Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 9th, 2023

[Anne Kelly]

In terms of our efforts around diversity since 2021, we've set some truly ambitious representation targets. Our method involves factoring in what is known as workforce availability.

I'll use the example of Saskatchewan Penitentiary, which is in Prince Albert. Let's assume that 70% of the penitentiary's offenders are Indigenous. As part of our equation in setting our representation goals,70% of the workforce is from the available workforce and 30% corresponds to the percentage of Indigenous offenders in the institution.

This means that in institutions with a higher number of Indigenous offenders, we will ensure that there is a representative and diverse staff.

On that subject, Mr. Tousignant and I met with three heads—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I am sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Kelly, but your time is up.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have six minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find it troubling. I often come to this committee, and I often find the Auditor General yelling at the top of her lungs about the conditions that are often facing indigenous and Black people in Canada, and the systems continuously stay the same.

I'm an MP who actually went to visit people in these penitentiaries. I went to the Edmonton women's penitentiary and asked them what their needs were. They are great.

I'm hearing my colleagues ask questions. Obviously, being a Crown prosecutor doesn't give you the kind of education that would be necessary to understand the conditions of indigenous peoples and how they get up to that place. This is not an indigenous and Black issue. This is a Canadian justice issue. It's an issue of our justice system, not of the individuals who are failed by it. The residential school system, the sixties scoop, the planned and targeted genocide of indigenous women—it's clear.

This isn't me saying this. This isn't even many indigenous people who've been saying this. I want to give light to the words of the Auditor General in a quote from just today. I hope all members will pay attention to this really important piece—I'm looking at my Conservative colleagues in particular—and listen to the important pieces this has to offer. I often hear them talk about “getting tough on crime” without understanding the people they're getting tough on and why they're there.

The Auditor General says the following: “This is our fourth audit since 2015 that shows poor and worsening outcomes for different groups of offenders. CSC has taken little concrete action to change the seemingly neutral policies, procedures and practices that produce these outcomes. CSC acknowledged in November 2020 that systemic racism is present in the correctional system. It is long overdue that CSC remove the systemic barriers identified in this report.”

These are real people. Why is it taking so long to address the very basic human rights of people? I had to look these women in the eye and tell them that I was going to try to do better for them. It's tremendously difficult.

To the member from Edmonton West, that penitentiary is right in your backyard, the Edmonton women's penitentiary. I asked them—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I don't care if you've been there. I'm wondering if you've listened to them. They're asking for help. The conditions in those prisons are terrible.

I've spoken to the elders who assist there. They're overwhelmed—overwhelmed—with one elder being asked to serve hundreds of people.

To the commissioner, I don't know how to put this any other way, but these people aren't all the same either. We have one federal penitentiary for indigenous women in the entire Prairies. From Winnipeg to Saskatchewan to Alberta, they're all lined up in one penitentiary and dropped off in my community of Edmonton Griesbach, where they find themselves houseless. They find themselves without support. They are forced into crimes of desperation and exploitation. Simply, our systems are failing them—especially CSC.

I am lost for words. The reports are there. The numbers are there. All I can do is ask that we see these people for who they are and the conditions that they're in. They're not there because they want to be there. They're there because this country has forced them to be there. Whether it's because they've taken their children.... I've spoken to elders who are in the maximum security prison there, old women who have been there for decades, because they fought in desperation to find their children and failed in doing that. The first question I was asked when I was there was, “Can you help me find my daughter?”

These are real people who are missing their family members. They can't even go and visit them, because they're from Winnipeg. Their daughters are missing. They want to talk to their families. This is one of the most egregious reports I've seen. These people can't wait. They're going to die in this place without ever seeing their family again. We need to help these people. They're not there because of reasons within their control.

I'll probably run out of time in this segment to ask any questions, but I hope you see how real this is. It's taken people like me to get elected to get this message all the way to this place, because I haven't heard it once yet. I hope my colleagues can see the need to reframe our minds on this.

We need a policy in Canada that reforms these systems away from the simple slogan of “getting tough on crime”, because that contributes to genocide in this country. Yes, people who break the law should be punished, but those who find themselves in conditions because of what Canadians have done...? You need to do some reflection. How have Canadian laws disproportionately impacted these people—my relatives?

Those Gladue reports are important pieces of information. I hope Crown prosecutors also do their work in understanding the value of those reports when seeking so desperately to put our people in jail. It's important that we do this work. It's called by elders who have passed away....

The calls to action in the TRC are clear. In my continued statements later on, I'll ask about the TRC and what you've done—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, I will end it there. That is your time. Thank you very much.

