pdf version

ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2001-2002

© Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2002

Cat. No. JA1-2001
ISBN 0-662-65837-X

Internet: www.oci-bec.gc.ca

June 28, 2002

The Honourable Lawrence MacAulay
Solicitor General of Canada
House of Commons
Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario

Dear Mr. Minister,

In accordance with the provisions of section 192 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it is my duty and privilege to submit to you the 29^th Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator.

Yours respectfully,

R.L. Stewart
Correctional Investigator

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.      Aboriginal Offenders
2.      Women Offenders
3.      Sexual Harrassment Policy
4.      Case Preparation and Access to Programming
5.      Preventive Security Standards and Guidelines
6.      Institutional Violence
7.      Inmate Injuries
8.      Suicides
9.      Investigations
10.  Special Handling Unit (SHU)
11.  Double Bunking
12.  Use of Force
13.  Allegations of Staff Misconduct
14.  Involuntary Transfer and Consent to Mental Health Interventions
15.  Critical Incident Stress Intervention for Inmates
16.  Sharing of Information with Police on Release of Offender
17.  Strip Search Policy
18.  Inmate Pay
19.  Transfers
20.   Inmate Grievance Procedures
21.   Elderly and Young Offenders
22.   Classification of Offenders Serving Life Sentences

Conclusion 

Summary of Recommendations

Statistics

MISSION STATEMENT

The Office of the Correctional Investigator is committed to maintaining an accessible independent avenue of redress for offender complaints and to provide timely recommendations to the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Solicitor General which address the areas of concern raised on complaint.

MANDATE

The Correctional Investigator is mandated by Part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as an Ombudsman for federal offenders.  The primary function of the Office is to investigate and bring resolution to individual offender complaints.  The Office as well, has a responsibility to review and make recommendations on the Correctional Service's policies and procedures associated with the areas of individual complaints to ensure that systemic areas of concern are identified and appropriately addressed.

The notion of righting a wrong is central to the Ombudsman concept.  This involves measurably more than simply responding to specific legal, policy or technical elements associated with the area of concern under review.  It requires the provision of independent, informed and objective opinions on the fairness of the action taken so as to counter balance the relative strength of public institutions against the individual.  It as well requires responsiveness on the part of public institutions which is seen to be fair, open and accountable.

The "function" of the Correctional Investigator, as defined by the Legislation, is purposefully broad:

"to conduct investigations into the problems of offenders related to decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the Commissioner (of Corrections) or any person under the control and management of, or performing services for, or on behalf of, the Commissioner, that affect offenders either individually or as a group".

Inquiries can be initiated on the basis of a complaint or at the initiative of the Correctional Investigator with full discretion resting with the Office in deciding whether to conduct an investigation and how that investigation will be carried out.

In the course of an investigation, the Office is afforded significant authority to require the production of information up to, and including, a formal hearing involving examination under oath.  This authority is tempered, and the integrity of our function protected, by the strict obligation that we limit the disclosure of information acquired in the course of our duties to that which is necessary to the progress of the investigation and to the establishing of grounds for our conclusions and recommendations.  Our disclosure of information, to all parties, is further governed by safety and security considerations and the provisions of thePrivacy Act and Access to Information Act.

The provisions above, which limit our disclosure of information, are complemented by other provisions within Part III of the Act which prevent our being summoned in legal proceedings and which underline that our process exists without affecting, or being affected by, appeals or remedies before the Courts or under any other Act.  The purpose of these measures is to prevent us from being compromised by our implication, either as a "discovery" mechanism or as a procedural prerequisite, within our processes - an eventuality which could potentially undermine the Office's Ombudsman function.

The Office's observations and findings, subsequent to an investigation, are not limited to a determination that a decision, recommendation, act or omission was contrary to existing law or established policy.  In keeping with the purposefully broad nature of our Ombudsman function, the Correctional Investigator can determine that a decision, recommendation, act or omission was: "unreasonable, unjust, oppressive and improperly discriminatory; or based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact" or that a discretionary power has been exercised, "for an improper purpose, on irrelevant grounds, on the taking into account of irrelevant considerations, or without reasons having been given".

The Act at Section 178 requires that where in the opinion of the Correctional Investigator a problem exists, the Commissioner of Corrections shall be informed of that opinion and the reasons therefore.  The practice of the Office has been to attempt to resolve problems through consultation at the institutional and regional levels in advance of referring matters to the attention of the Commissioner.  While we continue to ensure that appropriate levels of management within the Service are approached with respect to complaints and investigations, this provision clearly indicates that the unresolved "problems" of offenders are to be referred to the Commissioner in a timely fashion.

