pdf version
Annual Report of the Correctional
Investigator
1998-1999
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 26th Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator.
Yours respectfully,
R.L. Stewart
Correctional Investigator
© Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1999
Cat. No. JA1-1999
ISBN 0-662-64475-1
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 of the Correctional
Investigator is to investigate and bring resolution to individual
offender complaints. The Office as well, has a responsibility to review
and make recommendations on the Service’s policies and procedures
associated with the areas of individual complaint 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 actions taken so as to counter balance the
relative strength of public institutions against the individual. It as
well requires a responsiveness on the part of public institutions which
is and is seen to be fair, open and accountable.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPERATIONS *
ISSUES *
1. Special Handling Unit *
2. Inmate Pay *
3. Inmate Grievance Procedure *
4. Case Preparation and Access to Programming *
5. Double Bunking *
6. Transfers *
7. Preventive Security Standards/Guidelines *
8. Use of Force, Investigations and Follow-up *
9. Inmate Injuries and Investigations *
Federally Sentenced Women (FSW) *
Aboriginal Offenders *
CONCLUSION *
STATISTICS *
APPENDIX A: PART III OF THE CCRA *
APPENDIX B: RESPONSE TO CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR’S 1998-1999 ANNUAL
REPORT *
OPERATIONS
In light of the current Parliamentary review of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, I have provided within this section of the
Report, a brief overview of the Office’s legislative mandate. I have as
well included a copy of Part III of the Act as Appendix A.
On November 1, 1992 the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
("an Act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention
of offenders and to establish the office of Correctional Investigator")
came into force. Part III of the Act governs the operation of this
Office and parallels very closely the provisions of most Provincial
Ombudsman legislation, albeit, in our case, within the context of
investigating the activities of a single government organization and
reporting to the legislature through a single Minister. The "Function" of
the Correctional Investigator, as with all Ombudsman mandates, 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 on 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 the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
The provisions above, which limit our disclosure of information, are
complimented 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 other processes – an eventuality that 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 or 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
Correctional Service are approached with respect to complaints and
investigations, I believe this provision clearly implies 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 its 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 resolution 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. Section 192
and 193 of the legislation continues 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 issued
by the Correctional Investigator.
Operationally, the primary function of the Correctional Investigator 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 complaint to ensure that systemic
areas of concern are identified and appropriately addressed.
All complaints received by the Office are reviewed and initial inquires
made to the extent necessary to obtain a clear understanding of the issue
in question. After this initial review, in those cases where it is
determined that the area of complaint is outside our mandate, the
complainant is advised of the appropriate avenue of redress and assisted
when necessary in accessing that avenue. For those cases that are within
our mandate, the complainant is provided with a detailed explanation of
the Correctional Service’s policies and procedures associated with the
area of complaint. An interview is arranged and the offender is
encouraged to initially address the concerns through the Service’s
internal grievance process. Although we endorse the use of the internal
grievance process, we do not insist on its use as a pre-condition
to our involvement. If it is determined during the course of our initial
review that the offender will not or can not reasonably address the area
of concern through the internal grievance process or the area of
complaint is already under review within the Service, we will exercise
our discretion and take whatever steps are required to ensure that the
area of complaint is addressed.
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.
The vast majority of the issues 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 on the area of concern, with a specific recommendation for
further review and corrective action. If at this level the Correctional
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 4,529
complaints; the investigative staff spent nearly 300 days in federal
penitentiaries and conducted in excess of 2,200 interviews with inmates
and half again that number of interviews with institutional and regional
staff. These numbers are somewhat lower than previous years and are
directly related to an on-going resource problem which has impacted on
our operations since the coming into effect of the CCRA in late
1992.
The areas of complaint, despite the decline, continue to focus on those
long-standing issues which have been detailed in past Annual Reports. A
specific breakdown on areas of complaint, dispositions, institutional
visits and interviews are provided in the Statistics Section.
With respect to resources, the Auditor General noted in his December 1997
Report, in addition to identifying a number of operational problems, that
the demand for the Office’s services was incessant. Our resources base
has not been reviewed since 1992. The CCRA and the Arbour
Commission Report have added a number of significant operational
requirements to the Office’s mandate in terms of federally sentenced
women, the timely and thorough review of CSC investigative reports on
inmate death and serious bodily injury, and the review of video tapes on
Emergency Response Team interventions. Over the course of this reporting
year, further resources were diverted from our investigative process to
actively participate in the legislative review of the CCRA,
inclusive of the extensive public consultation process which formed an
important element of that review.
