THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 5, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:16 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan and the chair of this committee. I now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Edmonton, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we’re meeting to begin our study of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome the Honourable Senator Kim Pate, the sponsor of the bill. Assisting her is Emily Grant from her office. It is a pleasure to have both of you here today.
We will begin with opening remarks before we move to questions from members. I know both of you are familiar with this process very well. The floor is yours, Senator Pate, for seven minutes or so.
Hon. Kim Pate, sponsor of the bill: Thank you very much, Senator Arnot, and thank you to all my colleagues for being here. Thank you to all of the folks behind the scenes who make this happen — the technicians as wells the interpreters, staff and all of our office team, including my Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Emily Grant, as well as Andrew Osborne and the fabulous interns we have working in our office.
I am very pleased to be here to talk about “Tona’s Law,” which would basically amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide oversight remedies and alternatives to isolation in federal prisons.
In 2019, Canada committed to ending the use of segregation, including solitary confinement, in federal prisons. This commitment was made in response to a series of court cases that ruled that the existing segregation system was unconstitutional. Those cases recognized the psychological, neurological and physiological harms of isolation.
Canada has not fulfilled its promise to end the use of segregation. Instead, the structured intervention units, or SIUs, created to replace segregation, have perpetuated and actually expanded its use. Those most harshly impacted by these ongoing human rights abuses include Indigenous Peoples, Black Canadians and those with mental health issues.
“Tona’s Law” builds upon the collective work of this institution, the Senate of Canada, including visits by 47 senators to prisons across the country. It proposes four measures to end the isolation and uphold the human and Charter rights that protect all of us, including prisoners.
Each measure in “Tona’s Law” has already been endorsed by the Senate: in 2019, as amendments that the Senate proposed at the time the SIUs were created; in 2021, as recommendations of the Human Rights Committee in its report on the human rights of federally sentenced persons; and when the Senate passed the previous bill, Bill S-230, and sent it to the House of Commons for consideration.
Since the last iteration of this bill, the ministerial advisory committee’s terms have ended. It is notable that in their reports, they talked about the fact that now one in two people in SIUs meet the definition of being in solitary confinement, despite the changes to the law that were made in 2019. That means they spend 22 hours in their cells without meaningful human contact. For 1 in 10 people, solitary confinement is so prolonged — more than 15 days — that it is recognizable by law as torture. The ministerial advisory committee, in fact, noted that isolation lasts longer, on average, under the current regime than it did under the previous segregation regime, with more than half of people held for more than 15 days and some staying as long as 769 days.
The independent oversight that was introduced through Bill C-83 included independent external decision-makers. Their review, though, is only guaranteed in law after 90 days of isolation in structured intervention units, and 30% of the time, the Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, failed to refer those cases to the independent external decision-makers within 90 days. In situations where the independent external decision-makers ordered people to be released from segregation, those orders weren’t always followed. Since then, we’ve heard from independent external decision-makers whose terms were not renewed if they were some of the ones who were challenging corrections.
There are four measures to end isolation in federal prisons in this bill. One is court oversight. It would basically require prison authorities who seek to isolate someone for longer than 48 hours to go to court to do so. Why 48 hours? That’s the amount of time the Ontario Court of Appeal said marked the point at which irreversible, permanent damage can be caused to prisoners. It’s less than the time that’s required for warrants and bail hearings. Right now, it amounts to, on average, 1,800 per year.
Prisoners may also ask a court to reduce a sentence, and this is the “Arbour remedy” that some of you are familiar with. In 1996, Justice Louise Arbour, at the completion of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, recommended that there be not only judicial oversight but also a remedy where corrections’ treatment of prisoners amounts to human rights abuses or breaches of the Charter. She recommended this, and it’s something we’ve included in the bill.
It also calls for accountability for isolation by any name. Some of you will be familiar with the successive reports of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, particularly the most recent report, and the fact that the Correctional Investigator as well as the ministerial advisory committee have documented that, in addition to the structured intervention units — those units bearing that name — there are many other mirror units that have the same conditions of confinement but none of the oversight limited, as it may be, introduced in Bill C-83. They range from mental health units — sometimes referred to by the Correctional Investigator as “dry cells,” hidden cells,” “therapeutic ranges,” “voluntary limited association ranges.” The newest one I’ve seen is the term “temporary detention.” The regional treatment centre units in many places, including, for instance, the Millhaven Institution, Stony Mountain Institution and Kent Institution, are right beside the SIUs, so they’re barely distinguishable. If you didn’t know you were going into one of those units, you might not know which was which.
The bill also provides for a prohibition on the isolation of those with disabling mental health issues. This came out of the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith. It was the first time we saw this recommendation. When I say “we,” I mean Canada. In 2012, that was the recommendation of the jury which investigated the death of Ashley Smith. For those who may not recall, she was a 19-year-old who died in a segregation cell in the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener in 2007. Her death was deemed a homicide by the inquest jury, and they recommended that no other people with mental health issues be put in prison.
It would call for the transfer of individuals to provincial mental health systems, including forensic hospitals. There are already exchanges of service agreements with every province and territory in the country to allow for this. Some of you will recall that Bill C-83, when it was passed, there were monies allocated to contract external beds by the Correctional Service Canada. They received some $74 million for new resources for mental health.
Before the Social Affairs Committee at the time, the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, who is still the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, indicated that was to be contracting for mental health beds as well as to hire external mental health advocates. Responses to the Finance Committee, the Legal Committee and the Human Rights Committee have shown that, in fact, none of those resources were used for external mental health advocates or for external mental health beds.
We know that the isolation of individuals, in addition to continuing now without the oversight, is a challenge. We also know that when provisions — there was a period of time when the Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Disabled Women’s Network of Canada tasked themselves, with the Correctional Service Canada, with identifying a plan for every single person who is placed in segregation in a prison designated for women. At one point, while the Human Rights Committee was doing its study, there were only five women in segregation.
That’s part of the genesis for improving section 29 access and, in particular, sections 81 and 84. Sections 81 and 84 were put into the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 specifically to assist in reducing the numbers of Indigenous people in prison, but subsections of both of those provisions also allow them to be applied to non-Indigenous prisoners.
Bill S-205 takes that and more specifically talks about some of the particular groups, and it would make that more accessible to groups.
Those are the key components of the bill. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Pate.
We’ll now move to questions for the panel.
Senator Batters: Thank you, Senator Pate, for being here and for your opening statement on this.
You and I spoke maybe one or two weeks ago. At that time, I believe you were strongly considering bringing a fairly substantial amendment to this bill that would take out the requirement to transfer inmates who have disabling mental health issues to hospitals. However, I didn’t hear you say anything about that in your opening remarks. Are you still making that amendment to this bill — as we start our study of it — or have you decided against that?
Senator Pate: I won’t be making that amendment, but I believe another senator will be. While I feel it’s inevitable that such an approach will need to be taken, I’m prepared to ensure that we have judicial oversight, which is one of the key components of this bill, to allow that to move.
In fact, the issue of prisoners not having access to mental health services is the subject of a number of legal cases right now. That includes an appeal of the Warren decision, which some of you have heard me speak about in my second-reading speech, where Justice Pomerance ordered Mr. Warren to be placed in a hospital. He hasn’t been. That decision is under appeal, so we’ll have a court ruling at some point that will go one way or the other. I’m prepared to look at having that amendment entertained.
Senator Batters: Having that amendment be considered as we start the study — because if that type of amendment is brought, it could potentially have a substantial impact on the types of witnesses we hear from because then that’s a considerable part of this bill that we don’t have to focus on. Because it is a significant focus.
When is that potentially going to be done? Will it be just at the clause-by-clause stage, or is it something that could potentially be relayed to our committee earlier so that we can actually have it as part of our study?
Senator Pate: I suspect we’ll hear about it shortly — if not today, tomorrow. The reality is that some of the witnesses who would speak to mental health — the committee, with all due respect, might want to hear from them because of the information they have about the other kinds of units that exist, particularly the mental health units in the prisons, to understand the need to also improve the options under sections 81 and 84.
Senator Batters: Yes, and just to provide a bit of information about that, when we studied the predecessor bill, Bill S-230, according to the data provided by the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly, during that study, there are currently approximately 650 beds across the five regional treatment centres, around 20 beds for women at L’Établissement de détention de Rivière-des-Prairies, and 15 beds for women and 3 for men at L’Institut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the definition of “disabling mental health issues” in your bill could potentially apply to up to 5,000 inmates, or about 38% of the federal inmate population.
Also during that study, Dr. Dufour cautioned that if the definition of “disabling mental health issues” tied to subsection 37.1(1) remained too broad, it would risk overwhelming provincial psychiatric hospitals.
So, as part of that, I’d ask you to comment — and maybe you have done this evaluation and that’s why you’re willing to have this amendment entertained as far as your bill is concerned — because having that many inmates fall under that definition and having all of those people potentially need to be transferred to provincial psychiatric hospitals could really overwhelm an already overwhelmed mental health care system in Canada.
Senator Pate: I don’t disagree that the mental health system is overwhelmed now — certainly the prisons are — with folks with mental health issues.
