THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 18, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 5 p.m. [ET], to continue its study of 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; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon. I’m Wanda Thomas Bernard, a senator from Nova Scotia, deputy chair of this committee, and I am chairing part of this session today.
Today, we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I will invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome. Amina Gerba, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Good afternoon. Ratna Omidvar from Toronto.
Senator Pate: Welcome, Dr. Zinger. I am Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Before we start our official proceedings, there is a housekeeping motion that I would like to have someone introduce. The motion is the following:
That, notwithstanding usual practice, pursuant to rule 12-17, the committee be authorized to hold this afternoon meeting without quorum, if necessary, for the purpose of receiving evidence, provided that two committee members are present.
Senator Pate moves the motion. Colleagues, are we in favour? Agreed. I declare the motion carried.
The committee will continue this afternoon its study of the Government Response to its report entitled, Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons. This afternoon, we shall have two panels. In each panel, we shall hear from witnesses, and then he senators will have a question-and-answer session. Our witnesses have been asked to make a five-minute opening statement.
I will now introduce our first panel. With us in person at the table today I welcome, from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada. I invite you, Dr. Zinger, to make your opening remarks. I would like to emphasize that Dr. Zinger was invited this afternoon to comment on the government response.
Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of this committee, for the opportunity to comment on this important report. It is a very comprehensive and important review of all aspects of the Correctional Service of Canada’s operations involving the human rights of persons under its care, custody and supervision. It was 5 years in the making and involved 28 institutional visits, with testimony from 155 individuals.
As I have been advocating for more than 25 years, Corrections is in the human rights business, as almost every decision it takes impacts the human rights of federally incarcerated individuals and those serving the remaining part of their sentences in the community. I very much appreciate this issue being considered by this Senate committee with its human rights lens.
The report is excellent and thorough. Its findings and recommendations greatly overlap with many existing external reports on federal corrections, including those from my office, the Office of the Auditor General, the offices of provincial coroners and medical examiners, numerous other reports from Senate and House committees, the inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls and, finally, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, just to name a few.
This Senate report documents significant and systemic human rights gaps in every aspect of CSC’s operations. I note that, in the government response to its 71 recommendations, 60 were directed to the Correctional Service Canada, the agency subject to my external oversight.
In my view, the amalgamated and thematic response from the government includes descriptions of existing policies and initiatives already under way. There are no new commitments, only current practices and ongoing efforts which were, by the way, present at the time the committee visited and investigated the Correctional Service of Canada. In the government response, I did not find any new initiatives inspired by this report.
While I acknowledge the existing work and numerous policies listed in the government response, in my opinion, these fall short. The response is not proportionate to the gravity of the findings of human rights violations identified in your report.
[Translation]
Ideally, there should be a CSC response to each of the 71 recommendations, and more clarity as to whether each recommendation was accepted, accepted in part, or rejected. For those recommendations which are accepted or accepted in part, a proper response would include a list of concrete actions to be taken, deliverables, targets, and timeframes.
My unsolicited advice to your committee would be to request such a response from CSC.
On a last and positive note, the majority of CSC staff are well intentioned, dedicated, and wish to do well in a job that can be very challenging.
It’s clear to me that the issue around the negative outcomes you’ve seen comes down to a culture, which is structurally embedded in this organization and has been for many, many years. I believe that there is an opportunity here for CSC to demonstrate it can acknowledge the challenges it faces, and the presence of significant human rights gaps in its operations. Providing you with a candid, transparent and accountable response to each of your important recommendations would be a great step towards addressing this culture and improving accountability. I am pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Zinger, for your presentation.
Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask committee members and witnesses in the room, for the duration of this meeting, to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, you have five minutes for your questions, and that includes the answers.
Senator Omidvar: Dr. Zinger, thank you for being here, and thank you for your written presentation. It’s really easy to follow and easy to understand, but I do require a little bit more deconstruction on a comment I have heard many times before, and you are making it again, that the staff of CSC are well informed, well intentioned and dedicated, but there is a culture which is structurally embedded in this organization. Could you clarify and expand on that a little?
Mr. Zinger: It’s always difficult to put a finger on the culture, but it’s clear to me that there is a very big disconnect between what the Correctional Service of Canada says is happening in its penitentiaries — when I say “the Correctional Service of Canada,” let me be more specific and say “national headquarters” — and what is really happening in the penitentiaries.
Over the weekend, as I was again going through your very important report, what I find is that the report starts saying what the law is, and then you’ve got a quotation from Correctional Service of Canada, again NHQ, telling you what is supposed to be policy and the various initiatives. Then we hear about your visits and you, as a committee, not witnessing what NHQ told you you should be seeing, and then making recommendations with respect to, primarily, compliance with the rule of law and compliance with human rights. That disconnect is worrisome to me.
Culture is throughout an organization. It would be too easy to pinpoint and say, “Oh, well, it’s the correctional officers that are responsible for that culture,” or, “It’s the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.” I think it goes from top to bottom, and this is why there is a great opportunity here for the executives at the Correctional Service of Canada to take the time to better respond to your report and be much more candid, open, transparent and accountable.
Senator Omidvar: Do you believe that the thematic response that they provided to us, which we are now deliberating with you, was an effort to throw sand in our eyes?
Mr. Zinger: To what?
Senator Omidvar: To throw sand in our eyes.
Mr. Zinger: I’m sorry. To what?
Senator Omidvar: To throw sand in our eyes.
Mr. Zinger: I don’t think that Corrections, for example, lied to the committee. I don’t think that’s the intent. The thing is that they’re not providing you the full picture, and if I have two minutes to explain, I can give you examples.
Senator Omidvar: Yes.
Mr. Zinger: Corrections will say that they have these wonderful programs, they have CORCAN, they have great access to education and they have all these initiatives that are best serving the prison population, but when you go into a penitentiary — and you have gone — you realize that those wonderful opportunities to improve your education and address your criminogenic needs through programming, developing vocational programs, are only reserved to a handful, to very few people.
Just to give you an example, I went to four different penitentiaries since the beginning of February. This is part of a systemic investigation we’re doing on maximum security. So let me give you some numbers that I picked up as I was going through those penitentiaries. At Millhaven Institution, for example, there are 350 incarcerated individuals between Millhaven and the Regional Treatment Centre. Only about 20% of all these individuals will have gone through programs the last fiscal year, this fiscal year, only 20%, and that’s a record among stand-alone maximum-security institutions. That’s the highest. There is no CORCAN at Millhaven.
If I look at Atlantic Institution, there are 190 prisoners, and only 3 individuals are going through Pre-Pathways, and there are more than 50 Indigenous prisoners in that institution. There are 70 students registered to go to school, but they only go once or twice for a morning, basically, for two-and-a-half hours a week. So how are you supposed to get that education going? Only 13% will go through a core program over this fiscal year. Only 6 individuals out of those 190 are actually working in the morning for CORCAN.
Donnacona Institution, when I was there, out of 285 incarcerated individuals, only 10 were registered in programs. CORCAN, only 8 individuals; so 3% of the prison population was actually working in CORCAN.