I am committed to ensuring that the Office’s resources are adjusted so
that these additional requirements are reasonably addressed. The
CCRA public consultation process has made it very clear that our
resource base is and is seen to be directly related to our ability to
fulfil our mandate. A proposal will be submitted shortly to ensure that
this lack of resources will not negatively impact on our future ability
to provide a thorough, timely and objective review of offender
complaints.
In terms of the operational problems identified by the Auditor General, I
believe a number of significant actions have been taken. The Office has
finalized a Policy and Procedures Manual which more clearly details our
investigative process and links that process to our legislative
responsibilities. A staff training program and adjustment to our data
collection process have as well been initiated consistent with the policy
and procedural changes. In addition, an information package has been
developed which details both the Office’s mandate and method of
operation. This information will be forwarded to all federal
penitentiaries and parole offices as well as to community facilities
which house federal offenders.
Although progress in these areas of concern have been made, I clearly
understand that the Office must continue to move forward on these
initiatives to ensure that our operations are capable of fulfilling our
legislative responsibilities.
ISSUES
1. Special Handling
Unit (SHU)
Although this issue was closed in last year’s Annual Report, a brief
update is appropriate.
The Correctional Service has, over the last number of years, increased
both the fairness provisions associated with the SHU decision making
process and the availability of programming within the SHU. In addition,
the administrative efficiency of the National Review Committee has
measurably improved.
Despite these advancements, the Correctional Service has not undertaken a
review of the SHU program for the purpose of determining the
effectiveness of its policy of placing all dangerous offenders in one
facility. The position of this Office has been, since the inception of
the SHU, that it was an ill-designed policy that would label offenders as
the "worst of the worst" and create a solidarity amongst these offenders
that would negate the Service’s objective of creating "an environment in
which dangerous inmates are motivated and assisted to behave in a
responsible manner so as to facilitate their integration in a maximum
security institution".
There are currently two factors that lend credence to our long held
position. First, the level of participation in programming at the SHU is
extremely low, placing in question the utility of the time spent in the
SHU. Second, the number of offenders that are released directly from the
SHU to the street, placing in question the overall effectiveness of the
SHU’s operations in meeting its stated objective.
The Service is in the process of initiating two projects: a Task Force to
review programming at the Special Handling Units, and an initiative with
England and Wales to develop a strategy for the management of dangerous,
persistently violent and disruptive offenders.
2. Inmate Pay
This Office’s position for over a decade has been that there was a need
for an across-the-board increase in inmate pay levels to offset the
erosion of the inmates’ financial situation. This increase would allow
inmates to save more money for their eventual release and would help, in
our opinion, to lessen tension and illicit activities within
penitentiaries. The Office further recommended, to address the array of
complaints received concerning the Correctional Service’s application of
its pay policy, specifically in the areas of unemployment, segregation
and program participation, that the Service establish a reasonable
minimum daily allowance and that all inmates, regardless of their
status, receive at least that daily minimum.
We have recently been advised that the Commissioner has raised the issue
of an inmate pay increase with the Secretary of the Treasury Board. The
Service is currently conducting a further review of this matter and
expects the review to be completed by June 1999.
On the related matter of the Correctional Service’s Millennium Telephone
System, which has significantly increased the cost of inmate telephone
calls (from 25¢ to over $2.00 in some places for local calls) it was
agreed that the inmate population and their families should not have to
support the added administrative costs of what is essentially a security
system.
The Service indicated that it would proceed as quickly as possible to
implement a system which provides access to calls at the same cost as is
available to the general public.
With respect to our recommendation that the inmate population be provided
with a refund consistent with the commission received by the Service from
the telephone companies, we were advised that the Service would review
the options available.
3. Inmate Grievance
Procedure
The legislation requires that "there should be a procedure for fairly and
expeditiously resolving offender grievances" and "every offender shall
have complete access to the procedure without negative consequences".
This Office’s concerns with the grievance procedure, focussing on its
thoroughness, objectivity and timeliness plus senior management
accountability for its operation, have been well documented in past
Annual Reports. The Service issued a revised policy on inmate grievances
in June of 1998 that addressed a number of our previously identified
concerns. The Service as well advised this Office that "mechanisms have
been established to permit managers to extract and analyse cumulative
data from grievances to identify trends, patterns and anomalies".
