Public Safety Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I have a question specifically for Elizabeth Fry. I sit on the status of women committee as well, as you know. When the corrections investigator came to status of women, he said you could end administrative segregation today in women's facilities, but you cannot do it in men's. I'm wondering if you can maybe speak to the vision that you see for how it would be ended in women's facilities.

[Alia Pierini]

There was a pilot project.

[Savannah Gentile]

Yes. We did offer a pilot project to CSC to assist in that regard, the idea being that we would form a committee of members from E. Fry and formerly incarcerated women and the likes to intervene ahead of issues coming up. This is what I was talking about in terms of dynamic security. If you're aware of the environment of the prison, of tensions rising, of issues between women.... I mean, it's a much smaller population, so if you're going to start anywhere to end segregation, it's with the women's population. It's a much different demographic. If I'm thinking correctly, the last murder in a women's prison was the homicide of Ashley Smith, and that was, you know.... That speaks volumes.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Savannah Gentile]

Yes, definitely. You're speaking for the men's system. I won't speak for the men's system because I don't go into the men's prisons and I don't have that experience.

The idea of the committee was to intervene ahead of time and to come up with alternatives to prevent the use of segregation, because CSC told us that there were only eight women in segregation across the country. For eight women, we could work together to get those women out, to provide alternatives and to get them supports. For some, it might be a section 29 case: get that woman with severe mental health issues to a community treatment facility. It would greatly depend on the circumstances.

That was one option. Unfortunately, that pilot project fell flat, and CSC never followed through with it. We continue to have an interest in starting that back up.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm going to change tack completely here in terms of one of the concerns I have in the legislation. I'm not sure if there's an ability to amend the legislation around this or whether it's about education of the corrections staff themselves.

We heard that Gladue reports are taking into account.... I'm going to speak again mostly about women, although I suspect it happens in the men's institutes as well. People have these reports about what has sent them into prison in the first place—intergenerational trauma, history of violence—and while they may be used correctly in sentencing, they're not being used correctly when they're arriving in corrections in terms of security classifications and everything else.

The legislation mandates that this be reviewed, so how do we ensure that those reports are used correctly to make sure they're taken into account and not being used as a reason to increase classifications for offenders?

[Savannah Gentile]

The Gladue factors are very poorly understood inside. I've seen reports listing that an indigenous woman was removed from her home as an infant and placed with a Caucasian family so there were no factors to consider for her in terms of indigenous social history. That's how poorly understood it is.

We also see how women's needs, such as previous addictions and the like, are translated into risks when you move into a corrections context. That has something to do with the classifications system. The same classifications, the same factors, are taken into account for both men and women, but something like violence in the family may affect men and women very differently. Women tend to be victims of violence, but it's still taken as a risk and that is why women are held at higher levels of security than are necessary.

In terms of how you address that, I would say that the Native Women's Association of Canada is actually going to be submitting a brief on just that. They will provide, I hope, an in-depth analysis of how that can be done better. I think they're better placed to make that analysis.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

For John Howard, are they misused in the men's facilities as well?

[Catherine Latimer]

I'm going to defer that question to my colleague, Allen Benson, who is going to be on the next panel. He's better placed to answer that than I am.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

With that, we're going to suspend.

Before we do, I want to thank each and every one of you, particularly Mr. Da Silva and Ms. Pierini, for their courage in coming before us. It's been insightful. I appreciate it. I will take note of Mr. Dubé's advice that you can still submit written briefs.

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Order.

Thank you for coming, colleagues, but now we've lost our witnesses. Mr. Benson is lost and Mr. Godin is lost.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I think they're just chatting.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, Mr. Godin is taking his seat.

[Jason Godin, National President, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers]

Sorry about that. I seem to be in familiar company, so it's all good.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

A number of colleagues have said to me that they have airplanes to catch, so I'd appreciate it if people would be economical with their statements and economical with their questions.

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

It's my nature, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's your nature I know, Mr. Motz. You're not loquacious in the least.

Mr. Benson is from the Native Counselling Services of Alberta, and Mr. Godin is from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.

Mr. Godin is here, so I'll ask him to make his opening statement.

Hopefully, Mr. Benson will come.

[Jason Godin]

Thank you, Chair.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers represents over 7,300 members working in federal institutions across Canada. As law enforcement professionals, we represent a critical component of the Correctional Service of Canada, enabling the service to achieve its public safety mandate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Recently, much consideration has been given to the role segregation plays within Canada's correctional system, both provincially and federally. It has been thoroughly studied and its effects analyzed and debated, both by academics and by critics of justice systems globally.