The legislation as well provides that the Correctional Investigator, when informing the Commissioner of the existence of a problem, may make any recommendation relevant to the resolution of the problem that the Correctional Investigator considers appropriate.  Although these recommendations are not binding, consistent with the Ombudsman function, the authority of the Office lies in it's ability to thoroughly and objectively investigate a wide spectrum of administrative actions and present its findings and recommendations to an equally broad spectrum of decision makers, inclusive of Parliament, which can cause reasonable corrective action to be taken if earlier attempts at resolutions have failed.

A significant step in this resolution process is the provision at Section 180 of the Act which requires the Correctional Investigator to give notice and report to the Minister if, within a reasonable time, no action is taken by the Commissioner that seems to the Correctional Investigator to be adequate and appropriate.  Sections 192 and 193 of the legislation continue this process by requiring the Minister to table in both Houses of Parliament, within a prescribed time period, the Annual Report and any Special Report Issues by the Correctional Investigator.

The vast majority of the concerns raised on complaints by inmates are addressed by this Office at the institutional level through discussion and negotiation.  In those cases where a resolution is not reached at the institution, the matter is referred to regional or national headquarters, depending upon the area of concern, with a specific recommendation for further review and corrective action.  If at this level the Service, in the opinion of the Correctional Investigator fails to address the matter in a reasonable and timely fashion, it will be referred to the Minister and eventually may be detailed within an Annual or Special Report.

The Office, over the course of the reporting year, received 7,993 complaints.  The investigative staff spend 344 days in federal penitentiaries and conducted in excess of 2,800 interviews with inmates and half again that number of interviews with institutional and regional staff.  In addition to responding to individual complaints, the Office meets regularly with inmate committees and other offender organizations and makes announced visits bi-annually at each institution during which the investigator will meet with any inmate, or group of inmates, upon request.  We had, over the course of this reporting year, in excess of three hundred meetings with various offender organizations, including inmate committees, lifer groups, black inmate associations, native brotherhoods and sisterhoods.  The areas of complaint continue to focus on those long standing issues which have been detailed in past Annual Reports.  A specific breakdown of the areas of complaint, dispositions, institutional visits and interviews are provided in the statistics section of the Report.

I will take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge and thank the staff for their dedication and professionalism in managing what, at times, is an overwhelming workload.  Their commitment to fairness and reason in addressing offender concerns is the cornerstone to maintaining an accessible independent avenue of redress for inmates.  It is as well the base from which recommendations to the Commissioner of Corrections and the Solicitor General are developed.  Their contribution is immeasurable.

Introduction

I concluded last year's Annual Report by stating that the response of the Correctional Service to the Issues raised by this Office continued to be excessively delayed, overly defensive and absent of commitment to specific timely action.  I also expressed the hope that by providing specific recommendations on the Issues the current process of endless review, consultation and study would be replaced with actions that addressed in a measurable way the identified areas of offender concern.

The observations and recommendations detailed in last year's Report have in large part been ignored.

I presented my Report to the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of Corrections June 29, 2001.  The Minister released the Report November 5, 2001.  I received from the Senior Deputy Commissioner on November 5, 2001 the Correctional Service's response to the Report.

My Executive Director, following our review of the Correctional Service response, wrote the Senior Deputy Commissioner on December 3, 2001 stating in part:

I am quite frankly disappointed with the Service's response.  As you know we were initially advised in early July of this year that the Service's response would be finalized by the end of August.  To be provided with a copy of the response on the same day that the Annual Report was tabled has served no one well.

With respect to the substance of the response, I readily accept the fact that there are and will continue to be issues where our respective positions are fundamentally different.  What I find difficult to accept is a response which in large part, fails to reasonably address the specifics of either the Issues or the recommendations and continues to ignore past commitments.

I suggest that we get together to initiate a review of the issues which require further attention.

I agree that there are clear challenges ahead of us and I assure you that my objective is to improve the effectiveness of our working relationship so that we can cooperatively address offender concerns in an objective, thorough and timely manner.

A response to this correspondence was not received from the Correctional Service until March 28, 2002, the last day of this reporting year.  No meetings have been scheduled to initiate a review of these Issues which required further attention.

Madame Justice Arbour in her 1996 Report characterized the Service's approach in addressing Issues as "deny error, defend against criticism and respond without a proper investigation of the truth."  I would add to this approach, delay the response and ignore both the Issue and past commitments.