While there has been an improvement in the system’s operation, as
previously noted, there continues to be far too many instances of
excessive delays in responding to inmate grievances at the institutional
and regional levels. There has as well been no evidence of management
analysis of the cumulative data or management direction to address
identified trends, patterns or anomalies such as excessive delays.
It is interesting to note, Madame Justice Arbour found that nearly all
issues under review by the Commission of Inquiry had been referred by the
inmates through the Correctional Service’s internal grievance procedure.
The grievance procedure had failed to reasonably address any of the
issues. She further found that because the Commissioner of the day had
delegated his responsibility as the final level of review within the
process, none of the grievances were brought to the attention of the
Commissioner. Justice Arbour concluded: "I am deeply troubled about the
guidance that is given within the Correctional Service to the disposition
of complaints and grievances which allege violations of the law".
The Arbour Commission Report recommended:
-
that the Commissioner personally review some, if not all, grievances
brought to him, as third level grievances, as the most effective, if
not the only method for him to keep abreast of the conditions of life
in institutions under his care and supervision;
-
that, should the Commissioner be unwilling or unable to participate
significantly in the disposition of third level grievances, such
grievances be channelled to a source outside the Correctional Service
for disposition, and that the disposition be binding on the
Correctional Service.
With respect to federally sentenced women’s grievances, the Commission
Report recommended:
-
that complaints and grievances procedures be amended to provide that
all second level grievances arising from an institution for women be
directed to the Deputy Commissioner for Women, rather than to the
regional level;
-
that the Deputy Commissioner for Women answer personally all complaints
or grievances addressed to him or her;
Although all of the above recommendations have been rejected by the
Service, I would recommend that a reconsideration of the Service’s
decisions on these issues be undertaken.
I further note, with respect to federally sentenced women’s grievances,
that during 1998 only nine grievances were referred to the national
level. Over that same time period, this Office received in excess of 450
complaints from federally sentenced women.
This Office has long had a concern with both the inmate population's
confidence in and willingness to use the Service’s internal grievance
process. Since the Service’s rejection of the Arbour recommendations, we
have focussed more on the federally sentenced women’s population. The
above numbers would appear to validate our concern and as such, I
recommend that the Service initiate a thorough review of how inmate
complaints are being managed at penitentiaries which house women,
inclusive of the views of the women in terms of how effectively they
believe their concerns are being addressed.
4. Case Preparation and Access to
Programming
The Office initially raised the Issue in its 1988/89 Annual Report. The
focus at that time was on the increasing inability of the Service to
prepare the cases of offenders in a thorough and timely fashion for
conditional release consideration. It was evident from our review of the
complaints received that a significant number of these delays were
directly related to the
Service being unable to provide the required assessments and treatment
programming in advance of the offender’s scheduled parole hearing dates.
A decade later our review of complaints from offenders indicates that
this issue has yet to be completely addressed.
More than a third of an inmate’s sentence, that time period between day
parole eligibility and statutory release, is discretionary time. The
measurement of the Service’s effectiveness in reducing the relative use
of incarceration must focus on the actions taken at the front end of the
sentence in preparing the inmate for conditional release consideration
and the timing within that period when decisions are taken. There is
limited benefit in having cases presented for decision at the back end of
the discretionary time period. In addition there is a need for an
increased focus on the provision of community services to ensure that
those who are released are not returned to penitentiary prior to the
completion of their sentence.
This Office has always acknowledged the
complexity of this issue, the inter-relationship between the
numerous variables at play and their impact on the provision of
effective case management and programming. The Office has as well
acknowledged and encouraged the various initiatives undertaken by
the Service in attempting to address this issue. Yet our review of
offender complaints, and our review of data collected by the
Correctional Service in this area, leads me to conclude that despite
the numerous policy and operational changes initiated by the
Service, the situation remains relatively as it was.
Although the Service’s information base, with
respect to the preparation of offenders’ cases for conditional
release decisions, has measurably improved, I have seen little
evidence of a thorough analysis of this information or clear
management direction on addressing the deficiencies identified by
the information. I further note that the data provides no
information on timely access to programming, the reasons for waivers
or postponements of conditional release hearings, or the time of
conditional release decisions in relation to review dates.
