Evidence of meeting #34 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was complaint.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Howard Sapers  Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Ivan Zinger  Executive Director and General Counsel, Office of the Correctional Investigator

4:15 p.m.

Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Howard Sapers

There is a small number of offenders who burden the system. My advice to the commissioner has been to deal with those administratively, so that he can address the more legitimate complaints in a more expeditious manner.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

The commissioner also feels that it would alleviate pressures in terms of time and resources and would reaffirm the commitment of the Correctional Service of Canada to a fair, impartial, and expeditious complaint and grievance process, as mandated by law when he's referring to the bill itself. Would you agree or disagree with that, then?

4:15 p.m.

Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Howard Sapers

Clearly, the commissioner and I disagree on whether a legislative change is required to do that. I think that's already implicit in the law as it's written.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Mr. Zinger, I think you made a remark, and excuse me, if it wasn't you, then it was Mr. Sapers. Do you recall saying that—

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Quickly. You have 30 seconds.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

—if this legislation went through, wardens may make review decisions essentially to placate staff and have it overruled. Do you have any examples of wardens currently making review decisions simply to placate their staff and alleviate the burden of decision-making?

4:15 p.m.

Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Howard Sapers

Yes, it was my comment, and yes, I do. Probably the best evidence I can share with you is simply to look at the number of complaints that are then upheld at the third or the national level once they have been denied at the regional level. We often will find that as complaints move through the chain, it's really headquarters that will finally take a stand and apply a more firm policy lens to the complaint.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Sapers.

We'll now move to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please, for seven minutes.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Mr. Sapers and Dr. Zinger. It's nice to see you again. You've shed a lot of light on this process, I believe, because it does seem very complex and it's hard to get, I find anyway, a real grip on it.

As I understand it, the advantage you have really is that, first of all, and correct me if I'm wrong.... When I say the advantage, I mean the advantage you have in terms of dealing properly with complaints is that it is what you do full time, whereas I imagine in a correctional facility setting, the person dealing with the complaint, that's not his core or her core business, if you will. It's actually probably an annoyance to them in some way and they'd rather just get it out of the way, deny the complaint, let it be appealed to go to a higher level, and just get on with the work of managing the facility. So there's that, I think. Would you agree that this is one of the distinctions?

4:15 p.m.

Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Howard Sapers

I think that's a fair characterization. It is, in fact, our business. Correctional officers' primary business may be something else; it may be security or it may be something else, yes.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Right. But that's not their.... Their hearts are not really in it, probably.

I mean, you're both very committed to this, to the protection of—

4:15 p.m.

An hon. member

On a point of order, you have no idea what their hearts are really in.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

I said “probably”; it's just because it's not their core concern.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Go ahead, Mr. Scarpaleggia. It's not a point of order.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

The other advantage you have is that after studying a complaint, if you determine it's vexatious and it's not warranted, you can ignore it. Am I correct?

4:15 p.m.

Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Howard Sapers

The legislation allows for that. What we typically do is get back in touch with the offender and tell them that we're not going to proceed.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Yes—whereas the person in the correctional facility doesn't have that option, really. I guess they have to deal with it, however much time that takes, and then if the inmate is not satisfied, he or she can appeal it and so on.

Essentially, this legislation seems to be trying to give the people inside the correctional facility the same option that you enjoy, which is to ignore a complaint that is vexatious. Now, it's quite possible that your judgment about whether it's vexatious or not is a better judgment because you do this full time, but essentially it seems to be trying to build a flexibility into the system.

My concern is that a vexatious complainant may have a legitimate complaint from time to time, and I'm just not so sure that, within the institution, the people dealing with these complaints have maybe the training or the ability in other ways to really weed out what is a threat to life, liberty, and security, and what is a vexatious complaint.

I know the intent of the bill is to still allow a vexatious complainant to be able to be heard if it's a serious matter, but do you think that within the institutions these decisions could be made wisely and uniformly across institutions in Canada?

