Evidence of meeting #33 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
I open this Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Thursday, February 1, 2007.
Committee members, you have before you the orders of the day. Between 11 and 12 o'clock we'll have a presentation and briefing on the Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2005-2006. Then from 12 until one o'clock we'll have a briefing on the 2006 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission.
Mr. Lévesque.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Chairman, considering the timing of this meeting, we may want to consider bringing in some food while the meeting is underway. Otherwise, we will not have time for lunch before attending question period or moving on to other activities.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
What's the pleasure of the committee members? Speaking personally, I'm fine. We will get a little bit of a break between question period.
Does anybody else have a comment?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Just to clarify, are we aiming for one o'clock as our adjournment time?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Yes. We are behind time. I'll split the seven minutes between the two witnesses so that we have enough time.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Chairman, the same thing happens at every one of our meetings. For members whose office is in the West Block, it's not a problem. However, if you have to go to the Justice Building, the Wellington Building or the Confederation Building, you don't have time to walk over there, go to the restaurant and have lunch.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Okay. Done.
Let's move on. The first witnesses are from the Office of the Correctional Investigator. We have Howard Sapers, correctional investigator; and Ed McIsaac, executive director.
Welcome, gentlemen, to our committee.
I'll be expecting a presentation from each of you. Try to keep it around 10 minutes, and then I'll be asking the committee members to question you on your submission and anything that they have observed out of the report.
Thank you very much.
11:10 a.m.
Howard Sapers Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll be making the formal opening statements on behalf of the Office of the Correctional Investigator. My name is Howard Sapers, and I'm the correctional investigator for Canada, appointed about two and a half years ago. I'll go as quickly as I can through this, being mindful of the time.
As correctional investigator, my job is to be an independent ombudsman for federal offenders. It's also my role to review and to make recommendations on the correctional service's policies and procedures, and to ensure that areas of concern are identified and appropriately addressed. My mandate expresses important elements of the criminal justice system. The Office of the Correctional Investigator reflects Canadian values of respect for the law and for human rights and the public's expectation that correctional staff and senior managers are accountable for the administration of law and policy on the public's behalf. Good corrections, after all, equals public safety.
Today I am here to discuss one of the key issues raised in my latest annual report, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to address you. The issue I wish to focus on is the growing crisis regarding aboriginal inmates. The overrepresentation of natives in Canada's prisons and penitentiaries is well known. Nationally, aboriginal people are less than 2.7% of the Canadian population, but they constitute almost 18.5% of the total federal prison population. For women, this overrepresentation is even more dramatic. They represent 32% of women in federal penitentiaries.
Alarmingly, this huge overrepresentation has grown in recent years. While the federal inmate population in Canada actually decreased between 1996 and 2004, the number of first nations people in federal institutions increased by almost 22%. Moreover, the number of federally incarcerated first nations women increased by a staggering 72% over the same period. We estimate the overall incarceration rate of aboriginal Canadians to be 1,024 per 100,000, or almost nine times higher than that for non-aboriginals.
While the Correctional Service of Canada is not responsible for the actions of individuals, the social conditions, or the policy decisions that help shape its offender population, it is responsible for operating in compliance with the law and ensuring that all offenders are treated fairly. It is my conclusion that the Correctional Service of Canada falls short of this standard by allowing for systemic discrimination against aboriginal inmates. It's important to understand what I mean by systemic discrimination and to appreciate the issues that have been raised for many years by my office--the continued disadvantaged position of aboriginal offenders in terms of timely and safe reintegration.
Discrimination can and does occur in situations where there is no intent to treat someone unfairly. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, in their December 2003 report entitled “Protecting Their Rights”, indicated that, “The defining feature of discrimination is its effect.” The Canadian Human Rights Commission identified systemic discrimination as, again, “The creation, perpetuation or reinforcement of persistent patterns of inequality among disadvantaged groups. It is usually the result of seemingly neutral legislation, policies, procedures, practices or organizational structures.”
My last annual report presents a detailing of the persistent pattern of disadvantaged outcomes resulting from existing policies, procedures, practices, and organizational structures. The focus of this report is about inequitable results or outcomes from current Correctional Service of Canada policies and practices. For example, inmates of first nation, Métis, and Inuit heritage face routine over-classification, resulting in their placement in minimum-security institutions at only half the rate of non-aboriginal offenders.
