Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[Ed McIsaac]

Well no, it doesn't, quite frankly.

The position of the service for a number of years has been that their classification tools, the tools they use to identify the reintegration potential of offenders, are not biased. The academic debate has gone on for quite some time on that matter. Mr. Sapers referred to part of it earlier.

The review that was undertaken by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2003-04 was specific to the tools being used for women and aboriginal women. The service's commitment to review came as a result of the recommendation from the Human Rights Commission.

We had recommended, as one of the members noted, back in 2000 that the correctional service appoint a deputy commissioner for aboriginals to bring a focus to the senior management table and to ensure that the perspectives of aboriginal concerns were reasonably addressed for all matters that the service was directing its senior management to look at and review at that point.

In conjunction with that recommendation in 2000, we had recommended that there needed to be a review, with the involvement of national aboriginal organizations--we stipulated that the review should, in fact, be independent of the correctional service--of their policies and procedures as well as of the tools they were using to identify security levels and reintegration potential.

The service has not initiated that review. Their position has been consistent--as you had indicated earlier--that their tools do not, in fact, discriminate or reflect negatively on aboriginals.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Despite the outcome.

This is a bit technical, so I want to talk about sections 81 and 84.

This framework on the enhanced role of aboriginal communities and corrections was approved back in March 1999, so this is not new.

[Ed McIsaac]

No.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

When I look at the department's response to this—that's on page 44 in the English copy—they are actually saying, about section 84, that they do not constitute agreements.

When I look at the actual wording on these, there are two things. One is that section 81 is an agreement within an aboriginal community for the provision of correctional services to the aboriginal offender. Section 84 is about when an inmate applies for parole and has expressed interest in being released to the aboriginal community, and so on.

It seems, from the department's response—maybe I'm being unfair in categorizing this—that there is some lip service to this notion of having first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities do the work around community integration. When we're talking about the rate of revocation for breach of conditions being higher for aboriginal offenders, it would seem to me that those community pieces are critical.

What do you think needs to be done to make sections 81 and 84 more effectively used to support first nations, Métis, and Inuit offenders in reintegrating into the community?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have about half a minute, please.

[Howard Sapers]

There's a tremendous need for capacity-building within aboriginal and first nation communities. There are not necessarily deficits in those communities, but there are deficits in the way the system interacts with those communities. The need is there to strengthen the relationship between the service, other service providers, and those aboriginal communities, so those aboriginal communities can take fuller advantage of sections 81 and 84. It's a training issue, an education issue, and a resource issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you, Mr. Sapers, for coming forward with a very interesting outline here.

I have three questions that I want to get some clarification on, and then I'll split my time with my colleague here.

You talk about systemic discrimination within the system. Is it because the first nations and aboriginals are not being treated equitably, or is the equitable treatment itself the problem?

[Howard Sapers]

Systemic discrimination is often an unintended outcome of a series of decisions, procedures, or policies that are in place. We have found evidence year after year that there is an identifiable group of Canadian serving offenders who seem to be disadvantaged. We measure that disadvantage by their correctional outcomes--access to programs, access to parole hearings, timely release, number of revocations, time spent in detention, time spent in segregation, etc.

We've found that the identifiable population comprises aboriginal offenders. It's not the independent or individual acts or actions of a particular person in the correctional service in the administration of a particular offender's sentence; it's the cumulative effect of all of those programs, policies, procedures, and institutional structures that seem to amplify the disadvantage that many aboriginal Canadians carry with them into the institutions, while they're in the institutions, and when they're released into the community.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

For lack of a better term, is that because the system itself isn't culturally sensitive?

[Howard Sapers]

The best example I can give is the one I referred to in my remarks about the classification tools. We believe they are culturally inappropriate and over-classified because of the way the questions are asked and scored.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

What are some of your suggestions on how to change that classification system?

[Ed McIsaac]

One of the first steps, which is consistent with the recommendation put forth by the office a number of years ago, is to have a great deal more consultation with the aboriginal communities and the national aboriginal organizations. From my perspective, the service approaches this matter on a rather defensive note. It has internally reviewed this and has come to its own conclusion that there is no problem with the tools and mechanisms currently in place.

But as you look over time at the number of programs that have been introduced and the number of aboriginal elders who have been involved within the institutions, at the end of the day you still see the same results. One reasonably begins to question whether or not the tools being used are reflective of the reality we should be dealing with.