The initial impetus for this actually came from staff when we were going across the country doing the Human Rights Committee study of federally sentenced persons, the number of staff who requested this kind of intervention.
I don’t believe corrections ever responded, because I did ask that precise question of the Commissioner of Correctional Service, and we didn’t actually get a final number. However, one of the things you may have seen last week was that the Correctional Investigator recommended in his most recent report and also mentioned in press statements that the amount of money that will be spent on the five regional treatment centres that currently exist that are administered by corrections, as well as the Shepody treatment centre that’s being built, which will have a price tag of about $1.3 billion, or more than three times what it was when it was announced by the then minister — each of those regional treatment centres, if the Correctional Service Canada and the Minister of Public Safety went to the provinces — there are five regions of corrections — where those treatment centres are and offered even a portion of the $250 million that would be their regional portion of it, he could almost guarantee that they would create at least 30 beds, and probably far more than that.
The last time that Correctional Service Canada approached a government — and we heard about it at the last committee — was about the Pinel Institute. Pinel offered, for $3 million, to open 20 beds, and corrections felt that was too expensive. Yet, they have allocated $1.3 billion right now. They’ve got regional treatment centres where all the evidence is showing that people are getting more and more mentally unwell.
As you know, the reason we named it after Tona is because Tona, once she got into the mental health system, was diagnosed with isolation-induced schizophrenia after a decade in isolation.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have two quick questions. This is my first time participating in this study. I didn’t participate in the previous study.
I’m having trouble reconciling the 48 hours — which you say is the maximum — with the fact that Bill C-83 stipulated a 90‑day period before a review could take place, if I recall correctly. This seems like a huge difference. Does this 48 hours include breaks? I understand that efforts are being made to give people in segregation cells a few hours of relief.
[English]
Senator Pate: Sorry, the translation went very low, but I think I got the translation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There is a huge difference between 48 hours and 90 days, and it seems difficult to grasp. I was wondering if in the 48 hours, when you have those four or five hours not of freedom but of being out of the cell —
Senator Pate: I apologize if I was unclear. Ninety days is the trigger for the independent external decision-makers to have to do a review; corrections has to refer it to them. They’re not supposed to keep someone in isolation for more than five days. In fact, every day, they’re supposed to be reviewing that. Also, 15 days was seen as the maximum that they would be in isolation because of the UN definition of that — anything beyond that is potentially torture.
The reality is that they are supposed to be reviewing every day. One of the main impetuses for making it 48 hours is what the Ontario Court of Appeal found: The Ontario Court of Appeal saw that there was permanent damage and recommended oversight. If corrections has reasons that are legitimate, legally, to keep someone beyond 48 hours, they can present that evidence. One of the challenges right now is that to get that evidence, you actually have to mount a court case. That’s the only way, sometimes, to get the evidence, hence the reason we’ve gone with that.
When we went to meet with folks in the system, it was felt that it was reasonable, given that they deal with thousands of bail applications, as well as warrants and other types of reviews.
The other reality is that we know that when those kinds of court oversight mechanisms are put in place, they often act to prevent. In situations where the Correctional Service would not have a strong case, they would likely not keep someone even 48 hours. It’s really designed to push that accountability and ensure the system is accountable.
I know when the Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at it, they talked about the fact that corrections said it could potentially be many more and that they would deal with taking people to court. For those of you who have been in the prisons, you know the majority of these hearings are not held in person; people aren’t going out to court. They’re being done by video, so that could be accommodated by the prison; the prison has all of the records.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have another question.
I was rereading the testimony of Dr. Dufour of L’Institut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel, and he was saying that when inmates are in an SIU, there are procedures already in place to transfer them. They don’t necessarily go to Pinel, but they go to their penitentiary treatment centre — one of five in Canada — a Regional Mental Health Centre, or RMHC.
What are those? Are those independent systems, so there would not be additional costs? Are they centres that you would consider adequate?
Senator Pate: Those are the very centres that the Correctional Investigator has recommended not to continue and that, in fact, there would be contracts with external hospitals. There are so many documented cases, of which Ashley Smith was one. She was in one of those regional treatment centres. Four of them are duly designated penitentiaries and hospitals, according to provincial authorities. One of them, in Quebec, is not even designated a hospital, which is part of why they had extra pressure to contract with Pinel.
It is important to also note that the Mandela Rules, which Canada signed on to, and the Bangkok Rules, which are specific to women prisoners — the Mandela Rules are named after Nelson Mandela, and they are the UN minimum standard rules for the treatment of prisoners. They say we should be phasing out segregation, and there should be zero days and zero hours for people with mental health issues.
So it is 48 hours for some, and some have been critical that that’s too long. The court pointed out that you can have irreparable damage after that, but that’s why we chose the number: We thought it was a reasonable time to get things together and to get them before the court for a video appearance.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: It’s so good to see you again, Senator Pate. I want to recognize your commitment to and advocacy for helping not only prisoners but also being there for many people.
I’d like to try to understand something. I recall some of the previous testimony that you provided before and some of the science. I do realize that we will have other witnesses, but you get into the psychological, physiological and neurological aspects of this and how those translate into permanent and irreversible damage within that continuum of time. Taking that block of 48 hours — there are some science and evidence behind that.
I realize there’s a lot there, but if you could trace some of the key aspects of those linkages, I would appreciate it.
Senator Pate: Sure. Thank you for that question and for your kind comments.
The physiological, neurological and psychological aspects are linked to the work that has been done, more of it in the U.S. and Britain, quite frankly, than in Canada, but that was the kind of evidence that was put before the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith and that has been looked at by the courts in terms of their work on this issue. We know that to a prisoner, very few go into segregation, even for a few hours, without then talking about anxiety, claustrophobia and all the others.
Thank you, Emily, for pointing me to what the court said. The court said that within 48 hours sensory deprivation and other irreversible harms can take root. After seven days, brain activity can be permanently altered. The Court of Appeal said that isolation:
. . . has repeatedly been linked to appetite and sleep problems, anxiety, panic, rage, loss of control, depersonalization, paranoia, hallucinations, self-mutilation, increased rates of suicide and self-harm . . . .
Thank you again, Emily, for pulling that up for me.
What I’ve observed — well, Tona is a perfect example. She’s dying of cancer now, and her oncologist believes that the many years of lack of movement, being restrained and chained to a bed or to the floor in a prison cell — all of that could have contributed to the health issues she is facing.
That’s a doctor saying that, but the reality is that there are many people I know who have spent extended periods in segregation who have died very early deaths compared to others. That’s one explanation for the early deaths, but many have been diagnosed with significant psychiatric issues. There’s a saying in prison: If you go into “seg” and don’t have mental health issues, you’ll have them by the time you come out, and if you have them when you go in, you’ll be way worse when you get out, if you get out.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Pate. I would also like to commend your work, particularly in safeguarding the residual rights of incarcerated individuals. It’s important and necessary work.
I have two questions. The first concerns your proposed amendment to subsection 81(1) to include examples of Indigenous governance entities, which clarifies the current legislation. I have no issues with this. It’s perfectly clear when you talk about Indigenous groups. However, you’re also adding the following in paragraphs 81(1)(c) and 81(1)(d). This is where I would like some clarification:
(c) a community group or organization that serves a disadvantaged or minority population; or
(d) any other entity that provides community-based support services.
In the case of the groups referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d), can you provide further details? In particular, why do you consider that these groups would have the necessary expertise to enter into agreements and provide services to these vulnerable populations?
[English]
Senator Pate: It is a great question. In fact, the first version of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was more general than this. The limitation to Indigenous organizations was part of the amendments that Bill C-83 made to those provisions, so, in some ways, it’s taking back some of that space. However, it is adding in the fact there are groups like Indigenous Friendship Centres, which may or may not be seen as an organization, particularly if they have limited resources. There are informal groups that develop around specific populations, whether those are trans prisoners, Black prisoners, or other advocacy groups.
We’ve looked at the number of non-Indigenous communities that have been encouraged to use these mechanisms in the past, and it would be defined by who could provide support that ensures public safety; who could ensure the needs of the individual are dealt with so that if there are rehabilitative needs or treatment needs, those could be taken care of; and it’s about developing a plan. Section 81 would be for people serving their sentence in the community, and section 84 would be for people on parole in the community.
Senator Saint-Germain: I also had a question on section 84, but you just responded. I have another very brief one.
Can you give us more information regarding the difference between the proposed section 198.1, which is under “Reduction of sentence,” and the right to appeal that is already recognized for people who are criminalized and incarcerated? What is the difference?
Senator Pate: This was the remedy that was made by Louise Arbour after she looked at what had happened in the Prison for Women in Kingston in 1994 and 1995. Some of you may be too young to remember, but in that situation, a male emergency response team from across the road — the Kingston prison for men — came over and stripped and shackled women, leaving them naked in their cells. They had no access to lawyers for about 12 days. They had no access to running water. They were basically dry-celled naked. Then six of them were transferred over to the Kingston Penitentiary and put in the middle of the “treatment centre,” as they called it then, which was basically a segregated unit for sex offenders. Then, we had to get a habeas corpus to get them back to the Prison for Women. They were kept in segregation for 10 months.