Lastly, Edmonton Institution, out of 240 prisoners, only 8 were registered in Pre-Pathways Units, and the great majority of those in Edmonton Institution have an Indigenous background. Again, no CORCAN. So that’s the reality.
When you hear about all these wonderful programs and initiatives and so on, they’re not reaching the bulk of those who need it, and that is what this response is about. So I have no — and I’ve met so many teachers, program facilitators, and dedicated managers who are working so hard, but within the constraints of what they can do. If there are all these barriers to deliver programs and services are unfortunately — cannot be those — lifted, then that’s the situation we’re in.
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Zinger, before Senator Pate asks a question, I would like to ask a follow-up to Senator Omidvar’s question. You were saying that there are so many barriers and that the staff are talking to you about those barriers. Can you share with our committee what some of those barriers are? To the program delivery.
Mr. Zinger: Yes. Because we’re focusing our attention on the maximum-security institutions, but this is applicable to a lesser degree. In maximum security, there has been a proliferation of subpopulations. That means that, for example, within Edmonton Institution, it’s not just one or two prison populations, so the general inmate population and the SIU. No. There are 10, sometimes 12 subpopulations that cannot mix.
If you cannot mix them, how do you get people to go to school? You have to separate each of those 10 or 12 subpopulations. So that’s a major barrier to services, attending programs, school, vocational, because you’re basically running 10 or 12 different penitentiaries under the same roof.
Then there are some puzzling issues with respect to, for example, Pre-Pathways or Pathways, where the funding is very limited, and the Elders are providing services to whoever — however many positions have been funded. For Pathways, we know that’s about 350 beds or places. The number of Indigenous prisoners is now around 4,500. In terms of beds, which are often not even fully occupied, you’re looking at fewer than 10% who are benefiting from Pathways. That’s another barrier.
I think there is also a case to be made that Correctional Service of Canada should go under a complete program review. It’s not clear to me how, despite the fact that they’re excessively well resourced — and this is compared to any other country around the world — they have the right proportion of staff in terms of security and those who are tasked to ensure services and contribute to either health or rehabilitation. I think that’s part of the concern here.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Dr. Zinger. I have a few questions.
First, you’ve raised concerns about the recommendations being grouped thematically in the government response. At our last meeting on the report, a representative from Public Safety Canada implied that this was due to a number of the recommendations being — that it was generally a common practice among government responses to reports to group them this way. I was shocked to read that, actually. I wasn’t at the meeting, but I was watching and then went back and reviewed the transcript. By comparison, the response to the 2018 House of Commons status of women report on federal prisons contained 96 recommendations, and the response on federal prisons in the 2018 House public safety committee contained 19 recommendations, but none of them were grouped thematically when the government responded. Is this grouping of recommendations something you’ve seen? Is it new? Could you expand on that?
In response to numerous recommendations from the committee regarding the elimination of the use of isolation both within and outside SIUs, the government’s response implies that this practice has ended. In fact, in another committee, the commissioner actually stated that the information you’ve provided about subpopulations seems to be incorrect. I wonder if you could comment on those two aspects of Corrections’ responses.
Mr. Zinger: Certainly.
I believe that it is highly unusual for a response to be thematic or amalgamated. The only one that I recall we actually commented on was the one that was done in response to the Ashley Smith coroner’s inquiry, and we actually documented in our annual report 2014-15 — I’d like to read to you what we said in terms of comments. Those comments are not just applicable to the response that was, at that time, thematic and the official response of Corrections, but it applies to this one almost equally — you can just replace the title.
I’m going to quote here, so bear with me. We said:
The response itself, both in form and content, is frustrating and disappointing … This approach …
Meaning amalgamated and thematic.
… makes it difficult to know which recommendations are endorsed and supported versus those that have been rejected, ignored or supported only in part.
CSC claims that a thematic response was called for given that the jury’s 104 recommendations covered a wide spectrum of issues. Though it refers to its response as meaningful, comprehensive and encompassing, this is not a widely held view. Public and stakeholder commentary both on the day of release and since has not been favourable.
On many fronts, the response simply misses the mark. It is largely retrospective and backward-looking covering familiar territory rather than committing to a more reform-minded correctional agenda. It fails to support core preventive, oversight and accountability recommendations issued by the jury.
So just replace the word “jury” with “this Senate report” and I think it is dead on.
I found no initiatives or commitments that weren’t present when the committee conducted its review of Corrections. More importantly, and if I’m wrong, I would ask Correctional Service of Canada — and I could be wrong, but I read that response a couple of times. I could not find one initiative that would be in response to or inspired by your findings and recommendations, not one. If I’m wrong, I’d love to know, because I read it a couple of times and just could not find any of it.
Also, I think you asked me about subpopulations?
Senator Pate: Yes, and why you think the government and CSC are providing the committee with the response that there is no SIU isolation in prisons despite clear inconsistency in terms of our visits, your reports and numerous other minister reports, including its own ministerial advisory body.
Mr. Zinger: Strictly speaking, I would agree with the service that, when we called it solitary confinement, which is defined by the UN as at least 22 hours incarcerated in a cell, that doesn’t happen very often. It can happen in SIU, but there are all these mechanisms to try to respond to that situation. It’s supposed to be closely monitored.
But what we found is that there are subpopulations within CSC that have conditions of confinement that are certainly a kind of SIU. Unfortunately, they do not benefit from all the procedural safeguards and services that are afforded by law to SIUs. These units go by various different names, but the thing is that they get an excessive amount of time locked in their cells. If they’re provided opportunity to get out, sometimes they don’t want to get out because it’s only to hang out in a corridor or in a common area that is excessively tiny or in a yard that has absolutely no humanity — it’s concrete walls, concrete pads, and sometimes it’s even covered. The conditions of confinement in some of those units are a kind of these SIUs, but they don’t benefit from daily visits by the head of the institution, typically the warden, or by health care. They aren’t guaranteed two hours of human interaction, and they certainly don’t get their file reviewed regularly to see if they could be transferred to a less restrictive unit.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Mr. Zinger, you mention in your introduction that the government’s response to our committee’s report is not proportional to the severity of the human rights violations that were observed.
The members of this committee and those listening to us would like to know what violations you are referring to; more specifically, what would you have wanted to see in the government’s response and what is missing from it?
Mr. Zinger: Thank you so much for the question. The report is highly critical of the way the department implements the legislation. You’ve certainly systematically documented violations involving people who are deemed more vulnerable in our penitentiaries; we’re talking about Indigenous and Black persons, women, the LGBTQ community, etcetera. It’s clear to me that people with mental health issues or cognitive disabilities, for example… All these people are poorly served by CSC, which is not meeting legislative standards. That’s why many of your recommendations—and simply by documenting all this… You’re telling the service to comply with the current legislation, and in many cases, those are the recommendations you’re making.
