Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[Jeff Wilkins]

Of course, with the elimination of segregation units, which we would have had in our medium-security facilities across the country, and with the SIU model that has been put in place, most of the SIUs are in maximum-security institutions. That is going to increase the number of transfers between medium and maximum, ultimately just because you're moving from a medium-security to a maximum-security because of the SIU placement, and then potentially back again from the SIU placement. Absolutely, the introduction of the SIU model has increased the amount of movement between institutions across the country. There's no doubt about that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you also attribute the addition under C-83 of the so-called “least restrictive principle” as partially responsible for this trend?

[Jeff Wilkins]

Yes, I think that's exactly right. Inmates have the ability to file what's called a habeas corpus suit, saying that they're not being housed in the appropriate level according to their custody rating scale, for example. Of course, the least restrictive is something that Correctional Services is always trying to strive towards, so that might mean movement between institutions.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you believe that this least restrictive principle, as enshrined in C-83, contributed to the reclassification and transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum- to a medium-security facility?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I'm quite certain that before Bill C-83, there was something in the CCRA that talked about least restrictive. I remember making the argument many times, even as a local president, that inmates who would normally be placed in segregation at the time, before Bill C-83, were being placed in different ranges, with different population management strategies occurring for those offenders. My example at the time was that there's general population and then there's segregation. There is no other population. If they can't be managed in general population, then they have to be in segregation. I was always quoted—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I was reading your 2018 submission on Bill C-83, and your recommendation was that the current language was “the most appropriate restrictions”, not “the least restrictive”, so it was not the least restrictive; it was the most appropriate restrictions.

With the introduction of “least restrictive”, we've certainly seen, through the review that was conducted after this transfer, that it had an impact.

Paul Bernardo was denied reclassification in June 2022, but then, according to the review report, they changed their decision in July 2022, just a month later. Is this a normal practice, for them to change a decision in just one month?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I can't really speak to the decision that was made, particularly for the case management team at the time. To be quite honest, as the national president of the union I'm not involved that heavily in the case management of every individual offender across the country.

I wouldn't say it's abnormal for that type of thing to happen, but I wouldn't say it was normal, that it's an everyday occurrence, either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We'll move on to Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Wilkins, you were correct when you said that there was, previous to Bill C-83, language that would have allowed for reclassification. It was actually in the 1990s, under Brian Mulroney, that the term “least restrictive” was first used. This issue has actually been going on for successive governments in terms of language, and it wasn't actually Bill C-83, so your memory served you correctly with respect to the fact that there has been back-and-forth.

“Least restrictive”, again, was actually introduced by Brian Mulroney, and the same language actually existed under the previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper, so this suggestion that it was somehow a change that Bill C-83 brought forward, which created new language, is simply false. That needs to be put on the record.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, there are sometimes misperceptions about what maximum, medium and minimum security classifications mean. It's not a condition of punishment or a situation based on an outcome of the court case of whatever the offender has committed and been found guilty of, but about public safety at large and the risk of escape.

Mr. Shipley brought up escapes, but he conveniently left out some data, so I wanted to put that on the record. In 2006-2007, there were 37 federal prison escapees in Canada. In 2007-2008, there were 33. In 2008-2009, there were 24. In 2009-2010, there were 31. In 2010-2011, there were 17. The list goes on. The next year, 16, 24, 13, 15, 18. In 2016, it went down to 9; then in 2017-2018 it was 18; then 2018-2019 it went to 13 escapees. It has consistently gone down. In 2019-2020 there were 12. In 2020-2021 there were 11.

The suggestion that Bill C-83 has opened up this new least restrictive measure is, frankly, false. That was introduced by Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government. Regarding the suggestion that reclassifications have led to prisoner escapees, actually there have been fluctuations, but the highest number was in 2006-2007, with 37 escapees. I want to put those facts on the record, because that really matters if we're going to talk about reclassification and security levels.