The remedy that Louise Arbour recommended — there were many legal interventions, and none of them achieved even getting them out of segregation because once the lawyers went home, the women were left in the prison cells, and they were told they would never get out of segregation if they didn’t plead guilty to a series of charges. There was also forcible treatment, forced body-cavity searches; all of that was happening.
So Louise Arbour saw all of that information and said, in that case, what happened to those women — and there were many other examples that came up during the commission of inquiry — and it was continuing. In fact, Tona was in segregation when the commission was happening. So she saw that not only had it happened then but it was continuing at the Prison for Women. She heard evidence about it continuing at other places. She said that it was basically correctional interference with a lawful sanction.
When a judge sentences someone to prison, they sentence them to separation from the community, not to be punished in multiple other ways. So she placed that in there. Then, it’s not an appeal of the sentence or conviction; it’s saying that this is not the sentence to which this person was sentenced by the judge. It’s an ability to go back to the court and revisit that sentence or parole ineligibility, period.
The reason she recommended it — I went and asked her before we did this bill — is because there may be cases where you’re not interfering with the sentence; it’s a life sentence, perhaps, but you may change the parole ineligibility period based on the treatment the person has received.
Thank you for that question.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Senator Pate.
I’m going to start at the beginning of the bill and what you talked about regarding the definition of “structured intervention units.” In corrections, a structured intervention unit means a specific thing, but you also talked about the practice of things that are not structured intervention units but are functionally structured intervention units.
By your definition, do you take that to mean that it would also include voluntary ranges and other forms of segregation that are not strictly SIUs?
Senator Pate: That’s correct.
Senator Simons: Should you change it so that it doesn’t say “structured intervention units”?
Senator Pate: We did entertain that. Actually, when I talked to the Law Clerk, because corrections wanted to change the definition from “segregation” to “structured intervention units,” it was deemed that the easiest way was to expand what that definition meant or to make it more fulsome so that it couldn’t be used as a bar to movement.
Right now, it’s a bar to movement. When I go see someone — I was just in last week; I was at the Nova Institution for Women, and the week before, I was at Stony Mountain. The last few times I’ve been in the prisons, I literally go into the seg units at Nova, and all three of the women in there were Indigenous, by the way. Then I go next door, and the unit looks a little bit different; it has a bit more of a common area. That’s a max unit, and then there’s another max unit.
Then I go to Stony Mountain, and there’s a long range. That one is considered medical observation; this one is temporary detention; this one is SIU; I can’t remember what the term for the other one was.
At Millhaven, when I went in, I was looking for Mr. Warren. Mr. Warren and other people thought he was in an SIU. He wasn’t; he was in the regional treatment centre. The fact that people thought he was in the SIU was, I think, in part, because he was right beside the SIU. I think they were careful to put him in the regional treatment centre because if he had been in the SIU, it would have been a clear violation of Justice Pomerance’s decision that he should never be placed in segregation. Mr. Warren — part of why Justice Pomerance ordered him to a hospital was because every time he had been in federal custody, he went into segregation, by whatever name, and he just kept getting worse.
I’ve asked his counsel to assess whether he has an intellectual disability, which is a whole other issue. For people with mental health issues, there is a hope that by them going to a hospital or getting a better treatment, they might get better. Someone with an intellectual disability can’t.
Senator Simons: I want to ask another question while I still have time.
I went to visit the SIUs at the Edmonton maximum security prison, and I was intrigued that many of the men I met and spoke with were not there because they had had particularly dangerous behaviours or because they had mental health issues; they were there because of inter-gang violence in the prison, and it wasn’t safe for them to be in the general population. At the Edmonton Institution, that seemed to be a huge problem. They had all of these rival gangs. There was this extraordinary word map on the wall explaining that this kind of person can’t be with that kind of person, et cetera. It was a logic exam to make your head spin.
In a situation where people are being routinely put into structured intervention units or other seg units for reasons of their safety, how do we deal with that in a way that is fair to them and also makes the prison manageable and keeps the prisoners safe from one another?
Senator Pate: It’s a great question.
In my lifetime of doing this work, one of the challenges has been the increased use of security measures instead of human intervention to address issues and de-escalate situations, as well as the lack of programs to address issues. Some of you have met Rick Sauvé, who did a gang disaffiliation; it was one of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Human Rights Committee report. That is a phenomenon that is more likely to happen when people first come into the prison.
With interventions, there are many ways that can be dissipated. Those same guys, if they get to medium security, all live together. I’m not saying there aren’t issues, but if you place them in maximum security, there’s almost an expectation of the behaviour they’ll exert.
One of the challenges and why, I believe — and we can ask him — the Correctional Investigator talked about the maximum security areas as being some of the areas that need to have oversight is that increasingly they’re using static security rather than what is often referred to as dynamic or human intervention types of security. Their experience and reports have documented for decades that the more you use static security, the more you increase the likelihood of problems arising.
I’ll give you an example. The last time I was in Dorchester Penitentiary — because we went to see where the Shepody Healing Centre is, and a couple of the senators were with us — they brought a number of guys down. I recognized they were bringing them from different units. When they came down, they all met — it was fine — and when we were getting ready to go, they looked at me and asked if I could wait. I said I could. I explained to our two colleagues why we were waiting. And then I said, “You know what? It would be even better if you guys explained why we’re waiting with you here.” They said, “If you guys leave, we will have to fight. The expectation is that we fight. And if we don’t and someone goes back up, whether it’s one of us or a staff member, and says that we didn’t fight — because we’re all in these different units — that will be an issue.” And —
Senator Simons: An issue for the gang members?
Senator Pate: Yes, and for their safety — or from the staff.
Senator Simons: It’s like floor crossing here.
Senator Pate: I’m trying to answer this seriously, Senator Simons.
It’s a dangerous situation. It’s a dynamic. You’ve seen some of the reports as recently as a few months ago about the fight clubs and those sorts of things. Those are real. I don’t take them lightly.
The fact that we can go in, some of it is because I’ve had a relationship with people for a long time. I have never been assaulted in a prison, and that’s not because I’m a special person, but it does mean that, especially when we’ve got people like us going in or a judge reviewing, you tend to see different behaviour. Then the person who controls the key or the person who potentially could extort money out of you or whatever the issue is — it speaks to the need. There’s so much research about the challenges of the risk-assessment tools and the labelling of folks. All that is to say that when we have interventions like the kinds of things like Rick and others have done, we see very different responses.
I thought you were going to ask — so I’ll answer this, as well, perhaps — that if someone is in there for their own protection, why wouldn’t you leave them there? I remember Don Davies as a member of Parliament when I was not in this position asking that question. I said, “Go without me and go to every seg unit in your jurisdiction. Ask them how many people want to be there.”
Senator Simons: No, I went and I asked. I saw.
We should wrap up, but I just wanted to tell Senator Batters that those amendments will be circulated shortly.
Senator K. Wells: First, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your long-standing work on this issue and so many others on behalf of vulnerable Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is deeply appreciated and admired.
My question is around the treatment of trans and gender-diverse individuals who find themselves in correctional facilities. I’m wondering if you could speak to the experiences of these particular individuals when it comes to these structured intervention units, which, in my understanding, are often prescribed for their own personal safety within these correctional environments.
Senator Pate: Sometimes it’s based on discriminatory risk assessment, and sometimes based on discriminatory attitudes. Trans and gender-diverse folks are far more likely to be held in isolation by any name. Again, it may not be an SIU. It could be a regional treatment centre; it could be a voluntary limited association range; it could be temporary detention.
In fact, when we were working on Bill C-16 here in the Senate — I hope I have the right number. Thank you, Emily. When folks were visiting and saying, “We want to talk about where we’re going to place prisoners; let’s get them all in this prison or that prison,” my response was, “Why don’t you use sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to argue that you’ve developed those resources in community and basically develop the plan to keep safe?”
That’s an example of how I would potentially see this bill. It’s already possible now in law. This merely gives it a bit of oomph, if I can put that way, because it actually says that when a community comes to corrections and says they’re willing to take, then there is an onus on corrections to come up with a plan. If they can’t or they won’t, they must explain why.
Senator K. Wells: Within corrections environments, would it be correct to say that the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial and territorial human rights acts would apply?
Senator Pate: In federal prisons, federal legislation applies, and in provincial prisons, provincial legislation applies.
Senator K. Wells: In essence, de facto, those places should be non-discriminatory on the basis of an individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.
Senator Pate: Yes. There is a case called Ewert where the discriminatory nature for Indigenous people has been well explored, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2004 issued a report talking about the discriminatory nature of the classification system. They talked about sex, race and disability, but gender identification is certainly one of those as well.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you, Senator Pate, for your commitment to and passion for this topic and for all your hard work on this issue over many years.
I’ll continue along the same lines as Senator Saint-Germain’s earlier questions regarding the Arbour report and section 198 of the bill. This section sets out the criteria for a new remedy that gives the court the ability to reduce a sentence in the event of an injustice in the administration of detention. This injustice could include, for example, an unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or unduly discriminatory decision.