With respect to the information provided by
the Correctional Service, I note the following :
- full parole waiver and postponement rates
are virtually unchanged over the last year;
- the aboriginal full parole waiver rate is
almost double that of non-aboriginal offenders;
- the number of offenders incarcerated past
their full parole eligibility remains unchanged over the past six
months;
- the percentage of aboriginal offenders
incarcerated beyond their full parole eligibility date is
measurably higher than non-aboriginal offenders (72% vs. 58%);
- the completion of the intake assessment
process continues to take much more than the seventy calendar days
provided for by policy;
- the number of suspension warrants issued
decreased only slightly and the suspension rate for aboriginal
offenders is significantly higher than for non-aboriginal
offenders.
The above is not presented as either a total
picture of the current situation or a blanket criticism of the
Service’s efforts but rather as observations in support of our
ongoing concern with this issue.
The Correctional Service in response to last
year’s Annual Report stated:
Our executive committee monitors statistics
regarding individuals released on parole, those incarcerated past
parole eligibility dates, the timely completion of Intake
Assessment and the number of waivers/ postponements. These
performance indicators allow senior management to assess how
effectively current structures and processes are preparing inmates
for successful reintegration.
What has not been provided to date are the
results of senior management’s assessment of the current structures
and processes. I hope that my observations in this area will be of
some assistance to this assessment and we look forward to providing
any assistance we can in support of the Service addressing these
areas of concern.
5. Double Bunking
Double Bunking, specifically in non-general
population cells, has been a priority issue with this Office for
more than a decade. Although the level of double bunking has
marginally decreased, it remains very much a reality for offenders
housed in federal penitentiaries.
The Service has rightfully acknowledged that
the issue of double bunking is an area of concern. In response to
last year’s Annual Report, we were advised:
that an amended policy was promulgated in
November of 1998 addressing the issue of double bunking and
affirming the CSC’s position that double bunking is inappropriate
as a permanent accommodation measure within the context of good
corrections.
The policy’s objective is "the provision of
reasonable, safe, secure and humane accommodation". With respect to
double bunking, the policy identifies a number of types of cells,
including segregation cells and cells smaller than 5M2 (approximately 8" by 6 ½") that
"shall not be used to accommodate two inmates or more". The Service
has provided an exemption to this restriction and as such, double
bunking continues in segregation and cells less than 5m2. The last information received at this
Office showed that 13% of segregated inmates are double bunked.
The Office was as well advised in response to
last year’s Annual Report, that:
The Service’s Executive Committee and the
regions are able to review on a quarterly basis, data describing
the number of inmates and the length of time spent housed two to a
cell.
We have recently been advised however that in
fact the Service cannot monitor the
length of time inmates spend housed two to a cell although we are
told that it will begin to produce this information.
Double bunking remains a priority of this
Office and a reality for the Correctional Service with approximately
20% of federal penitentiary inmates living two to a cell. The
housing of two individuals in a secure cell, designed for one
individual, for up to twenty-three hours a day, for months on end,
is inhumane. As I have stated previously, this practice defies not
only any reasonable standard of decency but also the standards of
international convention.
The Service’s actions to date, while
acknowledging the inappropriateness of the situation have done
little to address the inhumanity of the situation. I, again,
recommend that the Correctional Service cease immediately the
practice of double bunking in segregation and dissociation areas and
in cells less than 5m2.
6. Transfers
As indicated in previous Annual Reports,
transfer decisions are potentially the most important decisions
taken by the Correctional Service during the course of an offender’s
period of incarceration. Whether it is a decision taken on an
initial placement, a decision taken to involuntarily transfer an
offender to higher security, or a decision taken on an
offender-initiated transfer application, such decisions affect not
only the offenders’ immediate access to programming and privileges,
but also their potential for future favourable conditional release
consideration. There are very few offenders within the federal
system who, over the course of a year, are not affected by a
transfer decision. As such, it is not surprising that transfer
decisions, and the processes leading up to those decisions,
represent the single largest category of complaints received by this
Office.
The Office concluded two years ago that the
Service’s transfer and penitentiary placement process is excessively
delayed and poorly managed. Too many inmates are housed at a
security level above that required by their security classification
or are spending unreasonable periods of time in reception units.