Senator Gerba: When reading your office’s 49th report, we realize that there’s no shortage of financial resources at Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, nor of human resources. Your report states that there are 1.2 CSC employees for every prisoner. This is a very high ratio worldwide. It’s also clear that services are funded to the tune of $2.9 billion. So, if the serious shortcomings we’ve observed and identified in this report aren’t due to a lack of funding, how do you explain the fact that we’ve reached this point? In your opinion, does the government’s response address the true causes of the problems that were identified?
Mr. Zinger: Yes. Just to update the data you mentioned, the ratio now is one to one. After the pandemic, we saw the prison population increase; we’re now at a ratio of one inmate per employee and about $220,000 per inmate per year on average. Those are enormous sums of money, and Canada is now… If Canada isn’t in the lead, it’s certainly a front-runner in terms of funding and resources allocated to inmates serving two-year sentences.
Personally, I have no problem spending so much money and having so many people working on these issues, but when you produced your report — and the same goes for my own reports — why was it so difficult to find a single area in which CSC’s performance is excellent? One wonders what happened. How is CSC ultimately unable to improve public safety with so many resources?
That’s why I think the time has come and CSC is ripe for a program review, precisely to examine the profile of federally sentenced men and women and determine their needs in terms of health care, mental health care. In the case of Indigenous, Black and female inmates, what are their educational and employment needs, and what must we do to ensure that they emerge from penitentiaries with better tools and a better chance of being safely reintegrated into society? Once that analysis is done, we’ll have to look at what CSC has in the way of employees and make adjustments — and I think they are required.
I also talked about the need for CSC to withdraw from certain areas, because its ability to carry out reforms is considerably diminished and radical changes are required. We’re talking, for example, about elderly offenders, who are very poorly served by CSC. Why are there so many people with severe health problems, dementia, Alzheimer’s, extreme mobility issues? Why are they still incarcerated? It’s not clear. These people should be taken out of penitentiaries and CSC should fund beds in the community. The same holds true for Indigenous people — and I’ve raised this many times — who need CSC to reallocate a large part of its budget to fund Indigenous healing centres.
Another segment of the population that doesn’t belong in prison are people with serious mental health problems, who are either out of touch with reality, or suicidal, or who self-harm severely. These people don’t belong in penitentiaries and should be admitted to secure outpatient psychiatric hospitals, because they are first and foremost patients, not offenders.
Finally, women make up the fourth segment of the population for which CSC should prioritize reform. As far as I’m concerned, maximum-security facilities, women’s penitentiaries, are inadequate — I’d even say they’re almost inhumane. If we talk about prison conditions, the majority of those incarcerated in these maximum-security units are Indigenous, and many of them have serious mental health problems or cognitive impairment. It’s ridiculous that these people are incarcerated in such restrictive conditions that fail to meet their mental health needs.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: I apologize for being late. I was on a two o’clock flight and thought I was safe.
In testimony to our committee — I don’t know if anybody has already asked this question. Catherine Latimer, the Director of the John Howard Society of Canada, raised a disturbing allegation that a federally sentenced Muslim man faced retribution for meeting with us to discuss his human rights concerns. Specifically, the man claimed he was moved into administrative segregation in another institution after being told by correctional officers that he was in trouble for having ratted out to our committee.
Are you aware of any other allegations of retribution in relation to our study? We travelled and spoke to people. People opened up and spoke to us in a very frank manner. Are there any protections in place if somebody comes to speak to a committee? Shouldn’t there be some sort of safeguards available so they aren’t punished for answering our questions?
Mr. Zinger: I can tell you that Catherine Latimer contacts my office regularly. Every case that she has concerns about, we investigate. Let me say that to begin with.
I think blatant cases of retribution like you describe are, I suspect, quite rare but not unheard of. There are certainly provisions in the law built in that, if you complain or file a grievance, you should not be subject to retribution or have any sort of negative consequences. I think that’s probably true in the great majority of cases.
I can tell you that, as an independent office, we receive on average 5,000 to 6,000 complaints. Corrections, within its own internal complaint grievance system, probably receives in excess of 15,000 complaints every year, probably closer to 20,000. There is no shyness within the prison population to complain. That doesn’t mean that there cannot be the occasional cases. We would investigate that.
Senator Ataullahjan: Are you familiar with this case? Is this something that was brought to your attention? Can you provide us an update as to what happened to this gentleman?
Mr. Zinger: I never comment on individual cases. That’s a requirement of the law. As an ombudsman for federal corrections, any communications with either those who file a complaint, their family or third parties is confidential. That’s why I’m telling you is that, on a regular basis, Catherine Latimer does raise concerns about certain prisoners and how they have been treated. What I can tell you to address your concern is that we would certainly review and investigate every single complaint that she would bring to our attention.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Zinger.
Colleagues, I have been quite lax with the time frame because there were so few of us. I will stick with the time frame now because we have three more senators who want to ask questions.
Senator Pate: I want to follow up on something Senator Ataullahjan raised. The way you responded made me think some people watching may think the grievance and complaint system is effective. I know that when it gets to you and you participate in that process, there’s different follow-up than when complaints are raised within Corrections. Did the recommendations we made about the need to have judicial oversight and external remedies for where the law has been breached, and greater access to your office, surprise you?
Before you answer that, I want to have your comments on some of the other recommendations. You mentioned the fact that women, in particular, are often held at higher security. I know you’re aware of the research that the committee heard about from Dr. Moira Law and others about starting women at minimum security. That’s one of the recommendations we made. There are a number of recommendations we’ve made where there’s been not only no response to them, but these are recommendations that your office has made repeatedly and that, as you mentioned, Louise Arbour, the TRC and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women made which deal with other aspects, like mandatory minimum penalties and classification. Are there any of the recommendations that the committee made that you think were problematic? Given your years of experience, if implemented, do you think there would be meaningful change in the way Corrections runs?
Mr. Zinger: Thank you, Senator Pate.
With respect to the complaint and grievance system, let me be clear. We documented in the past that that internal process is dysfunctional. We conducted a review of the inmate complaint and grievances process several years ago. We are currently updating it. In the next annual report, we will have more comments to make and see whether there’s been improvement in terms of timeliness, as well as fairness.
You spoke about some of the components and recommendations you’ve made. I believe that, yes, if Correctional Service Canada were to accept all the recommendations of your report, this would certainly greatly change federal corrections for the better, absolutely. I don’t see any recommendations I wouldn’t support. A handful of them go much further than what my office has said in the past. The bulk of them, including those — you mentioned two of them, one being in cases of egregious human rights violation, that a reduction of the sentence could be granted. On this notion that when it comes to women, you have actuarial tools to try to find where a new person should be admitted, the work of Professor Moira Law from New Brunswick is sound, which is that you would have a presumption of placement in minimum security, unless there were some grave concerns or incidents, and then you would raise the security classification. All of these I think are appropriate. Unfortunately, unless the government makes a strong commitment to implement this report, I don’t see how Corrections, in and by itself, would volunteer to go that route.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Zinger, I wasn’t here for much of your testimony, but my colleague told me it was very good.