The Arbour report, which I looked at briefly, seems to recommend that segregation be limited or subject to external judicial oversight, ideally by a court, but used only as a last resort to prevent abuse or ensure the rule of law. However, the criteria set out in section 198 are much broader when it comes to unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or discriminatory decisions.
If the issue lies in the fact that the remedies don’t adequately compensate for the injustice endured, why would the appropriate solution be to reduce a sentence rather than order changes to the conditions of detention? This change in sentence may alter the fundamental proportionality between the crime and the punishment. This is the basis of law. I would first like to hear your thoughts on the lack of correlation that I see between the Arbour report and all the conditions in section 198. I would then like you to comment on the sentence reduction and the risk of altering the proportionality between the crime and the punishment, which hasn’t been discussed much. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you for that question. Justice Louise Arbour made that recommendation in 1996. Lots of things have happened since 1996. In fact, in that time, one of her recommendations was to put the same limit on administrative segregation as existed on disciplinary segregation, which was 30 days at the time. She also recommended as a last resort that we could look to judicial oversight.
In the meantime, people like Howard Sapers before him and now Ivan Zinger, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, as well as noted academics and people who have been contracted by corrections, like Michael Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Law at UBC, long recommended and tried to implement that kind of third-party independent oversight by independent chair people.
One of the most heartbreaking things for me was to hear Michael Jackson say, after 50 years of trying to reform, he sees it’s baked into the DNA, and the only thing that could change the behaviour of corrections might be judicial oversight. That was heartbreaking for me. I’d rather have been wrong on this and have some new idea come up, but every single measure that has been taken has been subverted. If it doesn’t involve the court looking at it and demanding change — and even when it does, like with Justice Pomerance — if it’s not actually reducing the time, then basically, you’re relying on whoever is going into the prisons to change what is happening, to keep documenting or to get them back to court.
This is already available. We do it at the time of sentencing in terms of the conditions of confinement. We’re seeing it all over the place. In terms of a challenging way, what happened at Maplehurst is in the news right now because so many charges have been dropped because of the treatment people received while they were remanded in custody. Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it already exists to be able to go back. If someone is doing really well, you can go back to court and revisit the sentence. It is not often publicized because they are youth and it’s protected, but we already have these provisions. Really, that’s what I modelled this on — what already exists and is available.
I probably shouldn’t implicate Justice Arbour, but I did talk to her about what she would recommend now. Publicly, in 2016, she talked about how in 1996, this is what we saw and what we proposed. We never imagined it would get far worse; we actually thought it would get better. Many of us thought the recommendations from the Arbour commission would be implemented, and they weren’t. That was when I was young and naive. Now I’m old and naive.
Senator Clement: Senator Pate, thank you for your remarkable work. Really, thank you. And thank you to Ms. Grant and Mr. Osborne for always so ably supporting you.
I have two questions. The first one is around language. This came up in the chamber after Senator Dasko’s speech around what we call minority populations or disadvantaged populations. In certain legislation, it’s “Black” and “racialized.” I’m wondering if you could comment on whether this language in proposed section 81, serving “. . . a disadvantaged or minority population . . .” really still makes sense, especially when we’re talking about Indigenous populations and Black populations being the two populations that are systemically overrepresented in prisons. That’s my first question.
Secondly, thank you for mentioning Rick Sauvé, who fought for the right to vote all the way to the Supreme Court. As you know, I did a project. I went to many prisons this year just ahead of the federal election to see and study how prisoners exercise their right to vote. When I talked about this project to my family at Easter dinner — to Canadians — it wasn’t a great reaction. The reaction was, “Why are you doing that? Why should prisoners have the right to vote?”
In this case, what you’re describing, the remedy you’re proposing is about human rights. Why should it matter to Canadians that there are human rights violations going on in prisons? How do we talk about that to Canadians?
Senator Pate: I always go back to what Nelson Mandela said when he came out of prison. Many people don’t know that one of the first pieces of legislation he promulgated was a law that said that any mother who has a child under the age of 12 cannot be jailed. A lot of people didn’t know that. It was challenged by men in the Hugo case.
He said two things: If you don’t have human rights in prison, then you can’t guarantee anyone has human rights anywhere; if you don’t ensure that those who are least likely to enjoy that protection have that protection, then you can’t guarantee we have it anywhere else. He recognized that to jail a mother in that situation — this was a while ago — was to relegate generations to come to subjugation.
It is thanks to the work of our late colleague Murray Sinclair and others that we know that prisons are the modern-day residential school. We know about the numbers: One in two women and one in three men serving federal sentences are Indigenous, and the numbers are creeping up for those of African descent, as well, and others.
The use of the language was to try and capture as many people as we could, recognizing that in some areas — for instance, in B.C., we have a growing number of South Asian prisoners. We started talking about whether we should name all, and my worry was that we would forget or we would be behind a horrible trend that might be coming. That was the reasoning. I’m certainly open to improvement in terms of ideas for improving the language. Thank you for raising that, and thank you all for your kind comments.
Senator Dhillon: Again, I’ll echo what has already been said: Thank you for your work and commitment to this.
There is an understanding or acceptance that when someone is sent to prison, we are looking for that debt to society to be repaid, but there is no expectation that additional harms come to that person when they’re paying that debt. That is part of the conversation here. That is why it’s important that we keep our promise to those we have brought into the system who are now paying that debt to society — that they don’t come out exactly for those things that we’re preventing, which are harm and injury to others.
To that end, though, when you spoke about — and in my past life working with organized crime and gangs — it’s commonplace for rival gangs to have their colours and carve out their spaces in prison. It’s a matter of survival for them at times.
I’m interested to understand, when it comes to static security and dynamic intervention that you mentioned, are there examples of where that works without having these gang members and others who are simply being put into segregation and solitary confinement for the mere purpose of preventing violence from taking place in prisons?
Senator Pate: That’s a great question. Thank you.
Yes, the most effective interventions that I have seen are peer on peer. Rick Sauvé is someone who still carries — as a matter of fact, it didn’t exist when he went to prison — a security threat group designation. That was put on him when they introduced it because of what he was convicted of way back, almost 40 years ago now. But the people who have come through that, who have challenged and dropped their colours, affiliations or whatever are the people who are often listened to by others in the system.
Horrifically, now, it’s almost de rigueur. People almost have to say they’re affiliated to have some protection. That is a horrendous situation to be placed in. So by focusing on gangs instead of focusing on interventions, I think we have actually — and I say “we” because I haven’t been able to change this unilaterally — fed that problem. In a few cases where we haven’t seen that approach — I’ll use some examples. When I was working with young people, in Calgary, we decided not to go the gang route. We talked about how to intervene in the lives of kids who are in vulnerable situations and who are most vulnerable to becoming gang-affiliated. How do we immediately intervene and interfere with it? They called it, a series of it, “habitual offender interventions” and all different things. The long and the short of it is that many of those kids never went on into that system.
When we went to Manitoba and were trying to deal with it, there was immediately a focus on gangs for Indigenous kids. You would be hard-pressed not to have at least three or four generations of gangs since that time.
So when you focus on it as a gang issue as opposed to an economic inequality issue, a racial inequality issue or whatever other issue that may be feeding it, like a desire to belong — the number of kids in care who get recruited — my experience in that has been that we have created some of this problem ourselves. That doesn’t excuse the behaviours of those who become involved, but I think the fact that we have now trained up kids to be more concerned about getting a pair of sneakers than food on the table is on us.
This bill doesn’t fix that, but there are a lot of issues that we have to focus on to address that. Dynamic security is one of them, but so is trusting the people who have come through the system and have come out the other end and are trying to assist. One of the hardest things has been to get Rick back into maximum security to do that work. Yet, his has probably been the most effective of any interventions in that area. He offered to do it across the country for $200,000 — go into every maximum security penitentiary and do that kind of work. That’s a pittance compared to the $3.2-billion per year budget for corrections, only 6% of which they spend on community; all the rest goes into the prison. No wonder we’re seeing this proliferating.
With respect to dynamic interventions in segregation, the very few cases I know — for instance, Ontario, in the previous government, was going to implement a law that still sits on the books, that hasn’t been implemented; it was going to have four prisons in Ontario with no segregation units at all. That was seen as not politically saleable, so they took it out. But in a few prisons where we’ve managed to go in and work with the folks — provincial and youth, in particular — just here in Ontario, at one point, the inspector at the William E. Hay Centre said they wanted to get rid of it. It’s actually illegal to put kids in segregation. The fact that it exists across this country is a whole other issue, but this bill won’t solve it. But there, we met and talked. He had kids in seg for sometimes days and week. He put in place a policy that if a staff member wanted to put a person in what they called “quiet time” — they didn’t call it “seg” — they had to stand at the door and engage with that person the entire time. They went from weeks to a matter of minutes and hours. And they wouldn’t put a chair there, so the staff couldn’t just sit down and read or do whatever. They had to stand at the door and engage with the person. That policy alone changed a practice.