Although I remain hopeful, the reality is that limited progress has been made on the substance of the Issues and the specifics of the recommendations have for the most part not been reasonably addressed.  As such I have again this year provided a brief detailing of the Issue under review with specific recommendations designed to address the areas of concern associated with the Issue.

The Office's mandate as an ombudsman for federal corrections, is to investigate and attempt to bring resolution to individual offender complaints.  The Office as well has a responsibility to review and make recommendations on correctional policies and procedures associated with the areas of individual complaint to ensure that systemic areas of concern are identified and appropriately addressed.  This responsibility cannot be met without a consistent level of responsiveness on the part of the Correctional Service that is thorough, objective and timely.

1.  Aboriginal Offenders

The Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in their May 2000 Report on the Review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, characterized the figures provided by the Solicitor General on Aboriginal Offenders as "alarming".

The discriminatory impact of our criminal justice system and the resulting disadvantaged position of Aboriginals caught up in that system has been evident for decades.  While Aboriginals represent approximately 3% of the general Canadian population, they occupy nearly 20% of our federal penitentiary cells.

From my perspective the specific areas of concern associated with this Issue go beyond over-representation and demand a focusing on what happens to Aboriginal offenders while in the care and custody of the Correctional Service.  A Task Force more than a decade ago clearly indicated that federal Aboriginal offenders were less likely to benefit from temporary absence programs, were more likely to be detained, were granted parole later in their sentence, and were more likely to have their parole suspended or revoked.  This alarmingly remains the reality.

While the Correctional Service collects data which reflects this reality, there is very little evidence of analysis or consistent management direction on addressing these areas of concern.

I recommend that the Service produce, on a quarterly basis, a Report on Aboriginal offenders focused on:

• Transfers
• Segregation
• Discipline
• Temporary Absences / Work Releases
• Detention Referrals
• Delayed Parole Reviews
• Suspension and Revocation of Conditional Release

I recommend that the quarterly Report on Aboriginal offenders, inclusive of an analysis of the information recorded, be a standing agenda item of the Service's Senior Management Committees.

I provided a number of years ago two recommendations that were intended as first steps in addressing the continued disadvantaged position of Aboriginal offenders.  The first was focussed on ensuring that an Aboriginal perspective was brought to all deliberations of the Service's Senior Management Committees.  The second centered on the need for an independent review of the Correctional Service's policies and operational procedures to ensure that discriminatory barriers to the timely reintegration of Aboriginal offenders were identified and addressed.

My position on these matters is consistent with the objectives of the Sub-committee Report which called for the appointment of an Aboriginal Deputy Commissioner and the independent evaluation of the reintegration process available for Aboriginal offenders.  The Correctional Service to date has not reasonably addressed either of these matters.

I recommend, again, given the gravity of this Issue and the continuing disadvantaged position of Aboriginal offenders that:

• a Senior Manager, specifically responsible and accountable for Aboriginal programming and liaison with Aboriginal communities, be appointed as a permanent voting member of existing Senior Management Committees of the Correctional Service at the institutional, regional and national levels; and
• the Correctional Service's current policies and operational procedures be immediately reviewed to ensure that discriminatory barriers to reintegration are identified and addressed.  This review should be independent of the Correctional Service of Canada and be undertaken with the full support and involvement of Aboriginal organizations.

2.  Women Offenders

Women's Corrections, with the pending transfer of female inmates from the maximum security units in male penitentiaries to the Regional Facilities, is again about to experience significant change.

The current state of Women's Corrections at the federal level must be viewed within the context of the "vision for change" provided more than a decade ago by the Correctional Service's Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women (Creating Choices, 1990).  The central theme of "Creating Choices" was, "that women's correctional needs are profoundly different from men's, and that to do justice to the aims and purposes of a sentence imposed on women, the correctional system must be gender sensitive" (Justice Arbour, 1996).

The 1995 Arbour Commission of Inquiry into Events at the Prison for Women provided both an impetus and a forum for the Correctional Service to commit to a set of operational principles for the future management of Women's Corrections.  Justice Arbour's Report of April 1996, in addition to passing extensive comment on the Correctional Service's "disturbing lack of commitment to the ideals of justice", provided a series of specific recommendations designed to ensure that future correctional practices would meet the needs of women offenders.

