Public Safety Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Jason Godin]

I thought you said 47.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There is a hearing clinic just down the street.

[Jason Godin]

Yes. That's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Benson, you have 10 minutes, and I'm anticipating you will be able to demonstrate to Mr. Godin that 10 minutes is 10 minutes.

[Dr. Allen Benson, Chief Executive Officer, Native Counselling Services of Alberta]

I will. Thank you.

First, I'd like to acknowledge that I am on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

It's an honour to be here to speak to this bill. I am the CEO of Native Counselling Services of Alberta. I have been involved in this business since being a parole officer, originally, 40 years ago, so I'm speaking with many years of experience, both in Canada and overseas. We operate two section 81 healing lodges in Edmonton, one for men and one for women, which is the only female section 81 healing lodge.

I'm going to stay focused mainly around the indigenous part of Bill C-83. My focus is going to be around the accountability of the healing lodges. I'm going to speak to a couple of key things around the work we do.

First, I'd like to talk about the language used in the bill itself and address some of the changes in proposed sections 79.1 and 84.1, where the language proposed in the first section is to be “Indigenous governing body” meaning “a council, government or other entity”.

We're proposing that it be changed to “Indigenous governing body” meaning a council, government or “indigenous organization” that is authorized to act on behalf of an indigenous group, community or people that holds a right recognized under section 35 of the Constitution.

It's expanding that language a bit. There's a reason for that. I heard from my colleague from Elizabeth Fry about their concern for it. Our concern comes from a conversation with the Alberta chiefs and some of our leaders in the community about ensuring that it is an indigenous organization that is in fact delivering these services.

Later in proposed section 81.1, indigenous organizations are mentioned. However, we also propose that the government clearly define what an indigenous organization is—that is, that an “indigenous organization” is one that has a majority of its board of directors as first nations, Métis or Inuit; demonstrates expertise and program delivery that are grounded in an indigenous world view; and over two-thirds of the staff, in healing lodges in particular, of the agency identify as indigenous.

Proposed section 80 states:

Without limiting the generality of section 76, the Service shall provide programs designed particularly to address the needs of Indigenous offenders.

We highly recommend that either in law or in policy the Correctional Service of Canada be directed to offer programs for indigenous offenders that are both culturally relevant and grounded in indigenous evidence-based research.

Further on section 81, for the proposed changes, we recommend that a proposed subsection 81(4) be added so that the minister may delegate full authority through section 81 agreements so that the director of the section 81 may carry out his or her full responsibility of the care and custody and supervision of offenders in a healing lodge. I'm speaking specifically about that because we have just renewed our agreement, and there's nothing in legislation that allows for the minister to delegate that authority. We've included it in our agreement, but it's not in law. We'd certainly like to see it in law.

In addition, proposed subsection 83(1) currently states:

For greater certainty, Indigenous spirituality and Indigenous spiritual leaders and elders have the same status as other religions and other religious leaders.

We recommend that the following be added: “Elders should be utilized in all interventions regarding Indigenous offenders, including but not limited to mental health, behavioural issues and discipline”.

We currently utilize the elders' services in all of those areas in our healing lodge. It's very effective. It's a very effective means of accountability and it's an intervention status. A number of years ago, I was involved in an institutional riot where we brought elders in to help settle down the matter. It was very effective. It doesn't work in all cases, but it certainly should be considered as a key option.

Finally, in regard to sections 86 and 87, the proposed changes are that:

health care means medical care, dental care and mental health care, provided by registered health care professionals or by persons acting under the supervision of registered health care professionals;

While this is costly, we don't agree with this proposal. We suggest that the health care providers be on site. Further, this means to stipulate that the health care professional is on site at all times. Health care is an ongoing concern for all offenders. This change could make the situation a lot worse.

Again, I'm not going to speak to the specific issues, but I'd like to address in general the structured intervention unit. In answer to your earlier question, I'd like to believe the intent of this bill is honourable and that it can be effective.

I am aware of the violence. I am familiar with the level of violence in the institutions and the importance of the safety and security of other offenders and staff. I am also aware that elders have been at risk at times, because of the violence. We are in support of that type of separation of offenders.

However, if the question is whether we are sure these policies are actually honoured and being implemented, let's guarantee that. One of the ways to guarantee it is to ask for all medium- and maximum-security institutions to have an on-site ombudsman who reports to the correctional investigator. If that's the public's concern or the concern of my colleagues, then one of our guarantees would be to ask for that on-site ombudsman to be in place to review these cases. That would help us eliminate the kinds of concerns that some of us and some of my colleagues have.

I want to thank you. I am prepared to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Benson, and thank you for the respect shown to the chair's desire to be economical with time.

With that, we will have Mr. Picard for seven minutes, please.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

Hello again, Mr. Godin.

Do we agree that the use of administrative segregation units—I don't know the exact term—is an essential tool for security reasons? Prison is not an easy place to begin with; it is a violent environment. The intake overflow and certain events are such that, for security reasons, we must segregate a number of people for their safety and that of the entire inmate population.

