Public Safety Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Ms. Latimer, I don't know if it was you who mentioned this, but there's this notion of the health care professionals making recommendations. This ties into the oversight issue that's already been discussed today. Given that essentially the recommendation is non-binding, it would obviously not look very good to not be respecting that recommendation, but ultimately—as I read the legislation, and I want to hear from both organizations on this—there's really nothing that requires them to follow along with that recommendation beyond it being potentially a flag or a black mark or whatever you want to call it on a particular file or case.

[Catherine Latimer]

The John Howard Society generally has a problem with the quality of the health care and the independence of the health care professionals. They're all under contract to CSC, so again, CSC's security interest seems to trump what's needed for the prisoner's health on any given day. You'll find that the health care professionals don't carry much status in the entire prison system, so their recommendations can be easily ignored, which is a very serious problem. Who's going to know whether or not the recommendations have been ignored? Sure, they're keeping records, but who's reading the records? Who's keeping on top of it?

The absence of any kind of vigilance and independence is a challenge.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

On that note, if I may, the correctional investigator was talking in his report last week about the lack of psychiatric services, the lack of resources, again, something that's been brought up today. I'm just wondering if there is a link there already with this “other reasons” piece. They keep putting aside the security debate. The “other reasons” could potentially be a lack of resources in a situation that has escalated because the tools, so to speak, aren't necessarily there. Is that an assessment that either of you shares?

I'd like to hear from both of you, if possible, please.

[Catherine Latimer]

The other reasons why they're placed in the unit or...?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

In the bill, where they say for “security or other reasons”, I was just wondering if “other reasons” could potentially be—

[Catherine Latimer]

It could be mental health issues.

I don't know if it's the same on the women's side, but from our experience, generally prisoners who are asserting their rights tend to be seen as problem inmates and tend to end up more in these units. They're not doing anything other than standing up for what their legal rights are.

Do you want to comment on this?

[Lawrence Da Silva]

The “other reasons” that they're speaking of are a cut-and-paste job from the old legislation, which read that way. It would give the head of the institution the opportunity and the ability to place inmates into 31(3)(a) segregation, at any belief that there was the opinion that the inmate would be a threat to the general public or area. These are the other reasons that they speak about—security incidents that could arise, an inmate being disruptive, an inmate who fought with another inmate.

What's important to understand here is that they're trying to cancel out disciplinary segregation as well. There were two forms of segregation here. As a federal prisoner, I spent time in both. I spent 2,500 days in administrative segregation, not including or withstanding the other form of punitive segregation, which was disciplinary segregation for the offences of my actions. When we look at these areas, it's this way.

[Savannah Gentile]

What we often see with women is that they're placed in segregation under mental health watch, moderate observation or high-moderate watch. It's a form of mental health observation in which they're monitored by cameras in case they self-harm.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Men as well...?

[Savannah Gentile]

Yes, it happens on the men's side as well.

This clinical seclusion could be “other reasons”. It doesn't exist in legislation, but it does in their policies.

[Lawrence Da Silva]

It's used punitively as well.

[Savannah Gentile]

Exactly. That's a huge problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll have to leave it there.

I encourage witnesses to look at the chair from time to time, not that I'm particularly vain, but it helps me administer the time.

Next is someone who is absolutely not vain—Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Brampton North, Lib.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. It's a very interesting panel for me.

I'd first like to ask Mr. Da Silva for a little bit more of an explanation. I'm very interested. You have described your experience, and from what you've told us so far, although I can't imagine it, I can feel a realness in your description.

[Lawrence Da Silva]

I would like to help you.

[Ruby Sahota]

Yes, and you're here to do that.

You're not against segregation. You think it serves a purpose and I understand that, but you also mentioned procedural fairness and due process to be given before making that decision. Can you explain that and what that looks like?

[Lawrence Da Silva]

As a former federal prisoner, I'll give you my personal view on the legislation as it stands from paragraph 31(3)(a) all the way through to, I believe, sections 38 to 42, which is the area in which we deal with administrative segregation of federal prisoners. I'm not going to speak about the voluntary basis. I'm only going to speak about police investigations and why they believed that placing you in segregation was a justifiable cause.

For us as prisoners, we oppose this bill. All the families are opposing this as they know it now because what they're trying to do is cut out the disciplinary court system.

For instance, as a violent offender and violent prisoner, which I was, I would find myself in violent altercations with other inmates, either brought on by the situation or by me advancing those situations to make those decisions. When this happens, it's only understandable that you need to be removed from everybody else. If there are two beasts in the room stabbing each other up, they need to be removed, but as I said, this all has to happen under the framework. At the time, we believed that meant being arrested and rightfully removed from the population, which was the law, until you were either bailed out by the five-day review program that they had in place...not that I believed in it. I only believed in the old framework.

If, in the administrative purpose, you're accused of acts that CSC is not going to bring against you.... For instance, they say that a shank is in my cell, and they say that I'm bringing in drones of drugs. You heard Anne Kelly yesterday. These things are all just speculation until I'm caught with something. That's why she has these authorities to use phone taps.

[Ruby Sahota]

Currently, these decisions for segregation are made internally and you think they should be made—

[Lawrence Da Silva]

They're only made internally and we believe that—

[Ruby Sahota]

They should be made externally.

[Lawrence Da Silva]

—utilizing the mechanism of the disciplinary court and meshing the two would formulate the outside intervention that you need, the independent, impartial adjudicator who already acts as a lawyer for the disciplinary court and allows you the process to be protected by counsel and these fundamental rights of justice.

[Ruby Sahota]

Does this bill not eliminate segregation?

[Lawrence Da Silva]

Yes, it eliminates segregation. It eliminates administrative segregation and it eliminates disciplinary segregation all at once, with the description of the charges you should be placed in segregation for. This is very dangerous because when it comes to the inmate parole system, the parole boards are going to be judging on speculation, not on the description of what you've been involved in inside.

You're talking just about trying to fix administrative segregation, but you're going to have to amend more bills than this. You're going to have to amend subsection 97(1) of the CCRR, which declares that inmates who are arrested in segregation and/or emergency transferred have the right to counsel. Now, effectively, as soon as you make this decision to pass this bill, you're crossing that out and now I'm left at the leisure of CSC, and so are the women.

[Ruby Sahota]

That still leaves in place discretion for allowing for—

[Lawrence Da Silva]

No, it doesn't. The discretion has been abused. The discretion has been—