Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[Jeff Wilkins]

I wouldn't be able to speak about program officers. I just speak about my membership.

When it comes to correctional officers, the profile between maximum-security and medium-security.... When it comes to that employment equity profile, it is very close in most of our institutions across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Wilkins and Mrs. Thomas.

We're going to move on to—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Chair, I was timing that, and I have 55 seconds left. I pressed it right when I started asking my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Well, you were 16 seconds over when I stopped you. I let everybody go a little over.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We'll move on now to Mr. Gaheer, please.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

I took some notes from the Auditor General's report on systemic racism within Correctional Service Canada. We know that for every offender who's admitted into custody, corrections staff are to use the custody rating scale to determine the offender's security level. We found that corrections staff had actually overridden the results recommended by the custody rating scale in 30% of all the security assessments, with half of them being for a higher level of security and half of them being for a lower level of security.

First of all, the allegation that there's a soft on crime approach is a bit ridiculous. However, my question is this: What would lead corrections staff to override the security rating scale?

Anyone can take this.

[Jeff Sandelli]

I don't mind adding a bit, but I'll certainly allow Patrick to have more time, as he has much more institutional experience.

It must be said that in any assessment that's taking place, it's a global assessment. It's not reliant on just one aspect of the case. It isn't just focused on a historical or individual crime. They look at a number of topics. Whether you're doing a security classification, making a recommendation to a decision-maker, or making recommendations to the Parole Board of Canada, you're collecting information from a number of sources, whether they are historical documents or progressive documents. That's what is leading to the assessment.

I'll pass it to Patrick, though, for more.

[Patrick Ménard]

Yes, we have to look at the case as a whole. We have tools that can be used to get results, whether it be the custody rating scale, which is used at the start of an inmate's sentence or when the inmate returns to an institution following a failure in the community, or the security reclassification scale, which is used at least every two years, when the case is reviewed as a whole. The results obtained by using these tools are compared with all the other information gathered to determine three factors that must be considered: the level of institutional adjustment, the risk to the public and the risk of escape.

The major aspect or characteristic of inmates at a medium-security institution, compared to those that a maximum-security institution, is the level of risk within the walls. That's the factor that will be decisive in virtually all cases. The level of institutional adjustment will almost always determine whether an inmate winds up in a medium-security rather than maximum-security institution, regardless of the result obtained using the scale. That's actually considered to be the result, because it's important, but it isn't everything.

Take the very simple example of a good, quiet inmate who's at a medium-security institution, doing what he needs to do and following his programs but gets caught in possession of 100 pounds of cocaine or firearms. I guarantee you he'll be assigned a maximum-security level, even if the scale-based assessment says he corresponds to a medium-security level.

As you can understand, the tool can't calculate everything because there are too many data points to consider. However, there are exceptions. That's the reason why it's ultimately humans—our members in this case, the parole officers—who make recommendations. If we relied solely on a tool, there would be no professionals to consider the case as a whole. The tools take into account a specific dataset, data that we're told have been established by science, and that are accurate to the present date. The Correctional Service of Canada claims that, but we work with the tools we're given.

That's my remark.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's great. Thank you for your thorough answer.

I'll ask another question. Maybe it can be answered at a later point if I run out of time.

From the AG's report, we know there are disparities within the system from the moment offenders enter federal institutions. When we look at the results, a disproportionately high number of indigenous and Black offenders are being placed in maximum-security institutions. The majority of offenders will eventually receive parole before the end of their sentence, but we see that indigenous and Black offenders remain in custody longer and at higher levels of security before they're released.

I think my question is going to be this: How do we make this process more fair? I have hesitations over this process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Gaheer, your time is up. I'm sorry. Can you hold that question for a little later on?

We're going to move on to Mr. Baldinelli. We're going into the third round.

Mr. Baldinelli, go ahead for five minutes.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here this afternoon.

These hearings are important as we try to make sense of a horrible decision that I think we can all agree should not have been taken. This committee can come forward with recommendations to see that this type of decision never happens again.

The name “Paul Bernardo” is synonymous with evil in our community, and this decision has had the effect of revictimizing the families, as they've had to relive this horrific memory because of, I would suggest, the uncompassionate and short-sighted process from the Correctional Services of Canada with regard to the transferring of inmates.

The impacts of this decision and these horrific crimes were felt most in our community, and in that of my colleague as well, here in Niagara, and it led to friends of Kristen French contacting my office to see if ways could be found to ensure that this type of decision be reversed and never happen again.