With the recent introduction of Bill C-83, CSC will be forced to significantly change the manner in which it manages its offender populations. The passage of Bill C-83 will result in changes to operational policies that will markedly affect the operations of our federal penitentiaries, impacting staff and inmates alike.

Accordingly, UCCO-SACC-CSN, whose members represent a significant partner in the discharge of effective corrections, seeks to participate in the discussions about these changes. That being the case, the goal of this report is to provide perspective on the potential impact of these changes from a correctional officer's perspective.

Should Bill C-83 be successful, CSC will be forced to implement policy that will drastically alter the manner in which the most difficult segments of its population are managed. As we have seen through recent CSC policy changes to segregation in CD 709, by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations. We are concerned about policy revisions that appear to be reducing the ability to isolate an inmate, either for their safety or for that of staff as noted in proposed section 37.3.

This is not to suggest that Bill C-83 is not without merits. Tools such as body scanners provided for in Bill C-83 will enhance correctional officers' abilities to reduce the various types of contraband that threaten the safety of those working and living in federal institutions. However, in order to implement the bill in its entirety, there will be a much greater commitment required from the federal government to ensure its success.

While Bill C-83 seeks to amend several key components of the CSC framework, perhaps the most significant in relation to security operations is the elimination of segregation units within federal institutions. While UCCO-SACC-CSN recognizes that effective corrections require the ability to adapt, our members are also tasked with ensuring the safety and security of all offenders and staff in the institutions.

Eliminating disciplinary and administrative segregation will significantly impact the ability to maintain control over diverse populations. We accept that an overreliance on segregation as a disciplinary consequence may lead to negative outcomes. However, there are incidents in which swift and immediate responses to dangerous behaviour are necessary options.

In 2007, we witnessed the unintended impact of changes to correctional policy, namely CD 709, “Administrative Segregation”, and CD 843, “Interventions to Preserve Life and Prevent Serious Bodily Harm”. These policies significantly reduce CSC's ability to manage its institutions through the use of segregation. Although well-intended, these quickly led to a sharp increase in violence within federal penitentiaries.

Early data released through the Office of the Correctional Investigator on the impact of these amendments provide some indication of the operational outcomes of these changes. An analysis of the numbers found a clear correlation between release back into regular population and violent incidents. Releases declined to 4,025 in 2017 from 5,501 in 2012, while the number of those leaving segregation who were implicated in an assault rose to 321 from 244, according to the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

Furthermore, Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger stated that the new strategy to limit prolonged segregation has had the unintended consequence of more violent attacks behind bars, and he's urging the Correctional Service of Canada to strengthen supervision and risk assessments to improve safety for inmates. While Mr. Zinger may suggest that these changes lead to unintended consequences, UCCO-SACC-CSN has been unequivocal in its position that this outcome would occur.

In the last two years we have seen institutions that, despite shrinking populations, are becoming more violent due to an organizational repose that reduced control measures—namely segregation—which appears to be correlated with further increases in assaults. While UCCO-SACC-CSN does not advocate for the unnecessary segregation of inmates, it does strive to ensure its continued availability as a population management tool without unreasonable policy-based restrictions or outright elimination.

Consideration also needs to be given to the transitional nature of Bill C-83. Should this bill be implemented, all inmates who are subject to disciplinary segregation will no longer be the subject of this sanction, in sections 39 and 40. This will result in immediate changes to the management of violent offenders in institutional populations without apparent consideration for how they will be managed moving forward.

Bill C-83 seeks to replace segregation with the implementation of structured intervention units, the details of which are still vague. The bill will allow the commissioner to “designate a penitentiary or an area in the penitentiary as a structured intervention unit” for the confinement of inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream population for security and other reasons. This is proposed section 31.

Furthermore, within Bill C-83 references to segregation have been eradicated and replaced throughout by structured intervention units. As it currently stands, UCCO-SACC-CSN is of the opinion that the only units suitable for managing inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons are CSC's existing segregation units. It remains unclear whether this bill will result in actual closures of segregation or more simply their renaming with something more politically appropriate, as in proposed section 31.

Regardless of where structured intervention units are situated within federal institutions, Bill C-83 also seeks to amend the manner in which the most difficult portions of the institutional population are managed. SIU inmates will be provided with the opportunity to interact with other inmates for at least two hours as well as the right to spend four hours outside their cell.