The over-classification for aboriginal women is even worse. For example, at the end of September of this year, native women made up 45% of maximum--
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I don't have pages 6 and 7 in my material. Was it intentional that those are not here?
11:15 a.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
No, you should have the full set of copies.
11:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:20 a.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
I'm sorry, I guess the English copy was missing a page. We'll get some additional copies made and circulated.
The over-classification for aboriginal women is even worse. For example, at the end of September native women made up 45% of maximum security federally sentenced women, 44% of the medium security population, but only 18% at minimum security. Placement in a maximum security institution and segregation limits access to rehabilitative programming and services intended to prepare inmates for their release. This over-classification is a problem because it means inmates often serve their sentences far away from their families, their communities, and the valuable support of friends and elders.
Aboriginal offenders are placed in segregation more often than non-aboriginal offenders. Aboriginal inmates are released later in their sentences than other inmates. The proportion of full parole applications resulting in reviews by the National Parole Board is much lower for aboriginal offenders.
In short, as stated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the general picture is one of institutionalized discrimination: that is, aboriginal people are routinely disadvantaged once they are placed into the custody of the correctional service. As a consequence, longer periods of incarceration and more statutory release as opposed to parole for aboriginal offenders contribute to less time in the community for programming and supportive intervention than for non-aboriginals. The proportion of aboriginal offenders under community supervision is significantly smaller than the proportion of non-aboriginals.
Aboriginal offenders continue to be overrepresented amongst all offenders referred for detention. Parole is more likely to be revoked for aboriginal offenders than for non-aboriginals. The rate of revocation for breach of conditions, and that means not for a criminal offence, is higher for aboriginal offenders.
Aboriginal offenders are readmitted to federal custody more frequently than non-aboriginal offenders are, and too often this cycle of unfair treatment begins again. To break this cycle, the correctional service must do a better job at preparing aboriginals while in custody and provide better support while in the community.
Correctional Service Canada's own statistics regarding correctional outcomes for offenders confirm that despite years of task force reports, internal reviews, national strategies, partnership agreements, and action plans, there has been no measurable improvement in the overall situation of aboriginal Canadians during the last 20 years. To the contrary, the gap in outcomes among aboriginal and other offenders continues to grow. Clearly, more commitment and resources are required to address this troubling trend.
In my annual report, I called upon the correctional service to act swiftly to strengthen and implement its own strategic plan for aboriginal offenders by fully adopting the following recommendations within the year: implement a security classification process that will stop sending too many aboriginal offenders into maximum security; significantly increase the number of aboriginal offenders housed at minimum security; increase timely access to culturally appropriate programs and services; significantly increase the use of unescorted temporary absences and work-release programs and significantly increase the number of aboriginals appearing before the National Parole Board at their earliest eligibility date; build capacity for and increase the use of agreements, which provide for the direct involvement of aboriginal communities in supporting conditional release; and significantly increase the number of aboriginal people working at all levels of the service.
Equitable treatment of aboriginal inmates is required by law; it is also a human rights and public safety issue. The vast majority of inmates are released back into communities across Canada. It is beneficial for everyone that these men and women return to their home communities having received fair and adequate treatment from the correctional service while incarcerated.
Let me take this opportunity to provide you with a concrete example that illustrates well the kind of challenges faced by aboriginal offenders. Over the years, my office and other observers have become increasingly concerned about over-classification of aboriginal men and women and the discriminatory use of the service's actuarial risk assessment or classification tools. These tools are psychological scales that measure risk such as recidivism, institutional adjustment, or risk of escape.
Concerns regarding the validity and reliability of initial classification were first expressed in 1996 by Madam Justice Louise Arbour. This scale relies on the assessment of several factors, including employment, family, social interaction, substance abuse, etc.
In May 2003 the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that the service introduce a new unbiased initial security classification scale by December 2004. In July 2004, professors from the University of Toronto and the University of Ottawa published an article in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, in which they reviewed the data used to validate the service's initial security scale.
After a careful examination, they concluded that the scale is remarkably wanting in terms of both its predictive validity and the equity of its outcome with respect to women generally, and aboriginal women in particular.
In December 2004, the corrections research branch, through the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, conducted its own review of the service's data. Their internal report confirmed the findings of professors Webster and Doob. The corrections service developed an action plan in response to the findings on the discriminatory nature of its actuarial tools and their questionable validity. We understand that the service, unfortunately, expects to fully implement a new tool only by fiscal year 2009-10, more than six years after the Canadian Human Rights Commission found that women and aboriginal offenders were subject to systemic discrimination, and 13 years after the matter was raised by Justice Arbour.