That led to my establishment and creation of a private member's bill, Bill C-342, which would require that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum-security classification. It would also repeal the Liberals' “least restrictive environment” standard for assigning inmates to prisons and restore the language of “necessary restrictions” that the previous Conservative government put in place.

My Conservative colleague, MP Généreux, also has a private member's bill that is coming forward to be debated quite soon. It's Bill C-351. That will amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first-degree murder be assigned a security classification of “maximum” and confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.

Those are actions that we can take. I hope, with the support of all colleagues in the House, that those types of legislation can come forward and be implemented.

First I'd like to go to Mr. Wilkins, if I could.

Correctional Service of Canada's report on the transfer of Paul Bernardo from maximum security to medium security revealed that he had integrated for just four months before his transfer was approved, after refusing to integrate with the general population for almost 30 years. He was denied a transfer earlier in the year, and one of the explicit reasons for that denial was that he was not fully integrated. In fact, the review committee's main concern about the transfer was that there was no detailed rationale for how the period of four months was sufficient to begin to reassess institutional adjustment.

Mr. Wilkins, in your experience, have you seen this type of transfer occur before, with such a short period of integration of only four months?

[Jeff Wilkins]

Well, I would like to say that I think the case of Mr. Bernardo is unique when it comes to his sentence overall. It's not very often that you see a case like his. Whether the integration of four months was an appropriate measure or it wasn't.... I think that judging by the amount of time that somebody would be integrating would be a bit more beneficial in the argument. Four months was certainly not enough.

My question—the one that I still don't really have a complete answer to—is on what input my membership as correctional officers witnessing him on the floor had. What reports were submitted and what reports were taken into consideration? Of course, these are the things that we're looking at on our side because, as you know, it's our members who are monitoring those daily movements. It's not members of the case management team. It's our members who are monitoring that integration, and I have questions around that.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Wilkins, those reports that your members do.... Are they then used in part of the determination of the custody rating scale? Are they in fact used?

[Jeff Wilkins]

It is our hope that they are. This is again where we run into some problems when it comes to decisions to move into a lower classification. I'll be receiving feedback from our members, who say, “Listen, I wrote two reports on that inmate”—whatever the inmate's name might be—“and last week he assaulted another inmate. They moved him today, and I don't understand.”

These are the types of things that we hear quite often when it comes to the custody rating scale. Whether they're taken into account.... It is our hope that they are. Whether they are or they aren't, like I said, we're not significant members in the case management team in that decision-making process.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Would you suggest, perhaps, in some of the recommendations we make, that your comments there—with regard to having the comments and input of staff—be considered as part of that custody rating scale?

[Jeff Wilkins]

Absolutely. It's not only when it comes to the custody rating scale but also when it comes to population management. Conversations that happen locally, regionally and nationally—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Baldinelli. I appreciate it.

Now we're moving back to the Liberals and Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I will ask my first question of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees.

I was wondering whether you could comment on the importance of independence in the system—these decisions being made by corrections professionals, not politicians.

[Patrick Ménard]

I can answer first, if no one has any objection.

The professionals we represent obviously want maximum independence and autonomy when developing their recommendations. That's what we want.

I would say that public safety is a sensitive topic. The people at the bottom resent changes of government. Policies don't change, laws don't change, and the commissioner's directives are reviewed from time to time; it's all done quietly. However, changes of government bring changes of vision, and that reaches down to the bottom and can have an influence on the professionals who work on the ground. Whatever the case may be, that has to have as little impact on our members as possible. If laws and directives don't change, they have to be able to continue doing their work independently.

I don't know if my colleague wants to add anything.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

I will direct my next question to Mr. Wilkins.

I'm new to the committee and a little ignorant about the differences between maximum and medium security. I was wondering whether you could explain to the committee the main differences between a maximum-security institution and a medium-security institution.

[Jeff Wilkins]

Sure. I'll try to be quick, because I know we're probably running out of time.

A maximum-security institution, of course, is either a walled or a fenced institution that has an armed perimeter patrol, but there are also weapons on the inside. There are gallery officers who are providing the utmost coverage for any area of the institution, whether it's the programs area, the school area or the recreation area.

There are no weapons inside a medium-security institution. There is still a secure perimeter, but we rely a whole lot more on dynamic security, as opposed to static security, inside medium-security....

There's no fence, typically, around any minimum-security institution. Inmates have the ability to walk away, if they so choose. They typically don't. It's more suited for inmates who are nearing the end of their sentence, or inmates who are serving short sentences for non-violent crimes.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

In terms of public safety and the perimeter, I wonder whether you could elaborate on the difference between those two classifications—maximum security and medium security.

[Jeff Wilkins]

On the perimeter security...?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Yes.