My question to you is this: At the end of the day, Correctional Service of Canada should be setting priorities and making investments in some critical areas. What are three or four of the critical areas that you think they should be making a priority, and what kind of investments need to be made to meet those priorities?
Secondly, where are you investing your time and your energy and your resources in the work you’re doing in relation to the recommendations we made in the report?
Mr. Zinger: As I said previously, I think the time is ripe for Corrections to undergo a program review. That is based on not only my reports but your reports and other reports. The government should have a close look at that department, how it functions, how it’s funded and how it’s spending its budget of a whopping $3.2 billion a year.
If that could not happen, then a prioritization exercise would be necessary, and, again, I would encourage, if that was the case, Corrections to pay attention to four segments of the prisoner population and custody population. I will repeat them. For those with severe mental illness or who self-harm or are suicidal, these individuals should serve their sentences outside a penitentiary. I talked about aging and dying offenders. For those who have dementia, Alzheimer’s, are palliative, are receiving end-of-life care or have severe mobility issues, all of these individuals should also be serving their remaining days in dignity in the community. I also mentioned Indigenous people. There’s a tremendous opportunity here to reallocate a significant portion of the budget of the Correctional Service of Canada to fund sections 81 and 84 provisions. Then finally, women. It’s clear to me that the more restrictions you place on women, the less well they do, and this is the reality of those maximum-security units. Those should be shut down or only reserved to deal with the occasional problems that an institution can have for a very short period of time, but nobody should be serving time in those secure units.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I have a question for you, Dr. Zinger. Your unsolicited advice to us was that we request a better and more meaningful response to each of the recommendations. Let’s say we follow your advice and make such a request, but they still don’t respond. What would you recommend this committee do as a follow-up should we not get specific responses to all of our recommendations?
Mr. Zinger: It’s interesting, because I will say welcome to my world, where you often get responses that are dismissive or certainly not responsive to the kinds of issues that I’ve raised, and this is the burden of being in a position of an ombuds office. I would find it regrettable that if this committee asked for a specific response — I do it every year, but it doesn’t seem to get through. When I submit my annual report — so this piece of work — in a draft form, and then the final report to the service, I always ask them for the kind of response that I indicated to you, where the service would be very brief and say whether they agree, agree in part or reject, and have a small paragraph that basically says what they are going to do, what the target is and the time frame. They do that, interestingly, when they respond to Auditor General reports, but they don’t do that when they respond to me. I get the same kind of response you get, but at least it’s not amalgamated. They give me the kind of things they are doing in that general context of whatever I’m raising, but it is certainly too often not responsive.
I don’t know what authority you have as a parliamentary committee. I can tell you that, in my humble opinion, this is, in many ways, an affront to democracy. Even when I get a bad response, I have to remind the service that I am a — I was created — I’m in legislation. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, was promulgated back in 1992, and in Part I, you have the creation of the Correctional Service of Canada; Part II, Parole Board of Canada; and Part III is me, and that was the will of the people that created my office, so if you don’t respond properly to my office, for me, it’s problematic. I would make the same reasoning that if you ask, maybe they got it wrong the first time. Maybe if you ask the second time and ask for a proper response, you will get it, but if you didn’t, then, for, me that would be an affront to democracy.
The same can be said with mandate letters. I get very angry with mandate letters. The Prime Minister issues mandate letters to the various ministers. For example, the Minister of Public Safety issued a mandate letter to the Commissioner of Corrections with very specific issues to be dealt with. These, in my view, should be marching orders for the commissioner, for the bureaucracy, to implement. The last mandate letter looks like a cut-and-paste from my annual report, so I should be very, very happy about that mandate letter, but unfortunately, the mandate letter does not incorporate specific targets, outcomes and timelines, so nothing significant is being addressed. Again, that, in my view, could be tantamount to an affront to democracy. If your political leaders are telling you, “Here’s what I want you to do in the next four years,” and you show very little significant or meaningful steps to address these things, for me, that’s not good.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Dr. Zinger, I want to thank you for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance is greatly appreciated by this committee.
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 senators. With us at the table, please welcome Catherine Brooke, Executive Director, St. Leonard’s House Windsor; and Rick Sauvé, Peer Mentor, St. Leonard’s Society of Canada. I now invite you, Ms. Brooke, to make your presentation, followed by Mr. Sauvé.
Catherine Brooke, Executive Director, St. Leonard’s House Windsor: Thank you and good evening. I want to thank senators for the invitation to speak this evening on the government’s response to the Senate’s report entitled Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons. This extensive report highlights many of the concerns those of us working in community corrections have been raising for some time, and I am honoured to be able to offer comments this evening.
I am the executive director of St. Leonard’s House in Windsor, the first halfway house in Canada. For over 60 years, we have prided ourselves on providing innovative and effective community-based programs that assist federally sentenced men with reintegration. Having been involved with community corrections for over 20 years, I would like to focus on the Senate’s recommendations and the government’s response related to reintegration.
The road to reintegration, I would argue, begins on day one of the sentence starting. However, the men we work with are not being prepared for release. Many have not been able to complete programming due to lengthy wait lists, especially for Indigenous and sex offender programming streams. Those serving a life sentence are ill-equipped to navigate the tremendous changes that have occurred while inside. A lack of relevant occupational training and apprenticeships for today’s world, especially for women, restricted access to the internet for secondary and post-secondary education and low wages remain problematic. Recognizing the limited resources and large caseloads of institutional parole officers, prisoners are left with little support in preparing release plans and connecting with community supports.
The government’s response highlights many of the promising initiatives under way to address the Senate’s recommendations. Many of the initiatives or proposed plans, however, do not have timelines or plans for national rollout. Respectfully, the men and women we work with are tired of hearing “more research is needed” or about the convening of working groups and pilot projects, and they are ready for action.
We have been fortunate to work closely with various departments at CSC on projects such as PeerLife and Breakaway. Those of us in community corrections understand that CSC cannot do it all, nor do we believe they should. Rather, there is a need to work with organizations outside corrections to ensure diverse, evidence-based, expert-designed models of program delivery informed by those with lived experience.
In addition to being ill prepared for release, prisoners are abandoned in the community when it comes to health care, mental health and addiction support. CSC health care ends once prisoners leave the institution, and the community is expected to fill the gaps with severely limited resources. Many of the men who come to us are released without identification or a health card and insufficient medication, leaving us scrambling to find doctors in an already taxed provincial health care system. Prescription medication costs have been downloaded to the province, and there is little to no dental or eye care. When submitting requests for health support, we are frequently told to access services available in the community, not taking into consideration that our communities are already dealing with doctor shortages, extensive wait lists and the need for services not covered by provincial plans.
For example, without a parole condition for psychology, there is little to no chance that a request to see a psychologist will be approved. Most prisoners do not receive a diagnosis inside, and therefore, they do not qualify for services in the community or have to wait for an assessment, which requires a referral from the family doctor they cannot find. If one does qualify for psychology, there has been a sharp decline in the use of community psychologists. Since COVID, our residents have been receiving psychology over the phone once a month from a CSC mental health worker.
