Public Safety Committee on April 24th, 2012

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You mentioned mediation, which could be of interest in the case of this kind of griever. In the Mullan report, it says that only one prison uses an internal mediator; I believe it was at Donnacona. In the 65 recommendations in this report, it is suggested that the presence of a mediator would be useful for dealing with the complaints. Do you think that having one mediator per penitentiary could facilitate the resolution and processing of these kinds of grievances?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger]

One of the recommendations that the service accepted did in fact concern mediators. A pilot project was developed in 10 institutions across the country. They funded the establishment of a mediator, a coordinator and a grievance clerk. We recommend that every penitentiary in the country, without exception, make the same effort and that the same kind of team be established.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Is the process functioning well in the 10 institutions up until now?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger]

Definitely, the Correctional Service of Canada is very encouraged by the preliminary results and intends to carry out an assessment of the pilot project, probably over the course of the next year.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

How long has this been in place?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger]

The pilot project has been underway for just under a year.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Does that mean that they have dealt with more grievances internally with the mediators?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger]

It resulted in a decrease in the number of grievances and sped up the administration of those complaints. Those are the preliminary results.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lefebvre.

We'll now move back to Ms. Hoeppner and Mr. Leef, who will split the time.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much. I'm going to try to be brief.

First of all, I think Mr. Leef actually articulated the difference, which you then went on and explained as well.

In prisons, we're talking about, I think your words were, the kept and the keeper, as opposed to your job, which is to be the ombudsman. Your job is to receive complaints. The guards and the officials in prisons are, in so many ways, keeping the inmates safe and being part of their rehabilitation. They obviously play a completely different role than the role you play, and I think that's the point Mr. Leef was trying to make.

In relation to that, what I would like to make sure I'm clear on is that you believe that it's valid that you have the ability to receive a complaint and just decide that it is vexatious, that it is not a valid complaint, and that you're going to write a letter, whether it's a one-line letter or several lines. You'll write a letter and say that this is not a valid complaint and you won't be moving further ahead with it, whereas CSC officials, you believe—and again, there's some difference of opinion on the process CSC has told us they are obligated to go through—have other options. What you're saying is that you think they should use mediation and go through a variety of steps as opposed to just being able to say to an inmate, “That is an invalid and vexatious complaint.”

You're able to do that, but CSC should not be able to. At the same time, they're the ones who are actually dealing with these inmates on a day-to-day basis. I don't think you would want to try to say that what you're doing compares at all to what a guard is doing. Am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying that they shouldn't have the same abilities you have?

[Howard Sapers]

I think you're absolutely hearing me correctly. CSC should not have the ability to be dismissive of inmate complaints. CSC is required to be accountable for dealing with inmate complaints.

CSC's job is not to add to the punishment imposed by the courts. CSC's job is to administer a sentence according to the rule of law.

CSC staff have ultimate authority over the lives of the thousands of men and women in custody. Absolutely, you want the most accountability you can have in that kind of situation. Why would you want any less accountability in a situation where somebody has absolute control and authority over somebody else's life, up to and including the use of deadly force? So absolutely, there are legislative differences, and I think those differences are there for a reason.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Do you think your ability to dismiss a complaint means that you're not accountable?

[Howard Sapers]

My ability to dismiss a complaint is rooted in the role of the ombudsman and gives me independence and discretion. We're not talking about accountability for complaint handling. We're talking about accountability for conducting yourself according to the rule of law. CSC has a different legislative mandate than my office does or the parole service does or the police service does, and that mandate requires them to be accountable.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

But it's the mandate and the legislation—just as with your job and the parameters around your job—that provide the accountability.

[Howard Sapers]

That's right.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Should anyone suggest that you're not, they're—

[Howard Sapers]

We conduct ourselves within the legislation. I suggest that CSC should, as well.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

They do, as well.

Thank you. I'll pass it over to Mr. Leef.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have two minutes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I feel that we're losing sight a little bit of what the bill was designed to do, which is really to allow the commissioner to deem people multiple frivolous and vexatious complainants, and that alone. I don't think anybody disagrees with the oversight and the function of correctional staff, wardens, and the rule of law.

It was interesting when you talked about the number being upheld at that third level of grievance. We'll recognize that there are probably some issues with the grievance process itself. But wouldn't it provide additional security, oversight, protection, and complete fairness in the process, if those things were moved up to the commissioner level versus being sat on at the warden level? If we were giving the warden level, or even lower levels, the opportunity to deem somebody frivolous and vexatious, I could see the concerns you're raising.

Don't you think moving this right up to the commissioner level is a positive step?

[Howard Sapers]

The simple answer is yes, within that context. The problem is with the premise; that is, I think it's an inappropriate process. If it has to be done, should it be done by the commissioner? Sure. The real question is, should it be done? My suggestion is that it shouldn't be.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Obviously you and the commissioner disagree on that point. It reminds me of a comment I heard. I don't have the stats exactly accurate, but I think it makes a point economically. It says that two out of every three Canadians have a mental health issue, and if your buddies seem normal, it's probably you.

My point is that we introduce the concept that inmates may have mental health issues. We know that the inmate population has a higher level of mental health issues, but it doesn't mean they can't reason between frivolous and vexatious. It doesn't mean they can't function and understand, and that when they launch complaints of sexual harassment or sexual assault or very damaging and demeaning comments against staff, they don't fully appreciate and understand what they're doing. They can very well have mental health issues, but they can also fully understand and appreciate what they're doing. I think those are the things we need to highlight, protect staff from, and stop.

If you or your staff were subject to frivolous, vexatious, and vile complaints of that nature—only so someone could get personal satisfaction from either clogging the system or attacking you—you'd want control over that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Leef. Unfortunately we don't have time for an answer.

Mr. Rousseau, you have five minutes.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much.

Let us discuss the bill. It is said the commissioner will now have the discretionary power to decide whether or not a complainant is vexatious. Do you not believe that this discretionary power will mean that some kinds of detainees will be categorized and stigmatized? Will the system allow for any other remedies for those who are designated?