I’m quite hopeful that what this bill proposes could help change practices. It’s not a panacea, and it doesn’t control all of those things, but it could help generate that kind of change.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Pate, for coming here and sponsoring this bill. As everyone said, thank you for all the good work that you do and for your advocacy on these issues. Thank you, Ms. Grant, for assisting your senator.
We are now pleased to welcome officials from the Correctional Service Canada: Marie Doyle, Assistant Commissioner, Health Services; and Jay Pyke, Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs.
Thank you to both witnesses for joining us today. We will begin with some opening remarks for five minutes or so, and then we’ll move to questions. You’re familiar with this practice, I’m sure. Welcome. Ms. Doyle, you can go first, if you wish.
Marie Doyle, Assistant Commissioner, Health Services, Correctional Service Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members of this committee, it’s my pleasure to be here with you today. As the chair shared, I am Marie Doyle, the Assistant Commissioner responsible for Health Services at CSC, and I am joined by Jay Pyke, the Assistant Commissioner of Correctional Operations and Programs.
In my role as Assistant Commissioner for Health Services, I oversee the provision of health care services to federal inmates, supported by a team of registered health care professionals. The services they provide are clinically independent, person-centred and culturally responsive.
Our mental health service delivery model provides a continuum of care for offenders from their admission to sentence expiration. This includes regional treatment centres, which offer psychiatric in-patient care, as well as intermediate mental health care services for patients with an identified mental health need.
I note that much of the discussion that you have had about this bill has focused on the important mental health needs of inmates. I know that we would all agree that mental health care is an essential component of offender rehabilitation, and that’s why we place such an emphasis on achieving better health outcomes for those in our care and custody.
We have done a lot of important work in better measuring the impacts of our services and our approach to care, including access to care. As part of that, we’ve been able to ensure that 95% of inmates with identified mental health needs receive treatment, and 98% of inmates have an identified physician or nurse practitioner, that kind of most responsible care provider.
Given the importance of this issue, we are committed to doing even more to enhance mental health services for offenders. We have just recently undertaken a focused review of health care delivery to ensure that inmates receive the right services, both at the right time and from the right professionals. This also helps ensure that we’re drawing on the expertise and experience of our workforce.
Last May, we launched a review of our regional treatment centres, and part of the objective of the review is to ensure that we provide a standardized baseline of services across the country, including for Indigenous and women offenders. The review is focused on ensuring that services align with population health needs and reflect an appropriate mix of psychiatric hospital care, intermediate mental health care and short-term medical care.
We are currently also reviewing the infrastructure of our health care facilities to better support rehabilitation and recovery.
In addition, we are launching a patient advocacy service supported by an advisory committee established earlier this spring. This committee includes internal and external stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and will provide guidance to help us better meet the needs of those in our care.
We’ve also completed a review of intermediate mental health care, led by our national senior psychiatrist, again, in collaboration with external experts. This review focused on improving mental health outcomes and quality of life for inmates with mental illnesses. Continued enhancements to this model will be implemented to further strengthen supports and outcomes.
I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have around the delivery of health care. Similarly, Jay will be able to speak to questions that members of this committee may have regarding the operation of the structured intervention units and operations.
Before that, I wanted to quickly touch upon a few successes and improvements that we have seen, considering the bill’s focus on the SIUs.
In terms of numbers, we have seen an annual increase in the percentage of successful transfers out of an SIU, which is defined as no readmission within 120 days after return to the mainstream population. We also saw a decrease in the median number of days that offenders stayed in an SIU from 2023 to 2025. Despite this, we took steps to further improve the operation of SIUs.
For example, we’ve introduced an updated policy suite that reflects operational changes and strengthens oversight, as well as clarifies further expectations with regard to legal compliance. We’ve also established clear objectives for SIUs to reinforce legislative intent, improve the understanding of roles and responsibilities and promote consistency and service delivery. This is in addition to the establishment of dedicated forums to review complex SIU cases, identify best practices, and explore alternatives to SIU transfers across the country.
We’ve also enhanced training and support for behavioural skills coaches who work with SIU inmates to ensure they are equipped to meet offenders’ needs. With these actions, we aim to continue to strengthen the oversight and operation of SIUs.
I also wanted to briefly talk about the overrepresentation of certain groups under our care and custody. We know that Indigenous and Black offenders remain overrepresented in our criminal justice system, and we have numerous initiatives under way to reduce these numbers within our federal institutions.
As part of this, CSC provides funding to Indigenous communities and organizations to strengthen partnerships, support co-development initiatives and deliver culturally responsive interventions that help individuals transitioning from institutions to community life, help them overcome reintegration challenges in their home communities or urban settings and advance section 84 release planning.
For Black offenders, we’re currently implementing the Black Offender Strategy, informed by input from more than 400 Black offenders within our sites, including initiatives that support better correctional outcomes and take into account their lived experience. Over the next two years, $7.9 million will be invested in these initiatives.
Through the actions mentioned above, we remain committed to enhancing our services to better meet the needs of our offender populations. Mr. Pyke and myself are happy to answer any questions this committee may have.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks. We’ll move to questions.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much for being here today and helping us with the study of this bill. Bill S-205 refers to disabling mental health issues as defined in section 37.11 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which includes refusal of social interaction, acts of self-harm, symptoms of drug overdose and signs of emotional distress or behaviour indicating an urgent need for mental health care. Based on your experience, how common are these conditions among inmates in their incarceration? And do you believe that if this provision in Bill S-205 were applied as written, it could lead to a significant number of transfers to hospitals?
Ms. Doyle: Thank you for the question. We’ve done some more detailed work in terms of the level of mental health needs of the incarcerated patient population. The number of folks who have very acute mental health needs, who would be accepted by an outside hospital, is relatively small as compared to the total number of the population within our care and custody who have a mental health need — more of that intermediate mental health need, still important but less considerable.
Part of the focus for us has been ensuring that we’re responding to mental health needs across the array of complexity in terms of the inmates we see and those with more acute needs, doing our best through the regional treatment centre review, as well as better placement and intermediate mental health care beds to respond to their needs. The proportion of those with an acute mental health need is smaller than those with an intermediate mental health care need.
Senator Batters: The information I read you, it’s what’s called “disabling mental health issues,” and then that very particular definition, that’s what applies, not something determining, as you’ve been talking about, acute needs or intermediate needs. I would argue many of the things I just read are probably more intermediate-need type of things, so given that definition, how many people would be covered by that? That’s what we really need to know in the study of this bill.
Ms. Doyle: In terms of the numbers, I’m going to have to get back to you on that one.
Senator Batters: Thank you. If you could do that relatively quickly, since we’re potentially in a shortened study of this bill, and we need to know those numbers fairly quickly.
As well, we had a federal budget yesterday, with a very large deficit, the largest outside of COVID, a $78-billion deficit, so a lot of spending. I’m wondering about things that would perhaps help with this type of a bill, the types of services that are needed in your facilities, what sort of expenditures is the government indicating in the budget that it will make to help with these types of issues?
Ms. Doyle: Organizationally, we had already benefited from investments via Bill C-83. That has allowed us to strengthen both psychiatry services and the level of staffing already in place in some of our treatment centres.
Where possible, we’ve also been trying to extend our outreach to outside hospitals. Again, we can’t compel outside hospitals to take our patients, but we’ve already received investments via Bill C-83 that have allowed us to strengthen care and services.
Senator Batters: Bill C-83 is several years old. I’m wondering what was in the budget yesterday that would help with these types of issues.
Ms. Doyle: I think in terms of the details of the budget and implications for CSC, we’re waiting in terms of both the budget debate and further next steps.
Senator Batters: You’re waiting for the budget debate, but the document is available, and I would think you’d be able to tell us at our committee what part of that expenditure was. Again, is that something, please, that you could get back to our committee about?
Ms. Doyle: Absolutely.
Senator Batters: How do you assess the risk to safety and well-being of the vulnerable and threatened inmates if there are delays in processing of extension requests by superior courts for extended SIU stays?
Ms. Doyle: I’ll hand over to my colleague. I wanted to note, it’s about 160 offenders with the considerable needs that you had noted.
Jay Pyke, Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, Correctional Service Canada: To the question on risk, it’s very complicated, a very complex population. The proposed 48-hour cap is not sufficient time, in my experience, in certain cases, to be able to alleviate or get to the bottom or the root of the necessity to place in a SIU. Those dynamics could be — for example, if an individual were to be assaulted by a group, there are a lot of layers there to have those discussions and to look through preventative security intelligence perspective in terms of what may have contributed to that incident. Offenders aren’t forthcoming, necessarily, when you ask them for information on what the cause is, the root cause. It could be debt; it could be drugs, just as examples.
But I would say oftentimes when we’re seized with preservation of life or seized with the health and safety of both the offender in question and staff themselves, within that 48-hour period, there’s just not enough time in certain circumstances to warrant a decision that we can safely reintegrate that person back into a general population environment. Whether it’s for their own safety or for the safety of others, given the circumstances that surrounded the placement.
Senator Batters: I want to briefly go back, before I finish, to Ms. Doyle on that answer of 160 you gave me. Is that the acute needs that you were discussing before, or are you considering now that it would encompass the actual definition I was asking you about before? If you need to get back to us, that’s fine, but I would like an accurate number as to what the actual definition that is covered by this act is.
