Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I start, I was thinking the investigator's report can be viewed as a bit of an indictment. For the folks coming here to speak to us today, I don't want anything taken on a personal level. I don't approach things in that way.

I have to read a comment from the investigator, which says:

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.

I've heard you say a number of times that this is the background to the situation you feel you face.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

Number one, how many aboriginal staff do you have? You talked about actuarial tools when people come in for assessment. Are any aboriginals involved in the application of those tools? It was good to hear that involvement with elders and councils is helping.

I understand you promised to undertake an analysis of your reclassification methods and to revise them as necessary while stating you believe that the CI does not provide evidence that is suggestive of over-classification.

He referred to such things as aboriginals and segregation and aboriginal inmates released later in their sentences. Is there a problem or not? If there isn't, why are you making changes? That's an obvious question. Why are so many aboriginal offenders not making parole at the earliest possible date? Is it the responsibility of CSC to ensure that happens, and if so, what's going wrong?

[Don Demers]

Let me try to answer.

I believe there were three general questions. The first was on how many aboriginal employees we have. The last data we have is that as of March 2005 we had 907 aboriginal employees, which works out to 6.7%.

The second question has to do with the classification tools. We don't think there's a problem with the classification tools. An awful lot of work has gone into their predictive ability. The issue we keep running into is that the factors that allow you to predict risk in the institution also allow you to predict potential for reintegration in the community when they are taken on an individual basis. Unfortunately, the factors that are most predictive are disproportionately connected with aboriginal offenders. As a result of the application tool, at a group level, you get this situation. Where we tend to get into debate with the correctional investigators is whether the result of this is fair or unfair.

As far as we can tell, the assessments are applied as objectively as possible, and those are the results. Our position tends to be that we assess on the basis of risk; we do not assess on the basis of race.

The same kinds of factors will tend to predict whether people will get into trouble when they're in the institutions. They also predict chances of success when released into the community.

I can't really speak to release decisions, because the National Parole Board makes those decisions. We do the case preparation and we give them all the information we have.

On the third question, I wrote “changes” down, but maybe Ross can help.

[Ross Toller]

I have a comment, Mr. Marston.

I would echo what was pointed out before. If you had 25 researchers in a room here and asked for a definition of systemic discrimination, you'd probably get quite a range of answers.

Perhaps I could try to give you a real example. If you ask me the question, are there a number of aboriginal inmates being admitted to maximum security more so than non-aboriginal, I would say to you, yes, absolutely. Some people might interpret that, if they were one of those people in the room, as “There you go, there it is, systemic discrimination”. Our response to that continues to be that we look at the risk factors associated with the manageability of that particular individual, regardless of race, more specifically relative to their criminal activity and those criminogenic factors.

Aboriginal people, unfortunately, do have higher rates of substance abuse, higher rates of employment difficulties, higher rates of all the factors associated with that. I mentioned before the high violence rate, so yes, from an absolutely pure public safety standpoint, in order to make sure our measurability of public safety and of safety for our staff and inmates within an institution...those who come to us with violent tendencies tend to be incarcerated more once we look at the whole picture.

So that's the endless debate about systemic discrimination. There's much more beyond the numbers than just a statement, and I think that's why we often talk about those particular elements relative to risk, relative to race.

You asked a question about the actuarial tools, and I think Mr. Demers talked about that. Why are we looking at these? As part of our normal process, what we're interested in at Correctional Service of Canada is what works. We're interested in results. What gives us good public safety results? We continuously look at our programs. We continuously accredit our programs. Tools change.

We talked in our opening comments about the changing offender profile. Fifteen years ago, if we were sitting here having a conversation, we wouldn't be talking very much about gangs. Fifteen years ago, if we were sitting here talking, we wouldn't be talking about mental health.

It's changed dramatically. Our response inside has to keep up so that we continuously review, and we will continuously review, in perpetuity, our tools, and hence a responsivity for anything to do with classification, with reclassification in terms of its validity. These are research-based tools. These aren't elements pulled out of a hat.

Similarly, as Mr. Demers pointed out, the end releaseability of inmates is a function of the National Parole Board. Our job is to prepare the inmates for release, to manage the risk, and to make our presentations to that particular group.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We have an opportunity to have a question from the government side.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I would like to ask a few questions, and then I'm going to split my time with Mr. Albrecht.

I believe your organization takes the people that the justice system sends you, so you're making do with the circumstances you're seeing. Clearly we have a large aboriginal population in your institution.

What's your opinion as to why that is? What is the reason that this population is so high?

[Don Demers]

Again, this is just my personal opinion. If you go back again, I think the reasons are reasonably well documented and simply because of the relative disadvantages that aboriginal people face in terms of--

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Perhaps I can just cut you off there. Do you have any comparative analysis among individuals incarcerated from the greater population and below the poverty level? Do you have a comparative rate?