This fact places the Service at odds with the legislative principle
that they "use the least restrictive measures consistent with the
protection of society, staff members and offenders" and as well,
negatively impacts on their efforts for timely reintegration. The
process, I believe, needs to be centrally managed with the
development of an information system capable of providing data
relevant to the performance of the process.
In addressing these concerns in March of
1997, we were advised by the Commissioner that a review of the
relevant directives governing transfers and penitentiary placements
would be undertaken to ensure that the process complies with
legislative and policy requirements, including the adherence to
timeframes, decision-making and appeals. We were as well advised
that a monitoring system to track performance would be developed.
This work was expected to be completed by the end of June 1997. This
has not as yet happened.
In response to last year’s Annual Report, the
Office was advised that a revised policy was to be issued shortly,
which would result in a transfer process that was fair to offenders,
easier to manage and effect transfers in a more timely manner. This
policy has yet to be finalized. We were further advised again that a
monitoring system to track offender transfers had been developed.
The system would provide, among other data relevant to the transfer
process, information on the number of offenders who are housed at a
higher security level than called for by their individual security
classification.
A review of the report produced by the
Service on transfers indicates:
- there is no information on the timeliness
of decisions taken in response to applications for transfer being
collected;
- the number of offenders housed at a level
higher than their security classification has increased over the
past six months; and
- the quality of transfer data according to
the Service "has long been in question and as a result the numbers
presented are questionable".
In summary on this issue, the number of
complaints concerning transfers received by this Office continues to
be high, the Service’s revised policy to address the areas of
concern has yet to be finalized, and the data collected by the
Service’s monitoring system to track offender transfers remains
"questionable".
7. Preventive Security
Standards/Guidelines
This issue centres on a longstanding concern
with the absence of any clear national direction with respect to the
coordination, verification, communication and correction of
preventive security information or the responsibility and
accountability within the Service for the accuracy of this
information. As such, the Office recommended in 1996 that Preventive
Security Standards and Guidelines be developed so as to bring some
clarity to this matter.
The Service acknowledged at the time that
there was no clear national direction regarding the management of
preventive security information and undertook to produce guidelines
by the Fall of 1997.
The Office was subsequently advised in March
of 1998 that a Standard Operating Practice (S.O.P.) had been
developed on preventive security files focussing on the recording
and follow-up on security information. Despite the recording of this
in last year’s Annual Report, this in fact did not occur.
We were advised again in April of 1999 that
an S.O.P. on preventive security files is being developed. Despite
the fact that no guidelines or standards have been issued and the
S.O.P. remains under development, the Service has concluded on this
issue: "Action has been completed and this issue is considered
closed".
The issue and the areas of concern, which
were further highlighted during the public consultation process on
the CCRA, remain unaddressed.
8. Use of Force,
Investigations and Follow-up
Past Annual Reports have indicated that for
the Service to reasonably address the areas of concern associated
with this issue, they must ensure that:
- all Use of Force incidents are thoroughly
and objectively investigated, inclusive of input from those
inmates affected;
- management is responsible for reviewing
the reports and ensuring that corrective follow-up action is
taken;
- an information base is maintained
regionally and nationally on Use of Force incidents, types of
force used, circumstances, number of injuries, etc., for the
purpose of review and analysis to ensure that such incidents are
kept to a minimum.
First, the information base, long promised,
remains undeveloped. Last year’s Annual Report indicated that the
Service had committed to finalizing this initiative by the Fall of
1998. The Office was subsequently advised in March of this year that
a means to provide information on use of force incidents within its
database is anticipated to be finalized by February 2000.
Second, despite the issuing of a revised Use
of Force policy, the re-designing of the Use of Force forms and the
issuing of guidelines on the completion of these forms, the forms
have more often than not been incomplete and improperly filled out.
The review of this documentation is not being undertaken by
management in a timely fashion and decisions are continuing to be
made by management on the basis of incomplete information not to
convene an investigation into these incidents.
Third, the provision and review of video
tapes, to this Office and CSC senior management as recommended by
Madame Justice Arbour, continues to be governed by a 1997 Interim
Instruction. This Instruction is absent of detail as to specific
responsibilities and accountabilities within the Service for
ensuring that these incidents are thoroughly and objectively
reviewed. The process to date has been one of confusion, resulting
in a number of video tapes not being forwarded either to this Office
or CSC senior management and no co-ordinated process by the Service
of providing the results of their review to front line staff. In
short, the current process is in immediate need of national
clarification and direction.