Ms. Doyle: So we can look to offer more precision. The 160 is the number of people with acute mental health needs, so we’ll come back with a more detailed answer, absolutely.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Welcome. Good evening to you both.
I read with interest your response to the 2024–2025 report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, your ombud. You spoke in particular about your mental health care services, the intermediate care. Ms. Doyle, in your opening remarks, you said that 94% of inmates have a doctor, family member or nurse practitioner who serves as their designated point of contact. I won’t go into details. However, according to Statistics Canada’s 2024 statistics, 83% of Canadians in the general public have a family doctor. That’s a lower percentage. In Quebec, my province, the figure is only 74%. According to a study by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 38% of adults in the general public who need mental health care have no access to treatment or services. Given this, I have a blunt question for you. Wouldn’t it be better to consider that inmates who suffer from mental health issues are currently receiving more care than the public system can provide?
[English]
Ms. Doyle: Thank you very much for the question.
In fact, we benchmark a lot of our services against the norms of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, or CIHI, just to ensure comparability. Simply, yes, in many instances, in terms of access to care, there is better access for a patient population than might be available in other provinces and — I’m originally from the Northwest Territories — other remote jurisdictions.
Again, in recognizing the importance of well-being and mental health treatment to public safety, we’re really pleased we’ve been able to strengthen care in that way and improve access, absolutely.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: My second question concerns the section of the legislation that covers parole. A proposal has been made, for a parole situation, to add Indigenous governance entities to paragraph 81(1). This clarifies the current legislation. Paragraphs (c) and (d) — and my question pertains to only these two paragraphs — also include the following:
(c) a community group or organization that serves a disadvantaged or minority population; or
(d) any other entity that provides community-based support services.
This seems quite broad for a parole situation. What are your thoughts on these additions? Do you have any suggestions to ensure that the organizations concerned can fulfill the obligations set out in the legislation?
[English]
Mr. Pyke: Thank you.
In relation to the proposal, I think sections 81 and 84 are what we’re referring to in terms of what CSC has historically used for Indigenous communities — looking to return to an Indigenous community. For now — or as to this point — CSC has worked exclusively with Indigenous communities in the sense of looking for section 81 agreements for Indigenous persons.
However, to your question, which is other groups, the first thing I personally would do for comfort would be to discuss sections 81 and 84 with Indigenous Peoples, because that was the intent and that’s what we have been using to this point. Are we looking at other alternatives for other racialized groups? For example, I’ll use Black offenders in the Ontario region: We’re starting to look at the application of day parole to other alternatives. Are there alternatives maybe in the community? And I used to be in the Atlantic region, so I’ll use the African Nova Scotian community in that area. I mean looking for “inreach” and outreach to deal with the African Nova Scotian community in the sense of support, what programs may be available in terms of “inreach” or outreach upon release to help support, as an example, that one group.
We’re also looking at beginning — we look at Indigenous social history playing an important role and looking at correctional planning as well as release planning for Indigenous persons. We’re just starting to look now at, for example, a Black offender’s social history. What is the impact of that history in terms of maybe looking at things a bit differently — knowing that the exposure they had to criminal justice early on and national biases that would develop, given the dynamics around that social history.
Also, we are looking to develop community liaison officers. I’ll use my more recent history of the Atlantic in the establishment of a Black community liaison officer, someone who will actually be a bridge between the community and the offenders in the sense of looking at what is out there in terms of potential support, what is there to set things up prior to release and what kinds of “inreach” can come in to help with cultural competency pieces inside to change the experience for BIPOC individuals during their incarcerated time. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you both for being here. I appreciate your coming. The last time the commissioner came. You’re in an unenviable position of defending positions that — given the number of times I talk to folks in corrections, most of what I do is informed by folks like you who know there is often a gulf between the policy and the practices in the prisons. So thank you for coming. The questions I’m going to ask actually zero in on that.
I’ll start with you, Ms. Doyle. You know that in the Warren decision, Justice Pomerance ordered that Mr. Warren not serve his sentence in a prison, but that he be in a hospital. I’ve seen the letters that were sent out by corrections, and it’s small wonder that no hospital took Mr. Warren, because there was no offer of resources; it was just, “Do you want this guy?” Of course, they all said no.
I think the point the Correctional Investigator has made in response to the Correctional Service’s rejection of his recommendation that resources be put into contracting outside mental health beds reflects the challenge of this: We’re not seeing the impact that you’re describing that your objectives are. We’re not seeing that impact practically in terms of what happens when people come out of those units and into the community. In fact, many take a very long time, as you know, to get into the community.
What is your response to the fact that the Correctional Investigator has documented, done a very thorough report, made these recommendations, is really concerned about the tripling now of the budget for the planned Shepody Healing Centre and the fact that I’m routinely being called by psychiatrists who work within the Correctional Service Canada to intervene in cases to try and get folks out of the prison system? Security is always seen as trumping therapy. You know that most of this information — I get some information from prisoners because I go into jails, but I get a lot from staff.
How do you reconcile that? How would you encourage us reconcile that, recognizing that you have a job to defend the service you work for? If you have any particular insights, they would be extremely helpful.
Ms. Doyle: Thank you for the question.
In terms of the specificity of the outreach to hospitals, it was accompanied by outreach via meetings and extensions through our national psychiatry lead and regional psychiatrist where they had those connections. Absolutely, a letter is not enough. That is the work that we’re continuing to do in terms of leveraging partnerships to expand beyond CSC where we can connect with services. Again, that has enabled our national psychiatry lead. It is with us through a partnership with the Royal Ottawa Hospital here in Ottawa. Again, that network of networks is so important as we try and identify spaces for care. That is all to say it’s the letter plus all of those efforts.
I do want to say one thing which is tied more to making clear what the opportunities or the reimbursements for partnerships are. We’ve also talked with our internal contracting organization within CSC about doing an RFI process. That, again, would be a more robust process in terms of that outreach with hospitals to just amplify the partnership efforts.
In terms of improving on outcomes, it’s something that is really critical to me. I joined CSC just over a year and a half ago, and part of the focus — and it speaks to the importance of the mental health and substance-use needs of our inmate population — is, absolutely, as you know, to strengthen those outcomes and ensure we’re getting to folks at the right time with the right type of service. That is an important area of focus.
Within CSC, like other health systems, there are challenges around health human resources. The “who” of health care really matters. Therefore, a key part of the work I’ve done since joining CSC was to develop, in partnerships with our health care communities, a health human resource strategy. That helps solidify the base of health care professionals we have doing practice assessments to ensure they’re well placed to respond to the mental health and substance use needs of patients we have in our care. I think that focus on continual improvement as part of health care, like other health systems, is so important.
Senator Pate: I’m sorry; I’m not going to have a chance to ask Mr. Pyke what I wanted, but was any dollar figure attached at any point? There wasn’t in any of the letters I saw. I take Dr. Zinger’s point that if the Correctional Service Canada went to each of the regions and offered $250,000 to develop a 20- or a 30-bed unit, they would probably have a different response. What dollar figures were provided in Mr. Warren’s case, for instance, to provide those services for him?
Ms. Doyle: Currently, our per diem rate at the Pinel institute is $1,200 a day per bed. I think that was part of the outreach, but, again, to your point around more precision and detail, we can look to include that level of information as part of what would be a request-for-information process.
What we heard in terms of the outreach and a bit what we hear is about the more limited capacity, particularly as it relates to complex forensic cases. At many mental health hospitals across Canada, many of the folks we’re managing have a unique complexity in terms of their care needs, so sometimes that can be challenging.
But, absolutely, I agree about continued outreach and, again, through an RFI process, being as explicit as possible around our interest in partnering and the potential for partnership. I will note that we also, though, continue to engage externally to try and enrich the current services within our different sites as well, so partnerships both in terms of what they can provide for beds but also in terms of how they can strengthen the care and services that we’re already offering.
Senator Pate: I think I’m out of time.
The Chair: If it would help, Senator Pate, you could succinctly ask Mr. Pyke the question and he can respond in writing.
Senator Pate: One of the questions I would like to ask is how many of the “day parole — other” have been provided and what the demographic breakdown is. We managed to get some of those during the pandemic. These were individuals whom corrections had classified as such high risk that nobody wanted them, and it was part of the reason we ended up getting “day parole — other.” I’m interested in that breakdown.
I’m also interested, Ms. Doyle, in how many psychiatrists and psychologists you’re still trying to hire, because in many of the prisons I’ve been going into, they don’t have enough staff. Thank you.
Senator Simons: Mr. Pyke, my questions are around the definition of a structured intervention unit and the populations who use them. Senator Pate has noted that there are other parts of the prison that get used functionally in ways that are very similar to an SIU.
When I toured the structured intervention units in Edmonton, I was impressed at some of the programming that was being offered at the actual structured interventions, but many of the people I met — indeed, most of the people who were in SIUs — were not there because of dangerous behaviour or because of mental health, but because of gang tensions in the facility.