4:20 p.m.

Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Howard Sapers

I'm going to try to answer your question, but it's going to be a little indirect. I will try to get there quickly.

What happens inside a correctional institution doesn't really have a parallel in the outside very much. The relationship between the kept and the keepers is one of constant negotiation. The ability of the staff to deal with the relationships with inmates varies across institutions and across time.

The inmates will try to push and test, and staff will do their best to use their authority appropriately and lawfully, but it doesn't always happen in the way it's designed on paper to happen. So when you get somebody making a complaint, many first-level complaints are dismissed and that's the end of it. They don't all go forward to the second and third levels.

Sometimes you have a complaint made about a guard. You have a complaint—about discrimination, harassment, abuse, use of force—about a correctional staff person. Those complaints need a different set of eyes to look at them. Those are often the kinds of complaints that will be dismissed at the first level, will then go to the second level, and then may ultimately end up at the commissioner's level.

So we're not talking about a situation where it's just that you don't want to take no for an answer. We're talking about a situation that happens within a context of a power relationship that is, as I said, constantly being negotiated. Part of that negotiation has to do with this give and take about what is or is not considered to be a legitimate grievance at a point in time.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

But do you believe in that setting, the way it works now, if this bill were in place...? You gave an example with Ashley Smith, where these were legitimate complaints and they weren't dealt with.

Do you think, after someone has been designated a vexatious complainant, that someone within that institution hearing the complaints, charged with dealing with the complaints, will be able to weed out what is a serious threat to life, liberty, and security versus what falls in the category of a typical vexatious complaint from that inmate?

4:20 p.m.

Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Howard Sapers

My fear is that if we do anything legislatively to reduce Correctional Service Canada's accountability to deal with complaints in a legitimate way, we will be doing a disservice to the rule of law within our correctional institutions. It is very important that complaints be seen at the outset as being legitimate until they're disproved. You shouldn't make the assumption at the outset that you're dealing with somebody who's frivolous or vexatious, even if they may have a history of multiple complaints.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

You mentioned that there is flexibility within the system as it exists now. Are you talking about the idea of appointing mediators and coordinators who could basically deal with the inmates the way you do, which is to negotiate a little bit? If every institution had a coordinator and a mediator, maybe there would be better interaction, and things might be cut off at the pass. Is that what you're saying?

4:20 p.m.

Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Howard Sapers

Opportunities exist for informal conflict resolution that are currently not being utilized, or are being underutilized.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Sapers.

We'll move back to the second round.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre.

April 24th, 2012 / 4:20 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Thank you very much, Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Sapers and Mr. Zinger for having testified before us today. Your comments are greatly appreciated.

I have several questions for you. I am new to this file since I started only yesterday. I read the Mullan report and heard your presentation. I am curious about several things.

Mr. Zinger, in your presentation, you mentioned that multiple grievers are often people who suffer from mental health problems. In your opinion, how could we best help these complainants, given that Bill C-293 is intended for multiple grievers? Do you have any solutions to suggest?

4:25 p.m.

Executive Director and General Counsel, Office of the Correctional Investigator

Dr. Ivan Zinger

I believe so. I think we have failed to adequately emphasize the fact that it is often difficult and frustrating to try to solve the problems of multiple grievers. It is as frustrating for the Correctional Service as it is for us. We certainly do not wish to underestimate the problem. On the other hand, this is part of our job. We realize that many of the people who file tens if not hundreds of grievances have mental health issues. I am not saying that they are psychotic, schizophrenic or anything like that. Often we are talking about personality disorders. Merely identifying them will not put an end to their compulsion to try and file complaints and get answers to their multiple questions, whether they are legitimate or not.

There is no doubt that for us, the implementation of grievance coordinators and mediators could play a very significant role in the management of individuals who file so many grievances. Within the mental health services, more effort could be made to support these people, in order to try to reduce or negotiate the type, frequency and nature of these complaints. There are several things that could be done within the service to solve the problem.