The initial response to the Arbour Report was positive.  The Solicitor General in June of 1996 accepted the Report's central premise; "that there must be respect for the rule of law by the Correctional Service in the way it carries out its responsibilities".  The Minister announced that a Deputy Commissioner of Women's Corrections would be appointed and the "recommendations for related organizational and program changes" would be implemented.  A number of the Report's recommendations were identified at the time as "requiring further detailed study to determine the most effective means of achieving the objective that underlies the recommendation".  These recommendations were to "be dealt with as part of a final response plan".

The Acting Commissioner of Corrections, that same month, stated that the "rule of law is fundamental and paramount in corrections and that women's corrections is a top priority for the Service, requiring unique insights, efforts and approaches".

Within two months of these initial responses to Justice Arbour's Report a decision was taken to transfer women from the Regional Facilities to maximum security units in men's penitentiaries.  This decision which was roundly criticized by this Office and others, was characterized at the time by the Correctional Service as a "temporary measure".

Six years later:

• women continue to be housed in maximum security units within male penitentiaries;

• the organizational and program changes related to the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner for Women's Corrections to support the "separate stream" for Women's Corrections have not been implemented; and

• there has been no "final response plan" issued by Correctional Services on Justice Arbour's Report.

The Arbour Commission of Inquiry was a very public and very inclusive process.  The Report was a landmark for corrections in this country. Its findings and recommendations focussed our attention not only on the potential for Women's Corrections but as well on the requirement for openness, fairness and accountability in correctional operations.

The response to Justice Arbour's Report by the Correctional Service has been anything but public and inclusive.  The clear "vision for change" of a decade ago is clouded.  The impact of the top priority ascribed to Women's Corrections in 1996 is open to serious question.

The movement of women from the men's penitentiaries to the Regional Facilities will present the Service with a number of immediate and long-term challenges.  To meet these challenges, there is a need for a refocusing on both the potential for Women's Corrections and the requirement for openness, fairness and accountability.

I recommend that this refocusing begin with:

• the completion of a "final response plan" by the Correctional Service on Justice Arbour's recommendations by October 2002;
• the distribution of the response plan to stakeholders (government and non-government) by November 2002;
• the initiation of a public consultation process by January 2003; and
• the issuing of a final report on the status of Justice Arbour's recommendations by April 2003.

  Openness, Fairness and Accountability require nothing less.

3.  Sexual Harassment Policy

The Correctional Service of Canada in 1995 lifted its restriction on male employment in women's prisons.  The Arbour Commission of Inquiry in 1996 recommended that "the sexual harassment policy of the Correctional Service be extended to apply to inmates".

The Service's initial response to Justice Arbour's recommendation was:  "accepted in Principle - Research into specific sexual harassment policies to protect offenders has begun.  A draft issue paper will be completed by May 30, 1997".

This Office has been communicating with the Correctional Service for five years on this Issue.  In February of 2001 we provided further representations on yet another draft policy from the Service.  I was advised in response to those representations that "once the consultation results have been evaluated the Service will further articulate a response to your concerns and/or incorporate them into future drafts of the policy".

 I concluded last year's Annual Report on this Issue stating: "It has now been five years since the Service accepted in principle the recommendations of Justice Arbour.  Our review of the Service's management of sexual harassment complaints indicates clearly the need for national policy and direction for the investigation of such complaints.  The time for future draft policies has long passed.”

I was advised in November of 2001 that the policy is "presently in the consultation phase".  I was advised in March of 2002 that the policy document is "expected to be completed by June 2002".  I was advised on June 19, 2002 that "the policy has been re-worked since receiving comments from the field.  Given the new changes, the policy may require further national consultation.  If further consultation is required, the expected completion date of June 2002 may not be feasible".  It has now been six years!

I recommend, as I did last year, that the Service immediately implement a policy on the Investigation of Allegations made by an Offender of Sexual Harassment which provides:

• that investigations are convened by the Deputy Commissioner of Women or if the complainant is male the Regional Deputy Commissioner;
• that a copy of all convening orders is forwarded to this Office;
• that all members of the Board of Investigation are trained in managing sexual harassment complaints;
• that at least one Board member is from outside the Correctional Service and that all Board members are independent of the facility where the complaint was filed;
• that complainants are consulted both during the investigation and prior to finalising the report in order to provide additional information and comment which will be recorded as part of the final report;
• that a copy of all finalised reports is provided to both complainants and  this Office in a timely fashion; and
• that responsive follow-up action by the convening authority is initiated in a timely fashion.

4.  Case Preparation and Access to Programming

This Issue focuses on the Correctional Service's ability to provide responsive programming and prepare offender cases in a thorough and timely fashion for conditional release consideration.  This is the heart and soul of good corrections.