This combination of over-classification and lack of programming best illustrates how systemic barriers can hinder offender reintegration. Aboriginal offenders are over-classified because of a poorly conceived actuarial scale. As a result, they are disproportionately and inappropriately placed in higher-security institutions that have limited or no access to core programs designed to meet their unique needs.
This scenario for the most part explains why the reintegration of aboriginal offenders is lagging so significantly behind the reintegration of others. Clearly, correctional outcomes cannot be explained by differences in criminogenic risk or need alone.
In closing, I'd like to leave you with a few facts. Four in ten federally incarcerated aboriginal offenders are 25 years old or younger. First nation youth are the fastest-growing demographic in Canada. HIV and AIDS have high prevalence amongst aboriginal people. The lack of a full range of prison-based harm reduction strategies disproportionately affects them.
Should these current trends continue, experts project that the aboriginal population in Canada's correctional institutions could reach 25% in less than 10 years. Clearly the need to do better is obvious and urgent. We must recognize nevertheless that Correctional Service Canada has implemented some very positive initiatives and programs, such as the creation of healing lodges; core aboriginal programs, including circles of change, spirit of a warrior, and the aboriginal substance abuse program; and program-based and site-specific initiatives such as pathways, traditional circles, medicine wheel programs, sentencing circles, longhouse teachings, etc., are in place.
Unfortunately, these promising programs and initiatives have not yielded the expected benefits and reversed the alarming trends that I've discussed.
Therefore, my message to the government is to give the Canada Correctional Service the resources and direction required to get the job done.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Thank you.
To the Liberal side, who would like to start?
Madam Neville.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I will start, thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Sapers, for a very powerful presentation. I think we've all had a chance to look at your report.
I guess it's quite stunning, what you're telling us. The problem has been well known for a long period of time. You cite Justice Arbour in 1996, you cite the Human Rights Commission. Correctional Service Canada is aware of the problems, both in terms of the screening techniques it uses--its testing tools--and its programming.
Why hasn't anything happened?
11:25 a.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Well, I think there are a number of ways to answer the question. One way would certainly be to say there's been a lack of integration and coordination across federal government programs in relation to federal-provincial-territorial initiatives and initiatives involving first nations communities. Unfortunately, we haven't seen the coordination that I think the problem requires.
Two, there's a certain amount of organizational inertia within the Correctional Service of Canada, and a refusal to act on some key recommendations involving establishing a very senior person specifically responsible for aboriginal programming and initiatives around the executive table of the service.
There's also an incredibly complex set of sometimes competing demands placed upon the corrections service. The service is not always given the resources it needs to meet those competing demands, and they're left to try to sort out what they must do to meet those demands first in a climate that sometimes is very politicized.
So there are a number of reasons, but none of them really take away from the absolute necessity for the service not just to identify this issue as a priority but to act on it as a priority.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
You talk about lack of coordination; you talk about inertia, refusal to act, and competing demands. Certainly those are all part, but it strikes me that when you identify those as the roadblocks or the hurdles to go over, you're saying in very polite language that these people aren't a priority for the Correctional Service of Canada.
11:30 a.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Corrections identified aboriginal programs many years ago as a priority. The frustration is that as a result of things like over-classification, you see security needs being used, rightly or wrongly, as the reason for maintaining a population at a high security level.
The highest security levels in federal penitentiaries do not give access to the kinds of core programs that have been identified, so you have the irony of having a population with high need being held in very secure settings because they have a high need, and needing access to a whole range of programs that the service only makes available at lower security levels. The fact that these individuals can't get access to the programs they need to address their high needs keeps them in higher security levels.
So it looks like they've got it upside down in terms of making sure that the high-need population, once they're identified, gain access to the intervention programs that have been designed to meet those needs.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
The high classification comes about because of inappropriate--and I would say culturally inappropriate--screening tools. Is that your understanding?
11:30 a.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Our conclusion is that the initial classification tools inappropriately place aboriginal offenders in disproportionate numbers in higher security levels than necessary. You have more people at initial placement going into higher security levels and finding it harder to cascade down security levels, because once they're in the high security level, they don't get the programs they need that would assist them in going into medium- and then minimum-security settings, and then getting before the parole board for a conditional release decision that would return them to their communities.