I wonder if you could talk to us a little bit about whether you think it is fair, as Senator Pate has framed it, to include every kind of place where people are segregated as an SIU. Can you give us a sense of the breakdown of — I don’t want to say SIU — what the segregation population is? Who is being segregated?
Mr. Pyke: I would say no one is being segregated.
Senator Simons: If we’re going to have a semantic argument, it’s going to be a big waste of our time.
What I want to know is, of the people who are in an SIU, then, to use your term, what percentage of them are there for their own protection or because of tensions within the inmate population that they can’t be in general population? And how many are there because of problematic behaviours or medical needs?
Mr. Pyke: It’s a statistic I’m going to have to provide to you after in terms of the actual numbers, but I can speak to the principles if that’s what you want to speak to.
The other areas you’re referring to, I believe, would be the voluntary limited association ranges, where they live on their own, they don’t go out and they do their own recreation. They do have access to programming. I wouldn’t consider it an SIU regime in the sense that they have access to broader pieces. They have their own routine. Of course, we use a minimum threshold of four hours out of cell and two hours. We look at the routines across the board with a focus on maintaining the four and two minimum. We’ve got those.
We have dry cell usage, for example, as well. There is new legislation around dry cells, new policy around dry cells. The dry cell case is quite different. That’s where we believe on reasonable grounds that they’ve concealed contraband on their person.
Senator Simons: So they can pass.
Mr. Pyke: Correct. They’re a little different than they used to be. Currently, if they’ve been there for 48 hours, that requires a notification to a Regional Deputy Commissioner. Beyond 48 hours — I’d say, day 3 — there would be a notification to the Director General of Security at the national headquarters. It’s the same thing if it goes to day 4, and, of course, by day 5, they must be out of a dry cell situation.
There’s very limited association in that situation because the concern is that they’ll try to discard the contraband if they’re in another area. They’re under surveillance the entire time they’re in a dry cell scenario. That is another one I can think of. I wouldn’t consider it an SIU regime because it’s very different in terms of what we’re trying to do in a dry cell situation. They’re also, quite candidly, rare in the grand scheme of the percentage of those placements that happen.
We’re also trying to bring about new technology that will alleviate some of those things. I’ll use the dry cell, for example. We were able to introduce body scanners over the last year. They have proven very effective in being able to alleviate the necessity to use a dry cell.
Senator Simons: So you can screen out people who are not, in fact, holding contraband?
Mr. Pyke: We can determine through the body scan, in no uncertain terms, whether they are concealing something on their person or not.
Senator Simons: But if they are concealing something, do they have to wait in the dry cell?
Mr. Pyke: Or they cooperate. With the new body scanners, a lot of them will actually turn over the contraband without going to the dry cell.
Senator Simons: In terms of the number of people who are there for their protection — when I was in Edmonton, these weren’t voluntary ranges. These were guys who had been segregated, to use the English-language meaning of the word, from the general population. You’re right; they were allowed out perhaps longer than one hour a day, but it was still a pretty lonely existence.
When you look at Senator Pate’s bill and you see her definition of what a structured intervention unit is, do you think that is a workable definition and that it captures things that should be considered?
Mr. Pyke: I’m in complete agreement with the definition that CSC has now of what a structured intervention unit is. There are other subpopulations. I have explained there are differences between other subpopulations and intent, and what an SIU is. That would be my answer to your question.
Is it workable? I think there are other dynamics in terms of the purpose they’re in there that don’t coincide with a four and two minimum for a dry cell, for example, when the whole idea is that we believe, on reasonable grounds, that they’re concealing contraband. So I would say no.
Senator Simons: I’m talking about people who are in a form of protective custody because they come from a particular gang. Some of the gentlemen that I met in Edmonton had been moved from prisons outside the Prairie region and arrived and found out that they are considered —
Mr. Pyke: Incompatible, let’s say.
Senator Simons: That would be a polite way of putting it.
Mr. Pyke: I can’t paint it with the same brush because every case is a bit different, to be candid, in terms of what their profile is and what the dynamic is at each site. There’s also a profile at each site. For somebody who is in for their own safety and because they’re at risk, again, the goal is to alleviate that as soon as possible.
These are complex cases, so it’s very difficult sometimes. You used a security threat group as an example. A lot of security threat groups across the country used to be very regionalized.
Senator Simons: Is the security threat group a gang?
Mr. Pyke: As a simple term, a gang.
Senator Simons: We’re simple senators. You have to use words we understand.
Mr. Pyke: Okay, we’ll use “gang.” It’s a little simplistic in terms of some of these groups, but, okay, we’ll use “gang.” In that sense, it really is about where we can put them. If we’re looking at that population and they have to go in, preservation of life is my main concern. I’m a former warden. I worked as a correctional officer. And fleshing out the information and the intelligence is not easy sometimes. Sometimes they don’t want to be forthcoming with that information. Sometimes the inmate welfare committee that we’re talking to doesn’t want to be forthcoming. So it takes a little bit of work to find out if, at the end of the day, this person can integrate.
If the inmate welfare committee says, “No, they’re not welcome; they can’t come out,” I can debate all I want in terms of whether I think there is merit to them being persona non grata in that population, but the reality is they’re persona non grata in that population, and they’re saying they can’t guarantee that. So then we look to other environments, other institutions where we can try to alleviate that.
Again, the goal is to alleviate that status as soon as possible. It’s very complex. I wouldn’t have any in for their own safety if we could control that. Right now, it takes work to be able to work them out and find a proper environment to be able to safely do that. We have individuals who, quite candidly, elected to go into the SIU, but there is not a rationale particularly other than they feel that’s for their own safety. Those are very difficult cases to try to speak to those individuals to say, “You don’t need to be here; you can integrate.” You can bring welfare committees to have conversations, but they ultimately have to have comfort with that, which is the reason for some of the new resources we’ve introduced — behavioural skills, counsellors, particularly — to deal with personality disorder elements that maybe prevent them from safely integrating into a population. Sometimes it’s just they way they live. Sometimes it’s just cleanliness. Sometimes it’s their lack of world understanding or things they’ll say in that environment that will create issues politically or socially. I hope I’m answering your question.
Senator Simons: Thank you. That’s a really thoughtful answer; I appreciate it.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I would like to address the issue of incarcerated women, particularly Indigenous and Black women. As you also pointed out, they suffer disproportionate hardship. We know that these incarcerated women have higher rates of mental health disorders, trauma histories, self-harm and suicide risk as a result of this hardship. The bill lacks an implementation mechanism that takes gender realities into account. The goal is to protect this population. However, do we run the risk of failing to meet the needs that I just described?
My second question is the following. How can these health and reintegration issues be better addressed? Ms. Doyle already touched on this. I would also like to discuss the situation prior to reintegration when the problem comes up. I would like to hear specifically about these topics.
[English]
Ms. Doyle: Thank you for the question. Part of what we’ve been focusing on are the particular needs of different populations, including women and Indigenous women, and looking at how to support the complexity and acuity of their needs, including ensuring that clinicians have a trauma-informed approach to care. We’ve provided increased resources at many of the women’s sites, in part to support the complexity of care. Back to my opening comments about the right provider at the right time, one of the issues that has been identified is often it can be an Elder or a traditional healer who is better placed to provide mental health care and support. The benefit of that can sometimes be that it helps bridge back for that person to community or community support. So we’re looking at strengthening Elders as part of the health team, recognizing that Elders have long been a part of the CSC intervention suite, but also having Elders and traditional healers as part of health care-specific supports for women, in particular Indigenous women.
I would say, too, one of the areas that are really important in terms of the health human resource planning that we’re doing is recognizing, in particular, that with complex histories of trauma, having to tell your story multiple times is heavy. It’s very hard. So we’re wanting to ensure that the first point of contact, often a nurse, is equipped to manage all of what that patient or inmate is bringing forward. We’re ensuring that those first-line health care providers are stronger and better able to respond to the complexity of mental health needs. That was tied a lot to what we heard in terms of the weight of telling your story. You reach out for care and want that first point of connect to be someone who can help support you in terms of care.
Those good experiences of health care, positive experiences of support, I think, are essential in reintegration because they allow individuals to see health care and other supports — Elders and community supports — as part of their circle of support, their network, helpful inside and then helpful to them outside.
But we have work to do. There is a need there, and it continues to be an area of focus for us. I benefit from working closely with Kathy Neil, who is responsible for Indigenous programming, but additionally has a strong network of community partners whom she is already working with. Again, we are just trying to make sure we’re connected with people, service providers and others who already have that expertise.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Will this bill meet these needs? My question is for everyone.
[English]
Ms. Doyle: I guess what I would offer in terms of health care services is that in many pockets of Canada — especially with the complexity of inmates, patients that were supporting — it can be hard for them to connect with services. I think there are no simple pathways to ensuring that people’s complex needs are met.
Within CSC, relying on a team-based approach but having worked with terrific external partners, the First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia and other key partners, we know that these needs are complex and there is no single approach that’s going to ensure success.