Fourth, Use of Force in federal institutions
is so common, 900 incidents last year, that the Service does not
identify Use of Force as a variable in its monitoring of
institutional violence. In addition, very seldom do these incidents
result in the Service convening an investigation.
In summary, the Office’s position has been
that the Use of Force against an inmate is a significant action. It
is an action that should only be taken as a last resort and an
action that should be thoroughly and objectively reviewed to ensure
full compliance with law and policy. There should as well be an
ongoing review and analysis of these incidents independent of the
institution, to further ensure compliance and to provide reasonable
and timely direction so as to keep these incidents to a minimum.
The actions of the Service to date would not
appear to indicate that it is in support of our position on this
matter.
9. Inmate Injuries and
Investigations
These are the most troubling issues given our
past Annual Report comments, the Service’s previous commitments, and
the current state of affairs.
The Service’s compliance with section 19 of
the CCRA, which requires an investigation
into incidents resulting in inmate death or serious bodily injury
and the provision of those investigations to this Office and the
Commissioner, remains very much in question. The recent list of
section 19 investigations provided by the Service’s national
headquarters failed to include ten incidents resulting in the death
of inmates and a further thirteen incidents which resulted in
serious bodily injury to inmates. This information has been provided
to CSC officials and to date no substantive comment has been
received.
The finalization of CSC Investigative Reports
and follow-up action on the Report’s findings and recommendations
continues to be excessively delayed. The Service’s national
headquarters, which by legislation and policy is to receive and
review all section 19 investigations, has been waiting, in some
cases, in excess of ten months for the completion of an
investigative report.
A number of the excessively delayed section
19 investigations involve inmate suicides. In 1997, the Office
questioned the Service’s delegation of suicide investigations to the
regional level. Our concern focussed on the message being sent, in
terms of priority on suicide prevention, and the ability of the
Service to, in a timely fashion, review and coordinate nationally,
the responses to the findings and recommendations of these
investigations. The Office was advised at the time that suicide
prevention would remain a national priority and that suicide
investigations would be reviewed and actioned in a timely fashion at
national headquarters.
There is no evidence of a timely responsive
review at the national level of individual suicide investigations.
There is as well no evidence at the national level of a timely
co-ordinated response to either the findings and recommendations of
suicide investigations or the Service’s Annual Retrospective Report
on Suicides. This inactivity, in light of the fact that inmate
suicides over the course of this year rose from 9 to 16, placing the
inmate suicide rate of our federal penitentiaries at or near the top
of the international list for developed countries, is of great
concern.
In terms of the Service’s commitment to
monitor institutional violence, the evidence raises similar
concerns.
With respect to this issue, the Office
recommended three years ago that the Service initiate a
comprehensive review of institutional violence. The Service rejected
that recommendation and advised that "all statistics dealing with
institutional violence would be reviewed as part of the Service’s
Correctional Results Report". In response to a restatement of our
ongoing concerns with the level of violence, we were advised that
"CSC’s statistics indicate that over the past 3 years, the number of
violent incidents has decreased".
Although we do not have specific data, the
following is offered in support of our continuing concern in this
area.
- the Service’s statistics, in terms of what
they are monitoring, is inadequate;
-
first, they are identifying instances of inmate assaults, which
have resulted in broken bones, multiple stab wounds and corrective
surgery, as minor assaults. Minor assaults are not counted as
incidents of institutional violence.
- second, the statistics do not incorporate
use of force incidents including Emergency Response Team
interventions, as evidence of institutional violence,
- third, the
statistics do not include instances of voluntary segregation to
avoid incompatibles, which are increasing, or transfers to avoid
voluntary segregation, as indicators of institutional violence.
- the Service’s response does not
acknowledge the fact that violent institutional death (suicides
and murders) have doubled over the past year.
In short, the Service has chosen, rather than
address the issue of institutional violence, to claim on the basis
of inaccurate and incomplete information, that it is not a problem.
With respect to the issues associated with
accurate and timely recording and reporting of inmate injuries,
identified as a concern four years ago, there is still no national
direction or policy. I am advised that a review in this area is
underway. I recommend that during the course of this review, the
Service examine its current definition of "serious bodily injury" as
it relates to section 19 of the CCRA. The
current definition in my mind is inconsistent with both the intent
of the legislation and any reasonable person’s concept of what
constitutes a serious bodily injury.
