Evidence of meeting #137 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was actually.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
—and that help can only come from external validation.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
There is no quick question left on your time. I'm sorry, Mr. Motz.
Go ahead, Mr. Dubé, for seven minutes, please.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the two witnesses for joining us today.
Discussion has focused on the importance of having an independent review and an independent validation, if I may put it that way. Instead of repeating everything that has already been said on the issue today, I would like to continue to talk about it, but in the context of health professionals.
When the minister came before us, he said that one of the major differences between the current situation and what the bill proposes has to do with the role health professionals could play.
As far as I understand, health professionals could come to a conclusion on an inmate's problematic situation, and that conclusion would not be independently reviewed. So there would be no mechanism in place to protect the inmate. For example, an inmate could need more oversight and may need to be removed from the structured intervention unit, but if health professionals' decision went against that, the inmate would, in a way, be a victim of the lack of independent review.
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
One of the good things about the bill is that notion of clinical independence and health professionals' autonomy. That is also a very good reflection of the Nelson Mandela rules. The goal of that independence is to ensure that health professionals' opinion could not be ignored by correctional authorities for security reasons. I think there is always some tension between those two groups.
Does that suffice? If I was more innovative and wanted to implement a mechanism more in line with the Nelson Mandela rules, I would suggest that the assistant commissioner of health services at the Correctional Service of Canada, or CSC, report to the deputy minister of Health Canada. The objective would be to create a direct link to the health sector and to protect the separation of health-related functions from correctional authorities' functions. That would be one approach to consider.
It may be easier to do that in the provinces. In the management of correctional services, provinces have well-established health services—which they provide—while that is not the case at the federal level. Health Canada does not provide client services. However, federal authorities could try to do the same as the provinces. The notion of loyalty is always a problem for health professionals, who must deal with their employer, the CSC and the professional order of which they are members, be it a college of physicians or a college of nurses.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but time is running out. Let's stay on the topic of health professionals and services provided in those institutions.
The wording in the last part of subsection 32(a) of the bill, in the French version, is the following: “notamment pour des raisons de sécurité”. I'm not taking into account the possibility of the translation being inadequate, but in the English version, the wording is even more terse and problematic:
“for security or other reasons”.
Is there a concern that the words “other reasons” or “notamment” may lead to a lack of services in institutions, which would in turn mean, as you mentioned in your statement, that authorities would be likely to continue to use that tool as the primary resource to deal with cases requiring a variety of means to help inmates rehabilitate?
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
That was sort of the intention of the previous Bill C-56, which clearly stated that it was prohibited to place individuals with mental health problems in segregation. That prohibition no longer exists because it is expected that inmates could spend at least four hours outside their cell. At the same time, I think that remains a very restrictive environment for someone suffering from serious mental health problems.
As it is not exactly known where those new structured intervention units will be located, it is relevant to wonder whether inmates could have a therapeutic environment. So far, we don't know whether the segregation areas will simply be restructured and renamed.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I now want to talk about opportunities to leave the cell.
Should there be greater accountability in that respect? You talked about possible human contact when food trays are distributed to inmates. An inmate may also be asked whether they want to go outside at 5 a.m. when it is -40 degrees Celsius, for example. Should there be an accountability mechanism when it comes to the type of opportunity to leave the cell provided to inmates?
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
External oversight is essential. That would help validate that everything has been done to mitigate the negative effects of very restrictive circumstances and ensure that the individual is enjoying the benefits set out in the bill concerning human contact. All that should be validated by someone from the outside for there to be accountability.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Dr. Zinger, thank you for being here again, and Ms. Kingsley. We really appreciate your work in corrections.
We talked a lot about oversight. Who do you think should be doing this oversight? The Ontario courts said that if it was someone within CSC who was not reporting to the initial decision-maker, it was okay.
I'm curious. If oversight was brought in, who should be doing it? Do you think you should be doing it, or somebody in your office? Where do you think that should fall?
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
We changed the discussion. Initially it was all about administrative segregation. Now we're into what I call “segregation lite”, a very restrictive environment that does require due process.
By the way, there's been a proliferation of those types of “segregation lite” conditions of confinement over the last decade. We have transition units, special needs units, structured living environment units—all sorts of different names that do not provide a full day out of cells.
I mentioned that there are 380 inmates. There are probably a lot more who fit the definition of an SIU who would benefit from some oversight in this case.
I think the independent chairperson model is probably a correct one. Unfortunately, when it came to disciplinary segregation, correctional officers often circumvented the disciplinary process. Administrative segregation was easier to do, because it was all run internally. You didn't have to go in front of anybody external and you didn't have to reach a really high burden of proof, and so on.
I think we could use that model of independent adjudication. I would bring it under the auspices of SIUs. Thirty days would be okay. I would be—
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
That was my next question, though. Instead of it being a specific time frame, a number of days, what if it was if the inmate was not taking advantage of the number of hours out of the cell for five straight days, for whatever reason? It might be their choice or it might be lack of access, or at the request of the health professional or patient advocate. What if those were the conditions for the oversight to be triggered?
Instead of it being just everybody after 30 days, let's say it was triggered when someone did not access the four hours for five days, or a health professional or patient advocate said, “Somebody needs to come in and look at this situation.”
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
I think you could do both. The problem is making sure that you are capturing those who, for five days consecutively, haven't had human contact and so on. How can you—
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
They'd have to be reporting it, and the reports could be public.
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
It's reporting, and it's all internal, and so forth. If you are able to bring some rigour into that, it could trigger it, but at one point—let's say 30 days—everybody should be looked at. You want to make sure that the Correctional Service of Canada is doing everything it can to apply the least restrictive approach and ensure that alternatives have all been exhausted. It needs to ensure that you've mitigated the harmful effect of those things; that you are actually forcefully developing this correctional plan modification that will allow you to cascade, that it is a therapeutic environment. All these wonderful things—which have very little detail, because they're all going to be coming in the future, in regulations—should be validated by somebody from outside.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
That's why I'm thinking, though, that if the oversight were triggered by specific circumstances, it would also flag institutions that may have had an issue. If there were a number of reports in a particular institution, it would be a red flag for the commissioner that there may be a problem, whether with resources or anything else.
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
I don't disagree. I think that could be one trigger, but you still need a review. You may have a two-step process. Those conditions would come forward—and I agree with the John Howard Society that there would be problematic instances that should trigger some sort of review—and then again at 30 days.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
You said that there are 380 people in segregation right now. I understand that there are eight women. That's what the Elizabeth Fry Society was telling me.
When you appeared at Status of Women, you said that we could get rid of segregation in women's institutes tomorrow and that men's would be more challenging. My sense is that this bill has been written for men's institutions, and it's going to be applied in women's institutes.
Would you agree with that assessment, that we're really dealing more with an issue in the men's prisons than we are in the women's prisons?
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
The number I have, which dates from last week, is 10 women. With respect to men, it's 370, and slightly more than half have been there for over 30 days.
We have some extreme cases. I don't like to say egregious cases, but we certainly have individuals.... One has been in administrative segregation for 510 days, others for 286 days, 264 days, and 194 days, and these are all men. It is much more difficult on the men's side, I agree.
With respect to women, I think I would like to see those who are significantly mentally ill, who are in secure, structured living environments, which are maximum securities, be transferred out of the correctional system into a therapeutic environment with an external hospital—
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
When we only have 20 beds in Canada, it's a little hard to do that, isn't it?
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
Yes. I think that we are spending a lot of money on those women. I think that there are certainly....
Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
I think that Philippe-Pinel, Brockville, or Alberta Health Services would all be willing to do their part if they were compensated appropriately.