I have acknowledged over the years the complexity of this Issue and the inter-relationship of the variables at play and their impact on the provision of effective case management and programming.  I have also acknowledged the various initiatives undertaken by the Service in its attempts to address these issues.  Yet our review of offender complaints and the data collected by the Service leads me again to conclude that despite policy and operational changes these issues have not been reasonably addressed.

I provided in last year's Annual Report a further detailing of observations related to delays in Parole Board reviews of cases, the number of offenders incarcerated past their parole eligibility dates and the significant decline in the Work Release and Temporary Absence programs.  I also highlighted the continuing disadvantaged position of Aboriginal offenders in terms of timely conditional release.  I recommended that the Service initiate an immediate review of program access and timely conditional release and develop an Action Plan to address the identified areas of concern.

The Service in response stated that given their current initiatives they did "not agree that another review on the issue of program access and timely conditional release is required".

The areas of concern identified in previous years have not improved and in some instances have gotten worse.

• 53.9% of the reviews for full parole, in the 4^th quarter of last year, were delayed.  In the 4^th quarter of 1999-2000, 42.8% were delayed;

• 72% of Aboriginal offenders are incarcerated past their full parole eligibility date; 59% of non-Aboriginal offenders are incarcerated past their full parole eligibility date;

• Suspension Warrant of Conditional Release per 100 is 13 for non-Aboriginals and 26 for Aboriginals;

• 56% of non-Aboriginals and 35% of Aboriginals during the 4^th  quarter of 2001-2002 reached warrant expiry without a revocation of their conditional release;

• in the 4^th quarter of 1999-2000, 1,034 unescorted temporary absences and 831 work releases were recorded; in the 4^th quarter of 2001-2002, the numbers were 698 unescorted temporary absences and 417 work releases; and

• the number of Aboriginal unescorted temporary absences and work releases have gone from 215 in the 4^th quarter of 1999-2000 to 130 in the 4^th quarter of 2001-2002.

The various initiatives referenced in the Service's response to my recommendations last year do not appear to be reasonably addressing these problems.  The observations that I have presented are not intended as a conclusion on the overall effectiveness of case preparation and programming but rather as examples of areas that require extensive review and analysis.

I recommend that the Service initiate immediately a review of program access and timely conditional release focussed on: 

• current program capacity, waiting lists and specific measures required to address any deficiencies;
• the specific reasons for delays of National Parole Board reviews and actions required to reduce the numbers;
• the reasons for the decline in unescorted temporary absences and work release programming and the specific measures required to increase participation in this programming; and
• the reasons for the continuing disadvantaged position of Aboriginal offenders in terms of timely conditional release and a specific plan of action to address this disadvantage.

I further recommend that this review, inclusive of detailed action plans, be finalized by November 2002.

5.  Preventive Security Standards and Guidelines

The areas of concern associated with the Issue have centered on the absence of clear national direction concerning the coordination, verification, communication and correction of preventive security information.  There is further no clear identification of who is responsible and accountable for ensuring the accuracy of the information collected.

This Office over the years has received a significant number of inmate complaints concerning the preventive security information used by the Service in support of its decisions.  This information, which the offender does not have access to, often negatively impacts on decisions related to visits, transfers, segregation and conditional release.

I recommended in 1996 that the Service develop Preventive Security Standards and Guidelines.  The Service acknowledged the absence of clear national direction in this area and undertook to produce Guidelines by the fall of 1997.  This never happened.

Following numerous re-visitings of this recommendation I was advised in March of 2001 that Preventive Security Guidelines would be issued by July 2001.  I recorded this commitment in last year's Annual Report and recommended that in conjunction with the issuing of the Guidelines that the Service initiate a training program to ensure that the responsibilities and accountability detailed in the Guidelines were clearly understood.

I was advised by the Service in November of 2001 that there had been a delay "due to the requirement to integrate into the policy the results of consultation and comments received from institutional preventive security staff".  I was further advised in June of 2002 that "Preventive Security Guidelines will be promulgated by the fall of 2002".

This excessive delay and failure to meet previous commitments is inexcusable.

I recommend, as I did eight years ago, that the Service develop national Preventive Security Standards and Guidelines.

I further recommend that in conjunction with the issuing of the Preventive Security Guidelines that the Service initiate a training program to ensure that the responsibilities and accountabilities detailed in the Guidelines are clearly understood.