Every single man who comes through our doors has experienced trauma, suffers from PTSD and has been deeply affected by their time in prison. The impact of segregation on mental health has been well documented and further exacerbates poor mental health created by the prison environment. Least restrictive measures should be considered when determining security placement, especially for women. Requiring two years in maximum security, for example, only adds to more trauma, which affects reintegration and ultimately public safety outcomes.
Finally, concerning the road to reintegration, under no circumstance should an individual be discharged into homelessness. Prisoners on statutory release who do not receive a residency condition are increasingly being released to shelters, an environment full of violence, drugs and the same social circles that led to a criminal record in the first place. They are set up to fail and then labelled as having a poor release history when conditions are breached.
I am often asked why I choose to work with federally sentenced individuals. The general public does not have an understanding of the issues and injustices that go on behind prison walls, nor do many care, especially when bombarded with inaccurate information and scare tactics from elected officials and media.
I want to sincerely thank the senators involved in making this report for keeping the issue of prisoner rights at the fore and for listening to the men and women trying to navigate the correctional system and to the tireless advocates who continue to fight for more humane alternatives. Each of the 71 recommendations is valid and needs to be addressed by the government.
Thank you.
Rick Sauvé, Peer Mentor, St. Leonard’s Society of Canada, as an individual: I’m very privileged to be here today. I’m in my forty-sixth year of involvement with the criminal justice system. I spent the first 17 years in prison, and I’ve spent the last 26 years going back into the institutions, first with LifeLine and now with PeerLife.
When I was preparing for the hearing, I was reading over this very detailed report, and I flashed back to a couple of people who had a huge impact in my life. One was Senator Hastings. He visited me a number of times while I was in prison. The other was a woman many prisoners referred to as the “grandmother of all prisoners.” That was Claire Culhane. I thought that they often must have felt like the loneliest trees in the forest while they were so involved in human rights and coming into the prisons. When this committee started coming into the prisons, it was an awakening for the prisoners inside. They felt recognized, and that was important.
I wondered, when I was going through this, what Senator Hastings and Claire would think about the state of corrections now. I believe that they would be appalled at how the correctional system currently operates. I first went to prison in 1978. The things that I was able to do while I was inside over those years, I wouldn’t be able to do them now.
When I saw the new maximum security units, I could not believe those conditions. In all the years that I was in prison, early on, we had special handling units at Millhaven. Those people were isolated from the rest of the population. When I go into the maximum security units now, I don’t know that I would have been able to survive. I really don’t think I would have. There is no hope. There is no programming. There is no employment.
With that, I’ll close my comments, and I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both very much for your presentations.
We’ll now take questions from the senators. As was our previous practice, I would like to remind each senator that you will have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer. Since there are two people on the panel, please state who you’re directing your question to.
Senator Arnot: Witnesses, thank you very much for the good work you do in the community. I looked at your background and I’m really impressed by that. I have four questions. You can decide which ones you want to answer.
Do you see any new or emerging priorities or challenges not in the Senate report, something that’s more recent? Do you see emerging opportunities or any areas of success? If you could personally prioritize three areas for immediate change, what would they be? What do you think the role of this committee should be when we revisit this issue?
Ms. Brooke: To begin with new priorities, no, I feel the report was very exhaustive. It literally covered — well, obviously more than the concerns that I have, but every concern that we have been seeing over the years has been addressed.
In terms of emerging themes that we are seeing in the community, obviously, we are being asked to do more with less. We are seeing an increase in the severity of mental health, addiction and trauma issues, and we are being asked to address those issues in the community because it’s not happening inside.
In terms of opportunities for success, I will absolutely toot our own horn when it comes to the peer-based programs that we have. I believe there is very strong importance to have programming being delivered by experts in the community who are separate and objective from CSC. It’s not that CSC’s programs are ineffective per se — they serve a purpose — but I feel they are more meaningfully delivered and received by individuals inside when there is not a report that is going to be written afterwards or it’s not going to be held against them.
In Rick’s groups, for example, they’re able to speak freely. They are able to talk about stories that Rick can personally relate to. When our inreach workers go in, they have someone who can specifically relate to what’s been going on. I think peer-based programs are absolutely being underutilized.
A lot of community programs are based on the same research, evidence and best practices that CSC programming goes by. I would argue that they’re more cost-effective. I think CSC should absolutely be taking advantage of pre-existing programs already happening in the community and collaborating with community partners instead of doing it all in house. Over time, I feel they have become even more detrimentally siloed where they’re not looking to what else is going on outside.
In terms of three priority areas, I would love to see the budget rejigged in the sense that 8.7% being allocated toward program employment is — it’s not working. It needs to be increased. Obviously, I would love to see community supervision increased. We are tasked with supervising 40% of the population with 6.7% of the budget. It’s not enough. Can we do it? We can absolutely do it. Should we be doing more? Absolutely. Who better to be offering that therapeutic environment than the community? Let’s get these folks, especially low-risk individuals — women, Indigenous, ethnocultural offenders — into the community where we can provide the supports to them right in the community instead of keeping them longer in an environment that’s actually causing more harm. Bring them back to the community and let’s start that therapeutic intervention immediately.
I would also like to see a continuum of care. So, yes, let’s take advantage of community resources that we have — these are the communities they’re returning to, and they need to make those connections — but at the same time, there needs to be a continuum of care. For the community programming that is happening, the wait lists are ridiculous. We have lifers who have been on parole for two years that are fully ready to be on full parole but have not been able to finish that program, so we have to keep saying, “Let’s renew for six months,” and, “Let’s renew for another six months.” Everything that’s happening inside in terms of wait lists is happening in the community as well, worse, I would say, and the community programs that are being offered, which used to be in a class setting in person, are now being done through video one-on-one so we’re not having the benefit of having that group dynamic where they can actually feed off each other and talk about the different topics within programming. That is a detriment.
On the role of this committee, because of the political climate right now in Canada which has many of us in the community extremely nervous, it is very important that the committee stay on this and make sure. Canada can absolutely be a leader in corrections in the world. We look to our neighbours in the south, and I can’t even begin to understand what is going on there, and the fact that we even have some of the issues that we have in Canada is an embarrassment. We can be a leader when it comes to corrections in the world, and it’s important for this committee to stay on top of it and ensure we are a leader on human rights inside. There is no reason why our institutions cannot be places of true rehabilitation, not punishment. That’s exactly what’s happening. It’s nothing but security and surveillance when they could actually be making true systemic change inside.
Senator Pate: Thank you to both of you for your work and also the incredible contributions you make to people’s lives.
I want to especially thank you, Rick, for raising Senator Hastings and Claire Culhane, two people who died the same year, and it was 20 years before a number of us were appointed to the Senate. It’s not lost to me. Many of his files were actually passed on to me by staff here when I came here. Thank you for that.
I want to ask you a question I was going to ask Dr. Zinger when he was here, the Correctional Investigator, because some of it applies to what you’ve been doing as well.