Mr. Wilkins, you spoke about corrections officers and their role. You said you have suggestions on how your union members' voices can be part of that ongoing consultation, and I think there are improvements that need to be made here. I would be happy to receive them as a committee for any recommendations on that.

I'd also like to ask a question. The Conservatives have proposed a system through a private member's bill that would actually see the entirety of an inmate's classification.... If it starts at maximum, it stays that way. There would be no opportunity for good behaviour, for rehabilitation mechanisms.

Do your members have concerns for their own safety if there are no interventions for rehabilitation and for measures to be put in place for good behaviour and promoting that sort of program in facilities? Would there not be a larger risk to your members if there was no opportunity for rehabilitation and programming?

[Jeff Wilkins]

What I could say is that when it comes to rehabilitative programming, it's much easier to conduct it inside a medium-security institution or a minimum-security institution. There is a strict level of control when it comes to inmate movement inside a maximum-security facility, and having that ability is certainly a bit easier for a medium-security institution.

I do believe that without.... You're never going to hear from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers that programming is a bad thing. Idle hands are the devil's playground inside an institution, and we want to make sure the inmates are busy, day in and day out, whether it's through school, programs or some sort of work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Ms. Michaud.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back over the security level assessment process.

From what I understand of what's been said so far, it's not necessarily the members of your two unions who conduct this type of assessment. I nevertheless want to relate that to the assessment done by parole officers.

It's no secret that people in the system are overworked. A survey conducted of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees in 2019 shows that those people were clearly being overworked, a fact that was reported by several print media outlets. I'm going to read an excerpt from one of those articles because I think we can draw a parallel, or make a connection, with the people responsible for assessments within the system. Here's an article from a May 2019 issue of La Presse, but, based on discussions I've had with the union in recent months, this is still a problem.

The article reads as follows:

Canadian parole officers say an “insurmountable” workload has brought the country's correctional system to a critical juncture, a situation that they say presents a public safety risk. A survey of parole officers conducted by the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, the USJE, reveals that more than two thirds of officers are afraid they can't properly protect the public because they don't have the time to assess, supervise and prepare for inmate releases. The union, which represents the officers, says this means that many offenders are slipping through the cracks—people who, in some cases, may offend again and harm others or themselves. David Neufeld, the union's national vice-president, contends that the problems are the result of budget cuts under the former Conservative government, which have resulted in staff reductions and increased workloads. Since then, says Mr. Neufeld, measures taken by the Trudeau government to provide more programs for Indigenous offenders and the mentally ill have required more work. The union is calling for more staff and resources within the correctional system so that inmates can be properly assessed to determine the risk they present on parole.

I realize these are two separate points, but I'd like to hear your opinion, Mr. Ménard.

Is this still a problem for parole officers? Can we make this connection with officers or individuals who conduct security level assessments on inmates? As far as you know, are officers labouring under excessive workloads that could undermine public safety?

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

You've gone past your time.

I'm sorry, Mr. Ménard, but perhaps someone else will lead into a similar question.

Mr. Julian is next, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I will, Mr. Chair, because I think it's fair to say that our parole officers and our classification officers, the members of both the unions that are represented today, do an incredible job under very difficult circumstances.

They have had to deal with workplace issues and mental health concerns that are raised every day. It's a workplace environment that is very difficult. That's why I tabled, on September 20, Bill C-357, an act to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, which would allow for presumptive injury classification for federal correctional workers—workers of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees and also the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers—so that they're covered by this.

I wanted to ask both our witnesses to what extent the federal government should be providing additional resources—adopting bills like the one I've tabled on behalf of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees—so that your members, who do such valuable work, can work in a workplace that is safe and allows them to continue to make their contributions to Canadians.

[Jeff Sandelli]

I think I can speak to that. Thanks very much for the question as well as for Bill C-357 and that reference.