6.  Institutional Violence

This Issue in conjunction with the Issues of Inmate Injuries, Suicides and Investigations speaks directly to the Correctional Service's legislated mandate of "carrying out sentences imposed by the courts through the safe and human custody of offenders".  The Service must commit itself to the development of review and investigative processes that are responsive to incidents of institution violence, inmate injuries and death so as to ensure that they are kept to an absolute minimum.

The Correctional Service acknowledged in responding to my Annual Report in 1998 that "institutional violence was a serious concern".  They undertook at that time to expand their information and reporting systems so as to include a wider range of indicators and provide a more representative picture.  The Service also indicated that this information would be analyzed and appropriate corrective action would be taken.

The Correctional Service in April of 2000 again acknowledged that institutional violence was a serious concern and that it was "important to monitor a wide spectrum of information such as assaults, use of force incidents, inmate injuries and involuntary transfers".  They again committed "to improving their automated information system by revisiting issues of accuracy of data and types of information recorded".

I stated last year that the information the Service currently collects is neither specific to, nor reflective of, institutional violence.  This remains the case.  As an example, the Service's Corporte Results Report, which is presented to Senior Management for review, stated that for the months of January and February of 2002 there were three inmate assaults.  The Service's daily information record, which records institutional and community incidents, identified twenty-seven inmate assaults for those same two months.  The Service produces no reports specifcally focussed on institutional violence and provides no analysis of the limited information they do collect.  I concluded last year that "despite their previous commitments, institutional violence does not appear to be viewed by the Service as an area of serious concern".

The Service responded in March of 2002 stating that it was "committed to monitoring and examining all incidents of violence in an effort to improve measures to prevent and reduce future incidents.  We are currently reviewing the capability of OMS to provide sufficient data related to minor assaults on inmates and staff".  It has now been four years since the Service's initial commitment to monitor institutional violence.

I recommend again that the Service take immediate steps to fulfill their previous commitments to the monitoring of institutional violence through:

• the implementation of an information system capable of capturing accurate and reflective data;
• the quarterly production of an analytic report on institutional violence; and
• the review of these reports by the Service's Executive Committee.

7.  Inmate Injuries

The Correctional Service of Canada does not have national policy or direction related to the recording, reporting or review of inmate injuries.  This matter was initially raised with the Service in 1994.  At that time an Interim Instruction on the Recording and Reporting of Offender Injuries was issued.  The Instruction in part provided for a consistent framework for the reporting and recording of injuries and for the systemic review of the circumstances of the injuries in order to ensure that the causes are subject to appropriate review and investigation.

Despite numerous representations from this Office, including the specific recommendation in last year's Annual Report that the Service implement national policy in this area, they have chosen not to do so.  I was advised in March of 2001 that the Service had "initiated a comprehensive review of the way in which offender injuries are captured, reported and analyzed".  I was then advised in November of 2001 that "the Policy Division had completed its review of all existing policies and procedures that cover the issue of inmate injuries.  The situation will be monitored to see if further direction is required".  A request for the results of this review has gone unanswered.

I was subsequently advised in March of 2002 that "the Service has concluded that there is sufficient policy related to the reporting and recording of offender injuries".

The reality remains as I stated in last year's Report:  "The Service has no clear picture of how many offenders were injured during the past year as a result of work or program activities, assaults, drug overdoses, use of force incidents, attempted suicides or institutional disturbances.  The Service as well has undertaken no review of inmate injuries associated with any of the above".

I recommend again that the Service implement a national policy on the Reporting, Recording and Review of Offender Injuries to ensure:

• the timely and accurate recording of injuries and the circumstances leading to those injuries;
• the quarterly analysis and reporting of information collected on inmate injuries; and
• the review of the quarterly reports by the Service's Executive Committee.

8.  Suicides

I stated two years ago on this Issue that the Service's approach to the early identification and treatment of potentially suicidal individuals was uncoordinated and ineffective.  I concluded "that the delay in implementing national policy in the area of suicide prevention was inexcusable".

I noted in last year's Annual Report that the Service's draft policy on the Prevention and Management of Suicide and Self-Injury had been in consultation for three years.  I recommended last year, as I had in previous years, that the Service immediately implement a national policy in this area.  I have recently been advised that the "national policy on the Prevention, Management and Response to Suicide and Self-Injury, is expected to be promulgated by July 2002".

There were thirteen suicides in federal penitentiaries during the last fiscal year. This is up from a five-year low of nine the previous year.  I am hopeful that the new operational procedures with respect to early identification and follow-up of potential suicide cases will assist in limiting these tragedies.