You’ve been going into the prisons, as you mentioned, for 26 years and providing supports. When the Senate was looking at Bill C-83, to replace segregation with SIUs, we requested the Parliamentary Budget Officer to cost a number of areas. I was going to ask Dr. Zinger to talk about the fact that Corrections has had a number of opportunities to fund alternatives, such as mental health beds, and they refused to do them. They have instead said that they will do them in-house.
One of the things they were asked to cost was the Break Away Program that you developed, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it could be a significant way to reduce the use of isolation with men, because one of the main reasons still used for arguing that people have to be placed in — whether it was solitary confinement, segregation, SIUs, voluntary limited, whatever the name — is gang involvement, and your program deals specifically with gang involvement. It was recommended that that be rolled out across the country and that it would cost $200,000 to do that. Have you ever received that funding?
Perhaps you could talk about some of the other options, like mandatory minimum penalties and how that impacts records and how that impacts people, and whether there is any recommendation that this committee made in the report that you have there that you disagree with or that you would like to make comments on.
Mr. Sauvé: Well, I’ll start with the report. I agree with everything that was in there. I think it was a fabulous report.
The Break Away Program was largely in part — when I was able to do that in a maximum security prison is when I accompanied you when you came into Collins Bay. I had been doing it in the other institutions, medium security and minimum security, and I never had the opportunity to do it in maximum security, and I felt that was the most important place to start. All the participants that went through that group, the Break Away group, said that that’s where they felt that it should be utilized.
Corrections has been sounding alarm bells that gang violence is — it’s a problem in the community, but it’s also a growing problem in the institutions. When we met with the warden at Collins Bay and asked about me doing it in the max, we had guys from different street gangs that were involved in that group, and there was never any issue.
One of the things that was said to me before it started was, “You’re not going to get any of those gang bangers interested in taking this group.” Well, the guys were basically hanging off the bars asking — and if you’ve been to the max at Collins Bay, literally, it’s barred in the front. And guys were asking if they could get into that, because there were no opportunities for them to get into other programming. Anyone that was identified as a Security Threat Group, or STG, would be screened out of programming. Anybody that was identified as STG couldn’t get into a lot of the employment opportunities, even though there were virtually no employment opportunities in the max. Some of those guys that I’ve worked with in the max doing that group, I’ve worked with them down into the mediums and into the minimums. It was the prisoners themselves that were saying, “Nobody’s been listening to us. We’re being shut out of other programming. This is something we want to do. We want to be able to take charge of our lives while we’re in prison.”
That was one of the most beneficial programs that I was involved with, was when I was able to deliver that, and the guys always appreciate it. No, we didn’t get any of that funding that was recommended.
Senator Pate: Are there any of the recommendations that you think we shouldn’t implement or that the government shouldn’t implement?
Mr. Sauvé: No, I think they should implement all of them.
One of the things that has always bothered me is the CCRA is the law, it’s legislation, but they don’t follow it in Corrections. There are so many people that are being almost coerced into not putting in for parole, not putting in for — they’ll be told, “If you don’t withdraw your application for lower security, I’m going to have to write a negative report, which means that’s going to affect your parole.” What some of the parole officers are saying is, “You’re not following my advice; you’re not following your correctional plan.” So now when they do go in front of the Parole Board, the Parole Board is saying, “Well, you weren’t following the advice.” Well, they’re not getting the opportunities to get into these programs. They’re being held back. It just boggles my mind that they’re not following the law. If they followed the legislation, people should move down in a timely fashion.
There’s still a lot of overcrowding. We still have double-bunking in some of the institutions. Our female in-reach worker was in Grand Valley, and they are doing some double-bunking down there. There were 26 women who were in maximum security in the SIU.
Yes, all of the recommendations should be adhered to.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to both our witnesses for being here.
This committee studied the prison system for, I think, two years. We filed our report. We are not here to study the prison system again. We are here for your witness testimony and advice as to what to do with the government’s response to the study which, instead of commenting on the recommendations, they provided us with a themed response that didn’t really have any meat in it. My question to you is this: Do you believe we should ask the government again for a more detailed response to the 71 recommendations?
Ms. Brooke: Absolutely. I feel the report was very surface level. I felt it was self-congratulatory. As Dr. Zinger mentioned, it mentioned current practices that are going on. It did not specifically mention things that are in the works or they are planning or preparing to do, no timelines, no deadlines for rollout. We have been asking for a national strategy on lifers since Lifeline was cut in 2012. We still don’t have a timeline for that. As Dr. Zinger recommended, I would ask for a specific response to each recommendation. What is the timeline? What is the specific thing that is being done to ensure that they see value in these things? Is there something that they cannot do? Why can they not do it? Are there other ways we can think outside the box? Just because they say it cannot be done, perhaps there are groups or experts in the community who can say, yes, actually it can be done if we do X, Y and Z. Yes, I would absolutely expect a response.
Senator Omidvar: They didn’t say anything about the recommendations. They didn’t actually tell us what couldn’t be done. They told us in broad, vague terms about the current policies and programs, which, at a high level, can sound fairly persuasive but, as we heard from Dr. Zinger, they don’t actually stick on the ground. Thank you. That was an observation as opposed to a question.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Sauvé, I know you have a lot to offer. I will ask you a couple of questions. Your frustration is palpable. I can hear it in what you say.
Peer-based programming seems to be a good investment because you understand all the issues very well. To me, that would be something to highlight. The other thing is that failing to invest in reintegration must lead to recidivism. That’s antithetical to what we should be doing. Do you have any comments on those issues? What do you think we should do as a committee in light of the poor response by government to these really critical issues?
Mr. Sauvé: Yes. First, with reintegration, I will go back to Lifeline. There were a number of things we did regarding reintegration.
I have assisted at over 400 parole hearings. Those are hearings of individuals I’ve worked with for years and years, some for a couple of decades.
The other thing we used to do was walk with them back into the community. We would take them out on escorted passes. We would take them out on unescorted passes. We would take them out on day parole. We made sure they were able to get to the halfway house when they received their day parole. What was important with that? Sometimes people would say, “Well, why have somebody that’s been in prison take somebody else out into the community? What sense does that make?” Well, it makes perfect sense because we knew what it was like to walk out into the community.
One of the things that happens with people is that when they go to prison, they almost stay in that mental age. The world stopped for them. For me, it was 1978. When I got my first pass, it was in ’87. I was going to my university graduation. I still thought of the world as 1978. My experience with the community was 1978.
What we were doing was preparing them to be successful on parole, not to get parole. I used to tell guys that. Sometimes they would look at me. I would say to them, “I don’t care whether you get parole or not; I care that you’re successful on parole.” That’s where we focused on, helping them through the system and back into the community to make sure they were going to get to their place on time and that they weren’t going to get lost in the city. Sometimes we have people from other regions. All of a sudden they are downtown Toronto. They have to get to their parole office. They have to get there by a certain time. They don’t know the subway system. They don’t know the bus system. Those are the kinds of things that we would do. We would walk with them and then debrief with them on the way back to say, hey, you’re going back into prison, but remember the good things that you were experiencing in the community. That was the most rehabilitative steps that we did to ensure public safety and the safety of those coming back into the community.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for that.