[Diane Zilkowsky, Acting Director General, Aboriginal Initiatives, Correctional Service Canada]

On the income levels, we do know that aboriginal men are significantly below--

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

And how would that compare to the larger population of people who are incarcerated and below the poverty level?

[Diane Zilkowsky]

We don't have specific data on that. I can tell you that there are much higher rates of unemployment and much lower levels of education for the individuals who have been coming into Correctional Services than there are for the general population.

When we're looking at things like substance abuse, for example, the data I have here is from a research report that looked at the differences between first nations, Métis, Inuit, and non-aboriginal offenders. It was published by CSC in 2003. Substance abuse, which is quite often for aboriginal offenders a factor in violent offending, was found in 90.5% of the Métis offenders. Some had considerable problems. It was 94% for first nations, and for the non-aboriginal population it was 70%. So when you start looking at the differences in the various groups, the need areas, and the factors contributing to the offending, substance abuse is certainly more significant in the aboriginal than in the non-aboriginal population. Employment is a significant indicator as well. There's quite a difference between the situations of aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders in that regard, except in the case of the Inuit, for whom it's relatively similar to the non-aboriginal offender population. Family and marital relationships is an area in which we see significant differences. Those are some of the key points that we see when they come in.

Those are the areas we target. Primarily for aboriginal offenders, the new programs we've developed focus on prevention of violence: examination of substance abuse, because that's quite related to the violent offending; and treatment of sex offenders, because we know that when we look at the sentencing of Inuit offenders, almost two-thirds of them have committed a sexual offence. When you start looking at the distinctions among the different aboriginal groups, you really see what the different issues are in the communities they've come from. The reality is that generally more of the Métis are from urban areas rather than from rural.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

There's a minute and a half left.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to each of the witnesses for coming. I applaud your focus on safe and healthy communities. It came through many times in your presentation and in your answers. I think we certainly need to keep that central. I applaud the good initiatives that are being undertaken in terms of the number of aboriginal employees, the healing lodges, and so on. I'm also glad to hear of your commitment to ongoing study and further adjustments as those are necessary.

I would also like to point out that prevention and rehabilitation programs are important. Our government recently made some significant announcements in that regard. One of my questions--and I raised this when the correctional investigator was here as well--is about the kinds of programs available for the victims. When you have a larger number of criminals, obviously you have a larger number of victims as well. It would seem to me common sense that many of those who are victimized will, by reason of having been victimized, also have a greater potential to become future criminals. What kind of programming would you recommend, or are there programs in place that would help deal with these victims in healing lodges or places like that so that they don't become involved in lives of crime?

[Ross Toller]

I'll just start off here, and Ms. Zilkowsky may fill in a few gaps. There are several aboriginal programs that have been developed, which involve levels of culture and spirituality, but which also include a component of understanding and empathizing with the victim. They are aimed at really trying to get at a comprehensive understanding of the elements and impacts associated with the victims.

Our organization is associated with victims from a couple of standpoints. As you're well aware, victims can provide input at the very start of a sentence in the form of a victim impact statement, which is considered in both the sentencing and the discussions with inmates toward the development of their correctional plan, as well as in conversations throughout their sentence. At the same time, victims have the right to attend National Parole Board hearings to provide information when the person is being considered for release. Once again the service responds through that particular element. Right now there are victim liaison coordinators in every single region who work with victims on questions they may have about the criminal justice system and how it works.

Right now there are approximately 30-some of these people devoted to that, right across the country. As well, at the very end, together with some of the aboriginal communities we have actually delved into healing circles in which aboriginal people and victims come together to talk about healing in the community itself. The vast majority of the program base of the aboriginals is all about healing--healing paths, healing journeys, spiritual “culturality”, working strongly with the elders. We are seeing, as was mentioned here before, some significant results in a number of areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We are running out of time, unfortunately. It's very interesting, and thank you for the response.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today in follow-up to the report that was tabled. I really do appreciate your very informed answers. Thank you.

Committee members, we have just a couple of things to tidy up before we break. One is the Canadian launch of the international polar year, 2007-08, which is going to take place next Thursday, March 1, between 10:30 a.m. and 1 p.m.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to cancel the meeting of Thursday of next week so you can attend?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

It's not a committee function. It'll strictly be on your own, so we don't need to get permission.

The other item is about Tuesday when we meet. I need some direction. Unless we start looking into aboriginal child welfare, the only thing we have other than that would be to just deal with committee business and future planning. What is the direction of the committee?

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Will we have the recommendations on housing? If so, we can discuss that issue. Then, I suggest we address the issue of child welfare before discussing Bill C-44, on which the House has just voted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

It's my understanding we will deal with the recommendations that come forward.

Madam Hurley, will you have--

[Mary Hurley, Committee Researcher]

They've already been sent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay. We'll do that first thing. And I want to let you know that we won't be dealing with Bill C-44 until after the break--so you understand that.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

If we could spend a few moments, though, at the next meeting talking about the process for preparing for Bill C-44 in terms of how we're going to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

How we're going to deal with that. That would be good.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.