Public Safety Committee on May 31st, 2016

[Howard Sapers]

The previous government made significant commitments to correctional mental health, and Correctional Service of Canada was challenged sometimes to keep pace with some of the political commitments that were being made.

One of those challenges has been in concluding agreements with provincial and territorial health providers. In spite of all of the goodwill, we've only seen one new agreement concluded, and that's for two beds at the St. Lawrence treatment centre operated by the Royal Ottawa Hospital group in Brockville. There has been a renewal of the long-standing agreement with the Pinel Institute in Montreal, but there's still inadequate space right across the country.

For Atlantic Canada—I was just in the Atlantic region—the need there exists, and it's not being met. Patient advocates in provincial forensic systems across the country are raising concerns that they are losing jurisdiction when patients or their clients achieve a federal sentence and they no longer have access to the kind of advocacy they were being provided. There is no agreement in place in British Columbia or in Alberta.

For women it's particularly a problem. The regional psychiatric centre in Saskatoon, operated by Correctional Service of Canada, continues to be the only site available, federally or nationally, for significantly mentally ill women who are serving a federal sentence.

Remember, it's not just people who were mentally ill at the time of sentence. That's one problem, but the significant problem is the mental health of individuals who are serving a sentence, because they may become ill or their illness may become more acute while they're in custody. This is something that is well known and well documented. There are lots of good recommendations and lots of good how-to discussions, but it hasn't been done.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

We spoke of those inmates with the most severe mental health issues who would be put in a more hospital-like environment, but what about the bulk of those inmates with mental health issues?

Can you also comment on the training aspect that is provided to Correctional Service officers? Emphasis was made to adapt the approach to the profile of those inmates, so can you comment on the evolution of the approach? What's been achieved, and what are the next steps in that regard?

[Howard Sapers]

Correctional Service of Canada has improved its training and has committed to training staff up and down the organization in terms of mental health awareness and intervention. They've done a good job of doing that.

I have some quibbles about the model of the training and the frequency of the training, but at a high level I think they're to be commended for putting the time, energy, and resources into increased training. The problem is that the training hasn't necessarily resulted in some of the gains we were hoping for. We still see an overrepresentation of people with known mental health issues being held inside segregation cells, not getting access to programs, being held at higher rather than lower security levels, and often receiving more disciplinary infractions.

For some of these people it's not that they are suffering from an acute psychiatric illness, but they may be dealing with afflictions caused by traumatic brain injury or FASD or other mental health issues that make it difficult for them to survive inside a penitentiary and to follow rules. They may become vulnerable to other offenders and they may get into conflict with other offenders. That gets into the cycle of disciplinary infractions, segregation use, etc.

The training is good, but we need to see practice as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Di lorio is next.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sapers and Ms. Kingsley, thank you for your presentation and the work that you do. I would appreciate it if you extended my thanks to your teams.

Page 42 of the report—you don’t need to refer to it because I will read out the quote and you will see what I am talking about—states: “Offenders are being released from federal facilities only to find they are inadequately prepared for life on the outside.”

Mr. Sapers, in one of your answers, you referred to observations made by the international community and experiences from other countries. What can we learn from other countries on how to prepare inmates for reintegration into society?

[Howard Sapers]

Sure. Thank you for your question and for your earlier comment.

I think what the research has demonstrated is really two things, if I can speak at a very high level.

One is that the best success for programs occurs when those programs are delivered in the community, so preparing people for the earliest possible access to the community to access those programs tends to be very much more effective. It's easier to integrate into employment, back into the family dynamic, etc., when those programs are delivered in a supported way in the community.

The other thing is making sure that the programs that are delivered in institutions are delivered at the right time by the right people for the right reasons. When a correctional plan is put into place, that plan is a type of prescription for programs that are supposed to be based on the need of that individual offender. Getting that person into the program, first of all, is very important; getting that person to complete the program is very important, and making sure that the program is delivered by somebody who is competent to deliver it is very important.

It's in those three areas that we've challenged the Correctional Service to do a better job. Last year, for example, there were about 10,700 program enrolments for the more than 22,000 offenders who churned through the system. Overall, about 85% of those program assignments were completed, a high of about 90% when it came to family violence programs but a low of under 80% for those who were involved in violence prevention programs.

We know that the number of parole hearings that continue to be waived or postponed continues to grow, and the primary reason is that people aren't getting a positive recommendation from their team to appear before the Parole Board. The biggest reason that they are not getting a recommendation is that they haven't made progress on their correctional plan, and they haven't made progress on their correctional plan because they haven't been able to get into those programs. Therefore, as I said, getting people into programs, getting them to complete the programs, and making sure the programs are based on evidence and delivered by the right people are all critical to their success.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

On page 43 of the report, I read the following: ”Incapacitation should be reserved for the most dangerous”.

