteriorates. Its traumatizing to be kept in a cage and to experience this, when all of the prisons for women were regionalized because of the lessons learned from Kingston Prison for Women, P4W, to avoid this. It’s very problematic.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for appearing before us. Your assistance with our study is appreciated. You have also raised questions, and the senators may be spending longer on this than we initially thought we would, when we started out. Thank you so much for that.
Senators, we will conclude our public hearings. Thank you for being here.
(The committee adjourned.)