While these changes are undoubtedly well intended, they are not feasible under the current staffing and infrastructure models. Many of the inmates currently managed within segregation units are highly vulnerable and are segregated for their own protection. In order to provide them with the amount of interaction proscribed within the new bill, they will require direct and constant supervision from already limited numbers of correctional officers.

Conversely, the inability to adequately manage incompatible inmates will lead to consequences like those seen at Archambault and Millhaven institutions where inmates were murdered in separate incidents in early spring 2018.

In general, should we proceed to the SIU model as a replacement for segregation, it is our hope that these changes will be implemented gradually so they can be properly assessed and amended as necessary.

It is promising to note the discretionary power will remain with the commissioner to extend the proposed SIU status over 30 days, allowing correctional officers the ability to manage high-risk, volatile or self-harming offenders without hard-cap time frames.

As with the implementation of the SIUs, the ability for CSC to repurpose existing infrastructure to meet the criteria of Bill C-83 is unclear. Policy changes resulting from the passage of Bill C-83 will restrict an institution's ability to respond to the needs of specific inmates, the broader population, to meet its current mandate and to provide a safe work environment for staff.

Should these changes occur in order to continue to meet critical strategic priorities effectively, significant infrastructural changes at the institutional level are necessary.

Changes proposed by the bill will allow the commissioner to “assign the security classification of 'minimum security', 'medium security', 'maximum security' or 'multi-level security', or any other prescribed security classification, to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary.” This is in proposed section 29.1.

From an operational standpoint, this wording appears quite vague. Historically, CSC institutions have been constructed with a security standard in mind. To attempt to retroactively change the security ratings of not just individual institutions, but areas within those institutions, seems to be at odds with the original vision of them. This would significantly complicate population management strategies.

The powers of the commissioner are also broadened in relation to transferring inmates within the various security levels of their institutions. It will reinforce the power of the commissioner to transfer inmates to different security levels, for example, transfer a maximum-security level inmate to a medium-security area. Given the security implications of these transfers, we feel that it is prudent to solicit correctional officers' input in these decisions, as we are most familiar with their behaviour and potential outcomes.

Additionally, UCCO-SACC-CSN has been calling for the creation of a special handling unit for female inmates since 2005. Despite every effort, some female inmates exhibit behaviour that simply cannot be safely controlled in regular institutions within the current infrastructural model.

In similar instances involving male offenders, CSC has the ability to transfer otherwise unmanageable inmates to the special handling unit. Historically, due to a lack of alternate options, this has resulted in female inmates being placed in segregation for exceedingly lengthy periods of time. However, under the new guidelines of Bill C-83, CSC may be forced to involuntarily transfer these inmates on a regular and ongoing basis in order to be in compliance with the law.

The same set of circumstances that marked Ashley Smith's incarceration will become even more prevalent. This will serve neither the inmate nor CSC's legislative mandate, yet until changes to existing infrastructure are realized, they will be a necessary reality.

As a result of eliminating the segregation tool, CSC will be forced to rely on managing groups of inmates through the creation of subpopulations. Effectively, they are segregating inmates, without actually physically placing them in segregation.

I notice the chair is giving me the nod there.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It is the sign.

[Jason Godin]

Yes, that's the evil eye, as they say.

If you don't mind, I'll just read the final page. I know you all have the brief in front of you, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If you can do it in seven seconds, you're fine.

[Jason Godin]

I'll see what I can do.

Our recommendations are as follows: a more robust reassessment of policy changes influenced by Bill C-83; the implementation of a more robust incident tracking system to better understand the operational impacts of these changes; the reversion of language that now recommends response options to be “least restrictive” to what was previously “most appropriate”; a commitment to supplementing existing infrastructure within federal penitentiaries to address the impacts of the elimination of administrative and disciplinary segregation; and a review and augmentation of the disciplinary system, which must occur prior to the elimination of disciplinary segregation to effectively respond to the most difficult behavioural inmate cases.

We also recommend a commitment to the availability of health care professionals 24 hours a day within all CSC institutions; the expansion of alternative response options, such as chemical restraints similar to those used within provincial psychiatric hospitals; the supplementation of existing training and the implementation of new training to provide correctional officers with additional tools to allow them to safely respond to the diverse needs of inmate populations; increased inclusion for UCCO-SACC-CSN in future discussions—

I thought you said 47 seconds, sir, but that's okay.

Anyway, you have my brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That was a very long seven seconds.