Turning to our next round, Mr. Genuis, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Brock will go next, and then I'll go in the round after that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay.

Mr. Brock, it's back to you for five minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I truly appreciate the words of my colleague Mr. Desjarlais. They were appropriate. They were heartfelt.

I thank you for that, sir. I do take to heart what you had to say. I have one little push-back. I prosecuted in indigenous peoples court for 10-plus years. I made a difference in hundreds of lives of indigenous offenders. I've seen successes. I've seen more successes than I've seen defaults and tragedies. I just want to say that prosecutors do take Gladue reports very seriously, but thank you for your intervention.

Going back to you, Ms. Kelly, I had just formulated a question when I ran out of time in the first round. I talked about the very large percentage of gangs, almost 50%, that are composed of Blacks and indigenous offenders, with those individuals committing very serious, violent offences that are harming people, killing people and exposing great danger to communities. It's probably no wonder—to me, and I hope you share the same view—that upon their initial placement in a federal institution, given the nature of the conviction, which quite often is not a first-time conviction but rather a pattern of dangerous-like convictions.... You don't wake up one day and decide, “You know what? I'm going to join a gang, and I want to kill somebody.” It's often a series of tragic mistakes that lead you to ultimately end up in prison.

My point is that it ought not to be a surprise to the auditors and to the Auditor General that the system itself is classifying these individuals who are deemed at high risk at the maximum level. Do you agree?

[Anne Kelly]

Again, we have a security classification process. We take into account a lot of information, such as police information and the judge's sentence. We also have the custody rating scale, which is an actuarial tool. The parole officer looks at everything, including indigenous social history or Black social history. Then we make a determination.

That's how we classify offenders.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Paragraph three of Ms. Hogan's opening statement gives an example: “Indigenous and Black men were placed at maximum-security levels at twice the rate of other offenders and made up half of all maximum-security placements.”

I looked at exhibit 4.4 on page 8 and saw that, while that percentage does seem to be accurate, the bigger picture, which is not contained in the opening statement of Ms. Hogan, is that most—almost three-quarters if not 90%—of all Black and indigenous offenders end up classified in minimum and medium security.

I'm looking at exhibit 4.4. Do you see that? A combination of 89% for indigenous offenders ended up in minimum and medium security, and for Black offenders it was 85%.

[Anne Kelly]

What I can say is that the concordance rate, so our actuarial tool.... The final offender security level is 75%. The actuarial tool is then used to anchor your judgment, but in terms of indigenous offenders, it means that in 25% of cases they're either overridden or underridden. They're underridden more times than they are overridden.

It's the same for Black—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You also have to factor in the nature of the conviction. Does your data make a distinction between those ultraserious convictions, those offences, versus the less serious offences that still warranted a two-year plus sentence?

[Anne Kelly]

Absolutely. Our custody rating scale takes into account—and this is one component—age at time of first sentencing, criminal history, offence severity, sentence length—all those factors.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

When I look—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have time for a very quick question, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I look at exhibit 4.4. Is that a combination of all offenders, of all types of convictions, or is that only the really serious ones that I've been prefacing—the homicides and the significant weapons offences?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Kelly, give us a relatively quick answer as well, please.

[Anne Kelly]

I'm looking at exhibit 4.4.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Is it generalized, or is it specific?

[Karen Hogan]

I can help, Mr. Chair. It is all. We didn't subcategorize. It is all offenders in all federal institutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Hogan. If there's more on that, we'll have to come back to Ms. Kelly.

Mr. Dong, you have the floor now for five minutes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming today.

I want to say to you, Mr. Desjarlais, that your opening remarks really touched me. It's not news to us, but I really admire that you have a very focused purpose of being in this place, not just in this committee but in the House as well. We've been through this many times, and I see the consistency and the persistence in your pursuit. I think all members felt it and felt the same thing.

Let's get to the specifics.

Commissioner Kelly, what really stood out for me when I read the report is that the custody rating scale has not been updated since 2012, and the one for offenders I think hasn't been updated at all. Why is this? What are you doing to change that? It's an important tool to determine the level of security.

[Anne Kelly]

It's absolutely an important tool.

Actually, on the CRS, the development of the custody rating scale was in response to a recommendation from the Auditor General back in 1994. That's why we developed the custody rating scale. It has been empirically tested—and Larry could speak to that—many times.

What we're doing, however, is that, for indigenous offenders, we have an MOU with the University of Regina, and they are working at arm's length to develop an indigenous-informed, gender-informed security classification process, because there are certain factors that are gender neutral, like age and criminal history—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Yes, I get that part.