Senator Pate: One of the things that you touched on was the STG label. We made recommendations about that. We also talked about the increased use of isolation. You have been in the prisons since the SIUs were opened. You heard me ask the question of Dr. Zinger. When we have gone in, many of us see there is more than one form of isolation now; it’s not just SIUs. What’s your view on that? Could you comment on what kinds of isolation you’re seeing other than SIUs?
Mr. Sauvé: There are a few things. One is the subpopulations that Dr. Zinger talked about. That’s rampant in the institutions.
In one of the groups that we had when some of the senators came in to Collins Bay, I think over 50 guys were allowed to come down to the gym. Everybody was engaged in that meeting. The ironic thing was they were telling us they haven’t been able to see each other for months, even though they are in the same prison. They were isolated.
We went into the old segregation, the old holes. That’s what they were; they were holes. We went into the old segregation. Well, now it’s called the restricted movement unit. What they do is, “Well, we don’t want to send them to the SIU so we will put them into the restricted movement unit.” Well, that was segregation. “We’ll let them out. We’ll let them out of their cells.” Why are we going back to that? That didn’t make sense to me.
Prison socials were all cancelled. They are just starting back up now.
Community volunteers. One of the biggest things for prisoners was to have the community come in, because that brought a sense of dignity. It brought in a sense of hope. Community volunteers, that whole thing was shut down. Yes, some of it was due to the pandemic, but it’s been years since then and it’s just starting up now. Those opportunities were all shut down.
Hobby craft. You can’t find a hobby craft hardly in some of the institutions. In the maximum security, when I was in Millhaven Institution, maximum security, we had hobby craft. We had shops. We had education. That’s where I started my university courses, at Millhaven maximum security. That’s not available now.
Personal contact with volunteers bringing in new ideas, innovative ideas, brings humanity into the institution. That needs to be encouraged, not discouraged.
Senator Pate: Could you comment? One of the things I know you and others were involved with when you were still inside was the Special Olympiad. Could you talk a little bit about that? When I have mentioned it to some of my colleagues, they are surprised that ever happened, and yet the impact it had on lots of folks was really important. My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that was taken out in part when there was a directive to not have positive stories about prisoners emerging. Can you describe what the Special Olympiad was and when it ended and why?
Mr. Sauvé: Yes. The Special Olympiad was started by prisoners. They would bring in people with disabilities and have an Olympics inside the institution. Each participant would be paired up with a prisoner, a godbrother, and there would be 500 or 600 people coming into the prisons. There was never an incident, and it went on for 25 years, 26 years, and then all of a sudden it got shut down.
We also had the Con Walk over in Frontenac when I was over there, and in four years we would have two groups of people. Some would start walking from Parliament Hill and walk back to the prison Frontenac, and in four years we raised over $120,000 for muscular dystrophy. There was never an incident.
All those kinds of initiatives were shut down. What’s that saying to the prisoners? “You have no value. We don’t want you to be a caring person. We don’t want you to have better understanding of people who are less fortunate than you.” So yeah, when that happened, it was horrendous.
Now, in part of that exercise yard where we had the Special Olympiad, that’s where they put new units. So they built prisons inside the prisons. When they said they were going to shut down some of the prisons, they didn’t shut them down. They just built inside the existing prisons.
Yes, I do get frustrated going back in and seeing the regression that’s taken place over the years, the regression and the punishment that takes place and the number of clients that I have had over the years that have died inside. There are more people dying in prison now than ever before.
The Deputy Chair: I’d like to ask you both the same question I asked Dr. Zinger, actually. I think you’ve both already said that you agree that we should ask government to respond to each of the recommendations with very specific timelines with regard to actions, and I’m wondering what you would recommend to us as a follow-up if we do what’s been recommended in terms of asking for specific responses and don’t get the response we’re looking for. What would you recommend to this committee be our next action?
Mr. Sauvé: I think the government should force Corrections to respond to all those recommendations. Dr. Zinger talked about the mandate letters and that they should be following those kinds of things. They should be following the recommendations of this. They are not there just to criticize. This tells me that there is real concern and care that is being pushed towards reform in the system. Forty-six years, and that’s all I hear about is reform, reform, reform, and I haven’t seen any positive reform. This would bring positive reform.
For myself and other prisoners, what has been successful is litigation. Sometimes when I go into the prison cell, I tell the prisoners, “Listen, the only change you’re going to get is through litigation.”
The Deputy Chair: That’s not something we could do, Mr. Sauvé, but I wondered if you had any other recommendations to us. Ms. Brooke?
Ms. Brooke: Ask again. Be a pain in the backside. Beyond what Rick and Dr. Zinger have suggested, I don’t have anything further but to stay on it because it is important.
The Deputy Chair: Stay on it?
Ms. Brooke: Yes, absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: I want to come back to the BreakAway program. There is much being made of the fact the government has now started introducing measures to reduce the number and the overrepresentation of those of African descent and Indigenous peoples in prison. In my experience, and I would be interested in yours, Indigenous and Black prisoners, racialized prisoners, are vastly overrepresented among those who are considered gang-related, as well as those who are in maximum security and in segregation. What would investing in programs, as has been recommended, like BreakAway, mean? How many of the folks that you have worked with would fit into those categories? What are they doing now if they have managed to cascade out into the community?
Mr. Sauvé: You’re right. There is a vast overrepresentation. Also, there are a number of prisoners who have been misidentified as being gang members. Sometimes it just depends on the neighbourhood that you live in. If you live in a particular neighbourhood in Toronto or Brampton and you’ve committed a crime, you get that label put on you. Or if you have a picture taken with somebody, they say, “Oh, you’re associating with a known gang member, so now you’re a gang member.” Once you’re identified as that, then you’re screened out of programming. Then you’re screened out of employment opportunities. Then you’re screened out of moving down to lower security.
A lot of the guys that have gone through the BreakAway group said that some of the skills that they learned in that they can share with their family members, that they don’t want to see their family members or other kids from their community follow down that same path. It was funny, me as an old White guy going in there, and most of the participants in those groups were people of colour, and I asked them. I said, “Why is it?” They said, “Because you’ve had some of that experience, a little bit. You don’t look like us, but you understand us.” A lot of what takes place in there is working together as a group, not as a gang, and almost all of them say, “I don’t want my brother or my cousin or any other kid in the neighbourhood coming in. Look at me. I’m doing forever now.”
They are screened out of so many programs, and there’s not enough staff. I did a parole hearing just last week, and it was a young Black man, and he said he had a hard time following some of the programming because he would get negative reports because they didn’t understand the lingo that he was using. He said, “But that’s the way we talk in our neighbourhood.” But the program’s officers weren’t from that neighbourhood. “No, this is the way you need to address people.” The message that he gave to the Parole Board is it can be challenging sometimes when you’re in a program. They say that you’re not following the curriculum of the program, but you are, but that’s the way that we speak in our community.