[Jason Godin]

Absolutely. This is a tool at the disposal not just of correctional officers but all the way up to the warden's level.

To safely manage these populations, we depend on administrative and disciplinary segregation to make sure that officers, inmates, nurses and so on are not hurt, and that inmates are not doing harm to one another. It's an essential tool and one that we continue to use as we need it.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

When the inmates are in the general population, they can normally take advantage of a number of programs. Beside the sentence they must serve, we're still trying to rehabilitate them, and the goal of training programs is to provide someone with the necessary tools to reintegrate society. A person in administrative segregation doesn't have access to this programming, which delays his or her reintegration.

[Jason Godin]

We can still offer programs in administrative segregation, to a limited degree. Maybe that's one of the questions you're asking. They just can't participate in the mainstream programs because they could be disruptive to other inmates who are trying to receive their programming as well. There is a delicate balance there.

Our goal is rehabilitation. At the end of the day that's our mandate, right from the correctional officer all the way to the warden and the parole board. At the same time, however, sometimes we have to limit access to programs for the safety and security of other inmates and to allow for programming to occur with inmates as well.

Although there is limited programming in administrative segregation, it does exist for the most essential things inmates need while they are in administrative segregation.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

You said that the proposed changes were well intentioned. In your opinion, what are those good intentions? What are the benefits of the improvements that you've proposed?

[Jason Godin]

There are good intentions there, but I will go to the issue of resourcing. This is going to be a very costly venture if we are going to be successful. There is the idea that we are going to include health care on a very regular basis. As you know, I have been advocating for there to be health care 24 hours a day in all facilities.

The more we can use therapeutic nurses and staff to help inmates with mental illness, the better. Along with that comes the security aspect of it, because we have to maintain security for the health care workers and other inmates who may be in the unit.

The bill is extremely ambitious. You are looking at trying to take inmates out of their cells for four hours a day. If you look at some of our administrative segregation units now, with up to 75 inmates, that task is virtually impossible within a 16-hour time frame unless you have the staff.

Also, that doesn't account for interruptions. We could have very volatile inmates who are self-harming, who are interrupting the programs of other inmates in the units.

The bill is very ambitious. The idea is not necessarily bad. We're not saying it's bad, but we're asking how you are going to deliver that from an operational standpoint to safely manage the institution. Right now, the way the bill sits, it's virtually impossible to do that without the proper resources.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

In the current system, we already take into account the safety of third parties who provide services, for example, health care services. Even if inmates only spend two hours outside their cells, we provide them with health care services and we take into account the safety of the providers.

[Jason Godin]

Even as it stands now, the policy changed in the summer of 2018, so that they now have the two hours out of their cells, but that two hours excludes showers and phone calls, and I can tell you, right now, in the current administrative segregation units, we're not even meeting those mandates.

As recently as a couple of weeks ago, I was in Edmonton sitting in the segregation unit asking the staff in there if they were meeting the two-hour requirement, with the showers and the phone calls, and they said, “Absolutely not. It's 10 o'clock at night and we can't meet them.”

It's a resourcing issue, for sure.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I'm sorry, but the question was about the security of the third party offering services.

[Jason Godin]

Right.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Does it exist at this time?

[Jason Godin]

It does, yes. If you're asking about the health care services, yes, of course, when we're delivering health care services to inmates, for the safety of the health care professional, the inmates and other staff, we're usually accompanying the health care professionals.

If we're going to expand on that with Bill C-83, you can imagine what kinds of resources that will take. Normally when we're managing health care, with the health care professional there are usually two correctional officers. You could also be dealing with inmates who are extremely volatile or extremely violent, or they could be self-harming. That sucks up a lot of resources.

Yes, currently we do have that model, but to maintain that in this current bill is going to be extremely costly.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

But that doesn't mean, by going from two hours to four hours, that the health care provider will spend more time. It's just that in the four hours there will be other activities possible, so the security aspect of third party service providers remains as is, before and after the new bill. Is that right?

[Jason Godin]

Yes, there will be other activities, but you have to remember that those activities have to be supervised, and at the end of the day, health care, being part of that supervision, could be implicated or certainly it could include correctional officers, depending on what kind of supervision or what kinds of programs we're trying to deliver.

There is going to be a cost factor with that and not all health care professionals are going to be available for all the activities. Somebody has to manage that and have supervision over those situations.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Do you believe that the officers you represent are part of the rehabilitation process?

[Jason Godin]

Yes, of course we are. Correctional Officer 2s participate in the case management process. I can tell you that the dynamic security that goes on daily in our institution is constant. I've worked in the system for 27 years, and I can tell you that it's constantly happening. We are a huge part of the rehabilitative process, and we know that eventually offenders are going to come back to live in our communities just as much as they're going to live in your community.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Mr. Motz, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both groups for being here.

Mr. Godin, the government has suggested that your organization, the group you represent, was consulted as part of the development of this bill. From your perspective, did that happen?