I think it's exceedingly important that as we do this work that's critical to protecting Canadians' safety, which is what our members do behind the scenes—not many folks understand the work that's being done—the resourcing certainly is a huge issue. When there's a lack of resources, it adds extensive pressure to our members who are in these institutions, in the community parole offices and in the community correctional centres, undertaking this work. It's frontline work and support-level work. Everybody is impacted by this work. It's stressful work to begin with. Certainly the potential for operational stress injuries is high to begin with in corrections. We know this. However, without proper resourcing, it's even more so. It's compounding. In order to have proper assessment and proper outcomes, I think we know we're going to need to have healthy public safety personnel.

We've been calling on all parties to support the contents of Bill C-357 as it relates to the modifications of GECA, the Government Employees Compensation Act, so that all federal public safety employees are treated equally across our country. Currently, it's at the discretion of provinces. GECA hands down that assessment to individual provinces. As a result, our members aren't treated equally. They aren't presumed to get coverage in all provinces the same way. That means a member in one province might be getting presumptive coverage for their injury, whereas in another province they may not. It's not fair. It doesn't leave us in a good position as we continue to see more of our USJE members going off on stress injury.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We'll move on to Ms. Thomas for five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much. I will direct my first questions to Mr. Wilkins.

We know that Paul Bernardo was a serial rapist and murderer. We know that he did things that were absolutely vile and disgusting. He was described as a “sexually sadistic psychopath”. Then we know that during his time in maximum-security prison, he was assessed every two years, for a total of 14 times, the last one being in June 2022. Only one month later, of course, the decision was overturned. He was moved to a lower-security prison.

However, up until that point, 14 times it had been determined by the parole board that he was not fit to be moved. The reason was that, according to the parole board's decision and in their report, they said that Mr. Bernardo demonstrated “no remorse, empathy or insight into his crimes”. Further to that, he was found with contraband in his cell three times. He was found with a razor and he was found with a weapon. Further to that, he attacked a guard and of course caused harm in that matter as well. This is an individual in a maximum-security prison. He also, of course, was designated a dangerous offender.

My question for you is very simple: Does this sound like someone who should be moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison?

[Jeff Wilkins]

When it comes to the level of violence from Mr. Paul Bernardo, I will reiterate your comments that they are unspeakable. The damage he's done to Canadian society is unspeakable. As to whether he belongs in a medium-security institution, I think we need to characterize that question a little more broadly. We have many, many offenders in our prison system, in medium-security institutions across the country, who have committed unspeakable crimes that are similar types of crimes, sexually related crimes. There are designated dangerous offenders in our medium-security institutions and some in our minimum-security institutions.

All these processes are weighed on an individual basis when making decisions—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you. I understand that every case is weighed individually. I'm asking specifically about Mr. Bernardo. In your estimation, is he someone who should have been moved to a medium-security prison based on the facts I just listed?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I'm not going to be able to comment on the question, to be honest. I was not part of his case management team and I never have been. I don't know the entire case.

I think the crux of the question is this: Does he sound like somebody who belongs in a medium-security institution? I don't believe so, but then we have to look at many across the country who are inside our medium-security institutions.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Wilkins, here is what we know. We know that in a medium-security prison, more of the officers are women. In fact, up to 90% more of the officers are women in a medium-security facility versus a maximum-security facility. We know that his hours of being unsupervised have increased, or will increase, and his opportunity for escape has also increased.

You're someone who advocates on behalf of those who are maintaining the safety and security of these institutions and, therefore, looking out for the best interests of the public.

Do you believe this individual should be in a medium-security prison? Do you want him around your correctional officers?

[Jeff Wilkins]

Again, our correctional officers, our members, are dealing with these types of inmates across the country 24-7 every single day of the year. I know that we want to sensationalize this particular inmate, but this is the reality inside our medium-security institutions. We have many offenders who are just like that.

Just to back up on the statistic about the difference between females and males, and the ratio in maximum-security and medium-security facilities, I don't believe that one is true. We're very close in our maximum-security institutions and our medium-security institutions for employment equity based on gender profile.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

My understanding is that program officers are 90% women. Are you saying that's not true?

[Jeff Wilkins]

Are you asking about program officers or correctional officers?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm saying program officers right now.