Mr. Pyke: I would say just in terms of the cap, the 48-hour cap, as an example, I expressed earlier some preoccupations I have with the cap. I think we really, truly try to alleviate the SIU status as soon as we can. I think putting a cap on could be a hindrance at times, to be very candid, because of the dynamics I explained. There are a lot of complexities at times. In that sense, to have to try to get everything resolved in a 48-hour period rather than wait for a potential judicial review in that time frame, there is risk. I would offer there is risk. In certain cases, I believe there would be a significant amount of risk. So that would be my response in terms of the 48-hour review, in terms of judicial review for the time.
The Chair: We can go to a hard stop at 6:25 p.m., so we have 20 minutes.
Senator K. Wells: My question is about a very small yet extremely vulnerable population within the corrections system, our trans and gender-diverse individuals. I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about the use of SIUs with this population and what additional actions Correctional Service Canada is taking when they are in SIUs to ensure their well-being.
Mr. Pyke: Sure. I’ll start. Thank you.
I would say there has been very limited exposure to this point, but we have certainly had experience with transgender individuals in an SIU. I would say the criteria for SIU admittance are no different. In terms of access to programs, behaviour and intervention risks are the same. Sometimes, the dynamic can be quite different with a transgender individual, depending on the site and upon the dynamics that led to the SIU placement. We’re a bit hypothetical here because I don’t know the dynamics that led to their going to the SIU, to begin with. If they went in for their own safety, it’s working to alleviate that case.
I can tell you there are extensive consultations that happen prior to, say, a transgender male going into a male site in terms of the action plan and the dynamic. We’ll do things initially to try to put privacy around shower time, even proximity to the security office, to be able to monitor and supervise any traffic by that individual’s cell or any issues they may have in terms of people going by.
If it’s for somebody else’s safety, it would be the same. The question would be: Can we alleviate those dynamics through informal resolution or through resolution with inmate welfare committees? Is it an escalation in security level, particularly? So do we have an absolutely different approach? No. We do have a Gender Considerations Secretariat that we consult with in cases like that in terms of what’s right and whether we have it right in terms of having assistance through the secretariat. Really, it’s from the individual and speaking to the individual, as well, in terms of that.
If there is one specific thing for transgender persons, aside from the interventions and everything we have that would obviously address what the issues are surrounding that piece, it would be pretty similar to what we have with any other person that would enter an SIU.
Senator K. Wells: Maybe it’s a question for a follow-up in writing, unless you know this offhand: Are you able to tell us the number of trans or gender-diverse individuals who are currently in SIUs? If so, what is the total number of days they’ve been there?
Mr. Pyke: I couldn’t tell you the exact number, but I can tell you it’s very small. There is certainly at least one person that I am aware of; there might be more. We can provide those statistics, no problem.
Senator K. Wells: If you’d like more specifics in terms of what I’m looking for, I can provide that through the clerk, as well. I appreciate it; thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you for your testimony.
We all know there’s overrepresentation of Black Canadians in the criminal justice system in general and also in segregation and isolation.
You mentioned, Ms. Doyle, the Black Offender Strategy and the $7.9-million investment over two years. You’ve had a year. Do you have data on whether something has come of that? What, specifically, are you doing with that money? It doesn’t seem like a lot in terms of the number of prisons that we have and the size of the country. I’m not too sure how that $7.9 million works and whether that’s going to be continued in this new budget.
Ms. Doyle: So the $7.9 million over two years is a finite term at this point in terms of those resources. Jay might be able to speak to it in more detail. It really does build off some efforts that were already under way in the Atlantic and Ontario regions, where we have a higher representation of Black offenders. It links to community outreach and other efforts.
For the health component, what we’re looking at is that really strong and specific focus on an anti-racism lens, because we know our health care system, like other health care systems, is not immune to bias. I’ve had the chance to do some engagements with some folks who have already been able to put in place some efforts, such as the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH. They’ve done some specific work around training with health professionals. It’s that focus on training and strengthening outreach with community partners.
The funding, while announced and confirmed, is just starting to roll out across regions. That happened just recently. We would certainly be happy to provide more implementation details over the next month or so, absolutely.
Jay, I don’t know if you would like to add anything.
Mr. Pyke: We are conducting a multi-year Black Offender Strategy, which you’ve heard about. It’s over three fiscal years. Phase 1 is complete; it’s a guide and evaluation on pilot projects and future investments. Some of those are “go” so far as basic hygiene elements, through to referral to “inreach” and outreach and what community resources we can use to assist with that reintegration piece.
That leads to the second phase. I referred to the one example from Atlantic Canada with the African Nova Scotian community liaison officer. It’s piloting community liaison officers —
Senator Clement: I heard your answer to Senator Saint-Germain. Is that what you were referring to?
Mr. Pyke: I was referring to that being part of it. You asked about the money, so part of it is going to these pilots of the integration officers to look at trying to increase “inreach” and outreach, and those dynamics.
A third phase is looking at a performance index: What are the measures, and what are we measuring? What’s the success? What has changed in terms of being fed in from those two prior phases, in terms of the development of a framework to identify what we are measuring as progress?
Senator Clement: Is that available if we contact you for that information?
Mr. Pyke: In terms of where we are at this point, yes. The index is being developed, so I don’t have a performance index. That’s part of the plan.
Senator Clement: Okay, thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In Bill S-205, Correctional Service Canada must apply to the court to extend the length of incarceration in a structured intervention unit beyond 48 hours. In how many situations is incarceration beyond 48 hours necessary? Can you provide any figures or percentages? What additional pressure will this provision place on your services? In other words, is it realistic? What will you need to change if this is the case?
[English]
Mr. Pyke: Thank you for the question.
It’s significant. How many? I can’t provide actual statistics; I would say the majority of the offenders in the SIUs were in the SIUs beyond the 48-hour mark. So it would apply to a vast majority of our offender population in structured intervention units.
I can’t speak to the strain it would put on the judiciary — the superior courts or the provincial courts — because I don’t know if we consulted there. It’s significant knowing what they’re going through now, so there is a concern in that sense.
But, for us, to seek that, what that would mean — it would be significantly resource-heavy in terms of trying to reach out. I can’t begin to imagine what that process would look like, because we would be there every day. If we’re looking for extensions beyond 48 hours, that would be a full-time item for CSC to seek extensions and to provide the rationale for those extensions. As I’ve indicated, the dynamics or the complexities of the population are significant. So 48 hours in the grand scheme of trying to alleviate a situation where somebody’s personal safety is in jeopardy or where they may pose a threat to the safety and security of others in the institution is not a long time with the cooperation we get sometimes in trying to get enough intelligence to make an informed decision related to reintegration.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I imagine that you would keep the people in these units until the court makes a decision. After 48 hours, you must request an extension, but you need to wait for the court’s decision.
[English]
Mr. Pyke: Hopefully. That would be the intent. If it were a hard cap and we didn’t have authorization beyond 48 hours, it would be a whole other story in the sense that I would be really worried about risk without the granting where we had a hard cap, and they had to go out into the general population — I don’t think that’s assumable for safety considerations for certain cases.
If the reality of it were that we could hold those individuals in the SIU until we got the decision from the court, again, it would be a significant administrative burden, but at least we would have the safety and security in relation to waiting for that decision.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have one last question. I would like to receive a written response from you. You said that it’s the majority, but do you have any statistics on the number of inmates in these units? Obviously, there isn’t any average, but do you have figures to show us the number of people concerned?
[English]
Mr. Pyke: Yes, we do. I understand we’re under a time constraint, but I might be able to provide at least a median.
What I could tell you is that at the end of 2024-25, our last fiscal year, 63.1% of the inmates who transferred into an SIU were able to successfully integrate back into the mainstream population. To your question on the median days, in the last fiscal year, the median number of days for an SIU individual was 15 days.
Senator Dhillon: I have a very short question. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Doyle, you had shared that the median stay in SIU had been reduced, if I understood you correctly, year over year, but what was that number? From what to what?
Ms. Doyle: I’m going to defer to the operations side. The number of stays in SIUs having been reduced from year to year, the difference.
Mr. Pyke: The overall general stay? In 2021-22, the average stay was 26 days, and last year it was 15 days. I don’t have the number right in front of me. There was a bit of a bump in between. I think we were around 18 or 19 days the year prior, but I can tell you that last year, statistically, was 15 days. That was reduced from 26 days two years prior.
Senator Dhillon: What do you attribute that to?
Mr. Pyke: It’s evolving. We’ve looked at the model and added different resources. I would say that the behavioural skills coaches have had a significant impact in terms of addressing the behaviours that led to the placement in an SIU. We can look at correctional planning and at regular programming, but the reality is, there’s a bit of a shift in looking at the dynamics that actually contributed to them having to go to the SIU. A little more of an interventionist perspective compared to program use has helped, I think.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Mr. Pyke. I know I’m just about done here. It would be useful to me, chair, and I don’t know if it would be useful to the committee, but I would welcome a more fulsome response to what contributed to the reduction in those days.
Mr. Pyke: Perfect.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
The Chair: That would be in writing. You can send it to the clerk. Thank you very much.
To the witnesses, on behalf of my colleagues, thank you for coming here today and helping us with our study on Bill S-205. Thank you for participating. Thank you, senators.
(The committee adjourned.)