So yes, I think there should be more of that peer support kind of programming. That is what will be successful.
Ms. Brooke: If I may add briefly, I have been in talks with national headquarters basically saying we are already doing this, so can we please assist in some way, and we have gotten the same response. There is an internal review and compiling of literature and a working group on coming up with a strategy. I don’t know how long that strategy is going to take, but we have at least tried to offer some assistance.
Senator Arnot: You have both been working on these issues for a very long time. You are getting the same answers from Correctional Service of Canada for a very long time. Do you get a sense as to why your common-sense and very progressive recommendations are not being followed, or the recommendations of the Senate committee, which were comprehensive? What’s your impression about why these changes are not being made? Why we are regressing? Is it the get-tough-on-crime mantra that you hear from politicians from time to time? What’s the “why” on not moving in a direction that makes common sense?
Ms. Brooke: It is a toxic culture. There are some very good program officers, very good parole officers, very good wardens, very good folks inside. But it just takes sort of that old-school mentality to filtrate down, and if you are allowed to — you can speak to this probably better, but the ones that try to be more humane are not treated very well. There is an us-versus-them mentality inside.
Mr. Sauvé: As well, I think one of the things is they have a fear that when things are pointed out to them, that you are pointing out failures instead of taking solid recommendations. They don’t want to say, “Yes, this does make perfect sense. We’re not failing. We are successful.”
I think back to a commissioner from years ago, Ole Ingstrup. He was chairman of the National Parole Board as well as the commissioner of penitentiaries, and the first prisoners to get escorted temporary absences came out of the lifers group at Collins Bay because he came into the Collins Bay, and I was chairman at the time and we said to him, “You know, we realize there are people here who will never be eligible for any kind of release until they have at least 25 years in.” This is before anybody had gone up for the Faint Hope Clause. He said, “No, that’s not true.” So he brought in the message to the institution, to the warden that, yes, there are people who are eligible from a medium-security prison.
I think there is that fear now that they are afraid that they are failing instead of saying, yes, we can learn from some of the mistakes in the past, and yes, we can learn from some of the ideas and some of the things that are taking place that the senators have witnessed and that other people have witnessed and that prisoners have experienced. That is not necessarily a failure. You’re not following the advice or having a discerning eye look at some of the issues that are taking place in the prisons.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you again for your explanations, Mr. Sauvé. I’m a bit confused because, in the previous panel, Mr. Zinger told us that Canada was among the countries that invest the most in their prison system. He talked about $3 billion, which means there’s one Correctional Service Canada employee for every prisoner.
Do you think this money is poorly invested? The programs you suggest, such as mentoring, coaching and funding for organizations, would be much better suited to the prison system. One gets the impression that the use made of this money isn’t ultimately visible, since you say that services have greatly deteriorated.
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: I think there’s plenty of money that is being invested in the correctional system. In fact, I think there’s more money that’s being invested in the correctional system as opposed to prevention of crime. Some of the things that we talk about, peer mentoring, more involvement from the community when people are coming out, those dollars that are being invested into that are going to save — it’s a lot cheaper to do it in the community than it is inside. I often have conversations with people and say, “Well, how come it costs so much, $100,000, to keep someone in maximum security?” It’s not the cost of keeping that person in maximum security; it’s the cost of the cell, the static costs. By reinvesting into things that work, you will save money by stopping people from coming into conflict with the law.
One of the jobs that I got when I first got out was working with inner-city youth in Toronto for the Boy’s Home of Toronto. I was a peer mentor, youth worker, and that was one of the best jobs I’ve ever had in my life, working with young inner-city kids. Most of them were gang related, but I’ve never seen any of those come into prisons.
Where I think we need to invest is incorporating more of that peer support at both ends, before you enter into prison but also when you come back into the community. There are so many opportunities that are lost opportunities, and I think that if we looked at crime prevention — we had a kid when I worked at the Boy’s Home. He had just turned 13 years old, and we couldn’t find a school in the whole city of Toronto for him to get into, and we went, “You’re going to give up on this kid? You’re going to throw this kid away at 13?” And so just a reinvestment in preventing crime.
We have far too many prisoners that are still inside that don’t need to be in prison, that can be supervised in the community. If we just followed the law, just followed the CCRA, and made sure that people got their programming on time, that they be able to apply for release and be able to move down in security, that will save a lot of money. That will save a lot of money.
Yes. How is it that it basically breaks down to one to one? And the success rate that they say just doesn’t make sense to me.
Senator Pate: You have mentioned some of the options: section 29 allows for transfer out for mental health, sections 81 and 84 for Indigenous, Black and other prisoners, and as well the record expiry, which would help with some of those, and the Breakaway program.
I’d like to pick up on Senator Arnot’s question, as well as Senator Gerba’s. Would it surprise you that when we’ve done some of the inquests into the deaths of individuals — particularly, I’m thinking of Ashley Smith, and Dr. Zinger raised it — one thing that came out clearly is even when staff wanted to do the right thing — and I think you alluded to it. That’s why I’m asking you to say a bit more. Even when they knew the right thing to do, they felt tremendous pressure. We had documentation versus videotape, what people wrote about what was happening versus what was actually happening that we could see unfolding. This was after Ashley’s death, sadly. Sometimes people would write the opposite of what they were doing. Their explanation was that they felt they didn’t want to be called a con lover or to look like they were supporting, that they had to fit into the structure that was there. In addition, some people have talked about the fact that the system has become more risk-averse and less interested in rehabilitation. Is that a fair assessment, or do you think that’s incorrect?
Mr. Sauvé: I think prison dehumanizes everyone. It dehumanizes the prisoners but also the staff and some of the volunteers who go in. There is that kind of peer pressure in some of the maximum-security facilities that you don’t talk to staff. Many times prisoners will want a witness. They’ll say, “I want the committee with me so they know I’m not speaking out of turn.” I think that same type of toxic culture happens with staff: Don’t get involved. Don’t be a con lover. We don’t talk to them.
I remember when the first female officers started working in prisons. There were a lot of sexual innuendos and bad comments made towards them. In fact, I had a conversation with a CAC member in just the past month who was the first female staff in Millhaven. She worked in social development. She told me that she was blocked between two barriers, and they kept her blocked in there for 15 or 20 minutes. She said one of the senior guards said to her, “We don’t want women working in here. You’re going to destroy marriages.” She shared that story with me. Now, that was a number of years ago, but I also remember some of the female guards at Collins Bay. There would be tampons thrown at them by other staff. Some of those women quit. They just couldn’t handle it.
When female staff started to work in prisons, it also brought humanity because it was just different. I think sometimes what happens now is there is that peer pressure: No, we don’t do that. We don’t do this. No, they’re a con; you’re staff. There are those clear division lines.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I want to thank both witnesses for participating in our study. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Honourable colleagues and guests, the public portion of our meeting is now over. We shall suspend this meeting for a few minutes and then continue in camera to discuss the other agenda items.
(The committee continued in camera.)