At the end of the day, the idea is to release back into the community individuals who are going to safely reintegrate, and we want to do that in a timely fashion. With the setup we have now, those in the aboriginal population are being released much later in their sentences; they are much more likely to be referred for detention; and when they are released we end up with a revocation rate that is higher than in the non-aboriginal population.

It's a cycle that needs to be broken. One of the initial steps is for the service to go externally, as we recommended a number of years ago, and involve the external academic community, the aboriginal communities, and the national aboriginal organizations in a review of the policies and the decision-making process currently in place.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

That's a good segue into my final question.

We talk about the eight healing lodges and the core aboriginal programs, the site-specific initiatives such as Pathways and traditional circles, and the medicine wheel program. Have these programs themselves, which are found more in the minimum sentence facilities, been successful? Has there been a marked success rate in these programs? If not, what do we need to do to increase that success rate?

[Howard Sapers]

Many of these initiatives have been evaluated, and in a way that some of the other core correctional programs haven't. They were also reviewed a couple of years ago under what was known as the effective corrections initiative. You can get a measure of their impact by looking at all of those outcomes that I've listed. So when you look at success rates, length of time, the community release rates, revocation rates, and so on, you begin to see some very hopeful evidence.

Some of the programs, however, are so new, and are being piloted and tailored to very specific sites, that in some ways it's hard to generalize. But I don't see that as any kind of criticism. I think part of the strength of culturally specific programming is recognizing that you do have some unique needs and that perhaps what works with a prairie population won't work with a northern population or a coastal population.

So as I say, many of these programs have success on the site where they are implemented, and you may not be able to generalize except in terms of tailoring unique programs to meet unique needs of correctional populations. That is the finding on which I think we have to focus.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

So then you would suggest that these more culturally specific programs have been successful and that is the direction in which we need to continue to move.

[Howard Sapers]

I think we need to continue to explore them, and I think we need to be as rigorous as possible in finding the elements of success. Clearly, more work needs to be done there.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

So if you had the ability to be king for a day and mould this, what would your suggestion be?

[Howard Sapers]

If I got to be king?

Do I have only 30 seconds for this as well, Mr. Chairman?

The strategic plan that has been developed by Correctional Service Canada for aboriginal offenders is a pretty good one. I guess if I were king for a day, I'd make sure that it was resourced as a priority, that we did the kind of evaluation that I was talking about, and that we made sure that the words and deeds matched each other in terms of the emphasis we were putting on culturally specific programming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

It's interesting, committee members, that we're talking about the operation, really, of Correctional Service Canada and we are the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. To me, we should be concerned about the root of the problem, which is why are they getting to that point? What policies do we need or haven't proceeded with in the department so that aboriginals are encouraged not to get into a situation where they are going to be incarcerated? I think that's really our fundamental role as a committee, setting policy for INAC to make sure that aboriginal people have opportunities to fulfill those aspirations of life and not have to make these poor decisions.

We're talking about, really, something that the justice committee or the public safety committee would be talking about. It's important that we are aware of this as a committee, and I don't want to slight that.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I'm not sure I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I didn't say it wasn't important.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Members, this room is not booked after 1 o'clock, if you want to run over time. I'll leave that to the discretion of the committee. I'm going to take this until 1:10, and then we'll move to the next witnesses, unless you wish to extend that at all.

Madam Karetak-Lindell.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you. I'm going to try to be very brief so that I can share my time with Todd.

Thank you very much for your report. I have to say, it's very sad to hear those kinds of statistics. It really makes me feel that we need to put more resources, or push for more resources, because I know there is good work being done. It's just that the numbers are overwhelming.

I have two very quick points. One is a technical point. In your presentation, you sometimes went from “first nations” to “aboriginal” quite freely. I'm not 100% sure if that includes Métis and Inuit numbers. So just be aware that there are three aboriginal groups in Canada and we can't just interchangeably say “first nations” and then go back to “aboriginal people”, because you're missing two other groups when you do that.

I'm very worried that, with the new legislation coming down the pipe with minimum sentences and making criminals out of people who I think necessarily should not be branded criminals, these numbers are going to get even worse. My understanding of the new legislation coming down is that we'll be putting more people in jail than we're trying to help. We have restorative justice initiatives that I think we need to explore more.

So is that your feeling, that these numbers will get even worse among the aboriginal population when the new legislation is put in place? I know it's not a fair question, but....