Public Safety Committee on Oct. 31st, 2017

[Anne Kelly]

Yes, absolutely. We're quite pleased. This is a new approach, and it's in response to the Auditor General's report. This new approach we're implementing addresses the majority of the recommendations of the OAG report.

We're going to provide more intensive, focused support and interventions. We've created seven aboriginal intervention centres, three of which are in the prairie region. These aboriginal intervention centres serve as both intake centres, where we do the intake process with the offenders, and programming centres. We'll also offer programming there.

It's mostly for medium-security offenders serving short sentences. We'll have case management teams with specialized training, and we've already completed the training at all the aboriginal intervention centres. It's on aboriginal social history, on how to document the impact of the Pathways program on an aboriginal offender, training in a section 84 process, and also how to assess the impact of culturally relevant interventions, such as elder services.

The other component is that aboriginal community development officers, which I referred to previously, are assigned to these aboriginal intervention centres. Section 84 release plans, for those offenders who are interested, are initiated well before the offender's parole eligibility dates. Also, aboriginal community liaison officers will be positioned to work with communities as part of the section 84 process. They will meet up with the offenders three months prior to their release and follow the offenders for six months after release.

When the aboriginal offenders arrive at the aboriginal intervention centres, they will be provided with an explanation of the programs and services available to them. Then they will tell us whether they wish to follow the aboriginal continuum of care or not, because aboriginal offenders can also take mainstream programs.

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

Right. I'm sure there's more, but—

[Anne Kelly]

Yes, there is.

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

—because of time, maybe it would be helpful if you could provide those new approaches to the committee, in addition to what you've already provided.

[Anne Kelly]

Absolutely.

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

I'm sorry for having to intervene and ask another question.

I know that the Supreme Court and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in sections 81 and 84 talk about healing lodges and returning indigenous people back to their communities. I'm curious to know, I guess from both Ms. Connidis and Ms. Kelly.... I have two questions related to that. Are the healing lodges in section 81 functioning as intended? Are they actually rehabilitating people as intended? Also, are there any stats about those indigenous offenders who have gone through the healing lodge process and their opportunities to reoffend? What are the stats on reoffending, for them and for those who have stayed in the normal process and not chosen that option. Are there any stats on those two?

Are they operating as intended, as provided in legislation, and are there any stats to indicate what the results are if they go through that process?

[Anne Kelly]

The answer is yes, they are operating as intended.

Certainly the healing lodge is a type of environment where the offender can better understand his or her culture. There are traditions and ceremonies. Normally the offenders have been working extensively with the elders. They're committed to following a healing path.

I can say that when I was in the Pacific region, we had a healing lodge, the Kwikwèxwelhp healing lodge, and an excellent relationship with the Sts'ailes community. Certainly when we went to the healing lodge and participated in the ceremonies and spoke to the offenders, we saw that these were offenders who were extremely committed to their path.

In terms of results, I don't know. Larry, do you have them?

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

We don't have the results here, but we can provide them. We do have some research done on this, on section 81, as well as on healing lodges—

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

It's sections 81 and 84.

[Dr. Larry Motiuk]

—and 84, too. We can provide any kind of return rates on any release.

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

If you can provide those, that would be great. Thank you.

I know that we've read the stats, and they are concerning. From Correctional Service Canada's perspective, what are the main challenges that indigenous people face in the correctional system that might be unique to them?

[Anne Kelly]

Did you say unique to them?

Well, the first thing that I'd like to note is that the aboriginal people represent 3% of the adult Canadian population, but they represent 24% of admissions into CSC. We don't have control over those admissions. Some 65% of those admitted are actually admitted as first-time federal offenders.

Also one of the challenges is their profile. They are younger. I have some stats here: 34% of aboriginal offenders are under 30, compared to 22% of non-indigenous offenders. Of those under 35, it's 51%, as opposed to 38%. Those who have previous youth and/or adult sentences are 33% versus 26% of non-indigenous. They're incarcerated more often for violent offences. They have higher risk ratings, higher needs ratings, more gang affiliations, higher rates of substance abuse, and higher rates of mental health issues. These are some of the challenges.

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

Please ask why. That's the question we all have to ask, isn't it?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for being here.

I am going to talk to you about the Auditor General’s recommendations. As you mentioned, we are all well aware of them. You said that some recommendations are in the process of being implemented and others are already in place. You alluded to it in your reply to my colleague Mr. Motz, but I wanted to know if you could give us some more specifics on the recommendations that have been implemented, and on the way in which that was done or is in the process of being done.

[Anne Kelly]

One of the recommendations was that offenders should be assessed for a reduction in their security level following the successful completion of a program. Currently, indigenous offenders are assessed automatically. Since April 1, 2017, we have to assess the security level of indigenous offenders who have successfully completed a program. That is one of the recommendations.

Our aboriginal intervention centres will also play a role with low-risk offenders and with those who must be prepared for their appearance before the Parole Board of Canada when they are first eligible. Offenders will be assessed and will begin to follow programs at the same time. So we are going to be able to prepare them for their appearance before the board as soon as they are eligible.

The Auditor General also said that offenders should have access to programs according to their needs and their preferences. At present, we routinely ask them what their preferences are and if they want to follow specifically indigenous programs or simply the general programs.

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

I know that there are other aspects to mention, but one of them came out in your response. You talked about security levels and about assessing them. Given the over-representation of the indigenous population in maximum security penitentiaries, is an assessment done at the moment of incarceration to determine the security level?

[Anne Kelly]

Yes. We use actuarial tools to determine the security level, but, for indigenous offenders, social history is also taken into consideration.

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

As the answer could be a long one, can I ask you to provide the committee with a summary of the recommendations and of the concrete actions that have been taken both for the assessments done, or in process?

[Anne Kelly]

I have it right in my hand.

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

When you answered Mr. Motz’ question about young people, you mentioned the over-representation of indigenous youth. We know that they make up a large part of the population, even outside the prison system. However, you did not mention specific programs for young offenders, based on what I heard and what I read in your remarks.

We are aware of the long-term impact of incarceration, future employment possibilities, for example. In terms of reintegration, we know full well that it is even more important for those less than 35 years of age. Can you give us examples of what is being done specifically for indigenous youth in that context?

[Anne Kelly]

Our offenders have access to the same programs; they do not get different programs. Even for the young, we consider the social history, of course.

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

So, as I understand it, there are no specific youth programs. They are the same for everyone.

[Anne Kelly]

Exactly, the programs are the same.

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

Perhaps I should put that question to the Minister of Youth.

The other question that I want to ask you is about the impact on reintegration of the treatment that the prisoners may have suffered, like solitary confinement, for example. What is the impact of that and what adjustments do you have to make, given those different considerations?

For example, people with mental health problems, especially indigenous people, are over-represented in the use of things like solitary confinement. I know that there is a government bill, but does the use of various practises have an impact on the operation of reintegration programs?