I understand that the most dangerous offenders are particularly challenging, but are the ability of the less dangerous or non-dangerous offenders to reintegrate into society and their success rate assessed?

[Howard Sapers]

The Correctional Service of Canada, as part of its—

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I will let you listen to the simultaneous interpretation before I finish my comment.

[Howard Sapers]

Okay. My apologies.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

My concern is that the two categories may be mixed together and that not enough emphasis is placed on the possibilities of obtaining the highest rate of success.

[Howard Sapers]

We know that most offenders are classified as medium security. That's also where most of the institution-based programming is. Five or six out of ten inmates in a federal penitentiary are in a medium-security penitentiary in a medium-security cell. About one-fifth are classified as minimum security, and those you would think are the ones most apt to be released into the community the quickest. About 14% are considered maximum security.

Programming is available at all institutional levels, but the bulk of the programming is focused on medium security, and it's timed so that offenders are getting into programs to get the program's benefits before they're eligible for their first release. Correctional Service of Canada has made some changes to target those who will get the most benefit and to get them into programs more quickly.

The jury is still very much out, in my opinion, on whether those changes have resulted in the positive benefits hoped for. We do know that more inmates are getting into their first program more quickly and we know that more inmates are completing their programs. We don't know if they're getting the same benefit out of the programs as they once received.

The Correctional Service of Canada has used some good science to determine who maybe shouldn't even be programmed for. There are some very low-risk offenders for whom the focus is really on vocational preparation and community release planning, as opposed to correctional intervention, because they are at a very low risk to reoffend. The Correctional Service does a fairly good job of doing that assessment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Rayes is next.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for helping us examine your report. The report states clearly that the objective is to significantly limit the use of administrative segregation, especially for young offenders under 21 years of age and those who are mentally ill.

To follow up on Mr. Miller’s question, could you tell me what solutions are being proposed? Are you looking for solutions or do you already have solutions that could be implemented to limit administrative segregation?

I would like to hear what you both have to say about that.

[Howard Sapers]

One thing we could do about segregation is follow the law as it's currently written. Segregation is already supposed to be used minimally, as a last resort. The focus is always supposed to be on returning people to the general population as quickly as possible and eliminating any alternatives before segregation placement is maintained.

The framework around administrative segregation already calls for reviews at five days, 15 days, 30 days, 60 days, etc., and we've already seen just this year that if you pay attention to those provisions in law and policy, you can reduce segregation placement. Therefore, the first thing we can do is use segregation more closely to the way it was imagined to be used when Parliament passed the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and its regulations back in 1992.

That's a starting point. Enhancing that policy framework by including things like hard caps on continued segregation, ensuring robust review—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I will have to interrupt you. We can talk about it later.

I have a question that has not been answered and it has to do with alternatives.

I understand that a piece of legislation is in place and that we can amend it, but I would like to have a clear picture of the current options to replace administrative segregation in prisons.

[Marie-France Kingsley]

I can give you a concrete example.

There is a sub-population of women in prisons who self-harm. All too often, if they display self-harming or inappropriate behaviour, they will be placed in confinement.

There are other solutions, such as psychological support. They can be transferred to more therapeutic environments called secure living environments. They can also undergo more dialectical behaviour therapy, which is designed to specifically treat those types of mental illnesses. Those are some solutions that can be implemented.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

If the act is amended, could you then apply those measures?

What is currently preventing you from providing alternatives to segregating the inmates?

[Marie-France Kingsley]

That is what the office has recommended to the Correctional Service of Canada for a number of years. The idea is to look at those kinds of solutions. The instinct of immediately confining an inmate with a mental illness must not come automatically. Other interventions are possible.

All too often, the decision is made with a safety objective in mind rather than one of psychological support.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Why are the decision-makers not considering those other options?

The act has been around since 1992, but people are not choosing other options. Is it because of the organizational culture, lack of training, lack of resources or financial reasons?

You seem to have some solutions.

[Marie-France Kingsley]

That's a very good question. We could discuss it at length, but I will limit my comments on the matter.

There is certainly a question of culture. Canada has seen a deinstitutionalization of people with mental health issues in the last 30 or 40 years. Unfortunately, this has led to a trend toward over-incarceration. Some people with mental health issues are ending up in the criminal justice system more often.

So the Correctional Service of Canada inherited this problem. As Mr. Sapers explained, the CSC acknowledges it. Some cases have made headlines. More and more, correctional officers are being offered training to recognize the signs and symptoms of an inmate with mental health issues so that they better adapt their approach. However, this isn't something that happens overnight.

First of all, prison is part of a correctional system. People can't expect prisons to play the role of psychiatric hospitals. There is always tension between these two realities.