A further area of concern with regard to suicides previously identified was the excessive delay in the review and follow-up on Suicide Investigations at the national level.  The Service has recently introduced a procedure which will now have the draft investigative reports on suicides forwarded to Health Services for review.  This procedure will allow Health Services the opportunity for input prior to the investigative report being finalized.  It will as well provide Health Services with more timely information on suicides so that corrective action, if necessary, can be taken in a more responsive manner.

I am encouraged by the introduction of this procedure and we look forward to working with the Health Service's staff to ensure its effectiveness.

9.  Investigations

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act requires the Service when an inmate "dies or suffers serious bodily injury" to investigate the matter and report to the Commissioner or a person designated by the Commissioner.  This section as well requires the Service to provide the Correctional Investigator with a copy of its report.  The Service convened one hundred and fifteen investigations last year into inmate deaths and serious bodily injury.

The areas of concern associated with the Service's investigative process over the years have focussed on:

• the excessive delays in both finalizing investigative reports and initiating corrective action in response to the reports recommendations;
• the overly restrictive and inconsistent interpretation of what constitutes a "serious bodily injury"; and
• the absence of a thorough, timely and coordinated review process at the national level of investigations into incidents of inmate death and serious bodily injury.

These areas continue to be of concern.  The Office again this year encountered situations where investigative reports were not finalized six to eight months after the incident, where action plans in response to investigative report recommendations were pending more than a year after the incident and incidents where inmate injuries, which resulted in transfers to outside hospital, were identified as minor.  I am advised that the Service is currently reviewing its policy on Investigations and intends to address some of these areas of concern.

I recommend that the policy on Investigations include specific timeframes for the completion of Investigative Reports and the verification of Action Plans.

 I recommend that the Service monitor compliance with these timeframes and report on a quarterly basis the results to the Service's Executive Committee.

I recommend that all Investigative Reports into inmate death or serious bodily injury be reviewed nationally with a summary report on the recommendations and corrective actions taken, produced quarterly.

I recommend that guidelines for the determination of serious bodily injury be incorporated into the Service's policy on Investigations. 

I recommend that all Investigative Reports into inmate deaths and serious bodily injury be provided to this Office within ten weeks of the convening of the Investigation.

10.  Special Handling Unit (SHU)

The SHU is the Correctional Service's highest security level institution.  The stated policy objective of the SHU is "to create an environment in which dangerous inmates are motivated and assisted to behave in a responsible manner so as to facilitate their reintegration in a maximum security institution".  An offender is determined by the Service to be "dangerous if his behavior is such that it causes serious harm or death or seriously jeopardizes the safety of others".

The Service's Regional Deputy Commissioners are authorized to transfer an offender to the SHU for an assessment.  The offender, by policy, prior to their transfer to the SHU for assessment, is placed in segregation at a maximum security penitentiary within their home region.  This placement in segregation pending transfer, for a variety of reasons including awaiting outstanding charges, can extend well beyond a year.

The final decision-making authority on all placements in and transfers out of the SHU, prior to a policy change in February of 2001, was the SHU National Review Committee (N.R.C.).  The final decision-making authority is now the Senior Deputy Commissioner with the N.R.C. acting as an advisory body.   The current policy identifies the Commissioner of Corrections as the level of redress for inmate grievances on decisions taken by the Senior Deputy Commissioner.  The specific areas of concern raised by this Office over the years have focussed on:

• the overall effectiveness of the SHU policy in meeting its stated objective;
• the absence of specific programming designed to address the identified needs of the SHU population;
• the on-going low level of inmate participation in programming at the SHU; and
• the fairness and objectivity of the decision-making and redress processes offered SHU inmates.

I continue to have serious questions about the effectiveness of the Service's policy of placing all "dangerous inmates" in one facility.  This practice, as I have previously indicated, has the effect of labeling these offenders as the "worst of the worst" and creating a solidarity within this population which undermines the stated objective of the policy.  This sense of solidarity has in part contributed to the traditional low level of participation in the programs currently offered in the SHU.

The Parliamentary Sub-committee in its May 2000 Report on the matter of promoting objectivity and fairness with respect to the SHU recommended the inclusion of representation from outside of the Correctional Service on the decision-making body.  The Government Response of November 2000 supported the Sub-committee recommendation, stating that "further openness and accountability was an effective means of ensuring administrative fairness".

I was advised in May of 2001 that the matter of "outside representation on the National Review Committee will be examined in the near future along with other needed policy changes".  I was further advised that a project had been initiated "to develop a needs base for inmate programming at the SHU".  Neither the policy review, nor the development of inmate programming for the SHU have been finalized.

I recommend that the Service's current review of the SHU policy focus on: 

• the effectiveness of the SHU in meeting its current stated objective;
• the level of program participation and the relevance of current programming to the identified needs of the SHU population;
• the resource requirements necessary to meet the programming needs of the existing population;
• the appointment of an independent co-chair to sit with the Senior Deputy Commissioner as the decision-maker on SHU cases; and
• the implementation of a monthly independent review process for offenders housed in segregation awaiting transfer to the SHU.

I further recommend that this SHU policy review, which was initiated in  May of 2001, be finalized by July 2002.

11.  Double Bunking

I have recommended for a decade that the Service immediately cease the practice of double bunking inmates in non-general population cells.  Our focus was on segregation and reception units where inmates were spending up to twenty-three hours a day in either their cells or confined to the unit.  These cells were originally designed for one occupant and the practice of double bunking in these units was inhumane.

I was advised by the Commissioner in March of 2001 that "efforts to eliminate double bunking for administrative segregated inmates remains a priority.  In this regard, plans to eliminate double bunking have been developed and are presently being reviewed.  Double bunking and the capacity to double bunk in administrative segregation will be eliminated by September 2001.  There is no double bunking in mental health units at this time; however double bunking is being used in some reception areas … As part of the Service's overall review of double bunking practices, specific plans are being developed and reviewed to reduce and eliminate double bunking in these units".

The Commissioner's comments were recorded in last year's Annual Report.  I stated that this was a positive step and acknowledged the Commissioner's efforts in this area.  I further stated that I looked forward to reviewing with the Service their plans to eliminate double bunking in reception units.

I have been provided with no information on the Service's plans to eliminate double bunking in reception units.  Although I was advised in June that double bunking is "not occuring in segregation", on March 31, 2002 there was double bunking in both reception units and segregation units.

I recommend with respect to double bunking that:

• the Commissioner issue direction immediately prohibiting the practice in segregation units; and
• that the Service finalize plans to eliminate double bunking in all non-general population units by September of 2002.

12.  Use of Force

The Correctional Service reported in excess of one thousand use of force incidents last year of which more than two hundred involved the use of gas.  The use of force against an inmate is a significant action.  It is an action that should be taken only as a last resort and an action that should be thoroughly and objectively reviewed so as to ensure full compliance with law and policy.  There should also be a review and analysis of these incidents independent of the institution, to ensure that systemic areas of concern are identified and addressed.

The Service, in 1997, established a procedure which required that all Use of Force videotapes along with supporting documentation were forwarded to their National Headquarters and this Office for review.  The Service in June of 2000 revised its use of force policies.  The existing policies, as I indicated in last year's Annual Report, address from a procedural perspective the majority of concerns previously identified.  What remains very much at issue though is the full implementation of the policies, inclusive of staff training, and the effect of the policies on the Service's use of force practices.

Despite the policy changes, which introduced a more rigorous review at the regional and national levels, we continue to find an unreasonably high level of policy non-compliance in the areas of:

• authorization and use of gas;

• decontamination procedures following the use of gas;

• post incident health care interventions;

• strip search and privacy procedures;

• use of force in support of mental health interventions;

• authorization and use of restraint equipment; and

• the recording and follow-up on inmate statements of inappropriate or excessive use of force.

The Service's current information system on use of force incidents provides no information on policy violation.  The system as well provides no information on the circumstance that lead to the decision to use force or the number of staff and inmate injuries incurred.  As such the Service's existing Use of Force Reports, while presenting raw data on the number of incidents and type of force used, provides limited information and analysis to assist the Service in either reducing the number of incidents or addressing systemic areas of concern raised by these incidents.

I have as well noted, with respect to the review of use of force incidents at National Headquarters, that:

• incidents referred to the Women and Health Services sectors for review are not being responded to in a thorough and timely fashion; and

• the follow-up by national managers on identified areas of concern is inconsistent and often excessively delayed.

I recommend that the Commissioner issue specific direction with regard to Use of Force to ensure that:

• information on injuries, policy violations and the circumstances that lead to the incident is collected;
• a report, inclusive of this information, is provided on a quarterly basis to management committees at the regional and national levels for the purpose of identifying and addressing areas of concern;
• the written results of the reviews undertaken by Women and Health Services sectors are provided in a timely fashion;
• the follow-up by national managers is consistent and timely; and
• investigations into inappropriate or excessive force are convened at the regional level and include a community board member.

13.  Allegations of Staff Misconduct