A decade ago, 25 to 30 inmates died annually
in federal penitentiaries. Currently, over 50 inmates a year
are dying in our federal institutions. These numbers should create
concern and an international comparison of these numbers raises even
further concern.
I suggest on all of these issues, that the
Service’s efforts to date could be improved. There needs to be a
clear focus on these matters that have been on the table for a
number of years, with specific and immediate action taken so as to
ensure:
- a timely, responsive, investigative
process;
- compliance with section 19 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act;
- co-ordination and analysis of
investigative results on incidents of death and serious bodily
injury;
- comprehensive ongoing reviews of
institutional violence and use of force incidents;
- the thorough and timely review of suicide
investigations at the national level;
- a national policy on the recording,
reporting and review of inmate injuries.
In short, I believe that the Service needs to
commit itself to a review and investigative process that is
responsive to incidents of use of force, inmate injuries,
institutional violence, death and suicide so as to ensure that they
are kept to a minimum.
FEDERALLY SENTENCED WOMEN
(FSW)
The Service’s interim policy decision to
involuntarily house maximum security women and women with serious
mental health problems in male penitentiaries has gone on too long.
The findings of this Office suggest that such a placement is
inappropriate for women with a history of physical and sexual abuse
and regardless of the accommodations made, it is in fact
segregation. These women are not only removed from association with
the general population of the institution that they are housed in,
they are as well removed from the broader general population of
female offenders housed at the regional facilities. This segregation
status based on their maximum security classification places these
women, in terms of their conditions of confinement and access to
rights and privileges, at a considerable disadvantage to similarly
classified maximum security men.
The temporary placement of female offenders
in male penitentiaries commenced in August of 1996. I recommend that
immediate action be taken to address this totally unacceptable
situation.
ABORIGINAL
OFFENDERS
The over-representation of Aboriginals
incarcerated in federal penitentiaries demands immediate attention.
While Aboriginals make up 2 to 3 percent of the general Canadian
population, they represent 16 percent of the federal male
penitentiary population and 20 % of the federally sentenced
women’s population.
A noted jurist suggests that "Aboriginal
people of both sexes in Canada are over-represented in prisons and
that the social realities that contribute to this imbalance have
been embedded and hidden within a penal environment which is at odds
with many Aboriginal cultures".
This disturbing imbalance is not new. A Task
Force report in 1988 concluded that Aboriginal offenders were: less
likely to be granted parole, granted parole later in their
sentences, and more likely to have their parole revoked. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, passed in November of 1992, provided two
sections designed specifically to address the issue of Aboriginal
over-representation in federal penitentiaries.
The intent of these legislative provisions, I
suggest, was to require the Correctional Service to develop, in a
timely fashion, policies and programs that were responsive to and
inclusive of Aboriginal communities so as to reduce the excessive
levels of Aboriginal incarceration. The implementation of these
provisions, until very recently, has not been actively pursued by
the Service.
The percentage of federal Aboriginal
offenders incarcerated rose 31.5% between March 1993 and March 1997.
Current projections are that this percentage will continue to
increase disproportionately. Over this same time period the
non-Aboriginal incarcerated population increased 9.5%. The Task
Force conclusions of a decade ago remain today’s reality; Aboriginal
offenders are: less likely to receive temporary absences or parole,
more likely to spend more time incarcerated prior to parole, more
likely to be referred for detention, and more likely to have their
conditional release revoked. In short, current policies and
procedures appear to work against the stated objective of decreasing
the level of Aboriginal incarceration.
The Office, over the course of this reporting
year, in addition to addressing the individual concerns of
Aboriginal offenders, held in excess of twenty meetings with Native
Brother/Sisterhoods. Two very clear inter-related themes emerged
from these meetings. First, was the discrepancy on availability,
level of coordination, and acceptance of Aboriginal programming
across the Service. Second was the failure of the Service to provide
timely and culturally responsive case management work in support of
the effective re-integration of Aboriginal offenders back into their
communities.
Although the Service has measurably increased
Aboriginal programming over the years and has recently appointed a
Director General for Aboriginal Affairs at the national level, the
clearly identified problems of a decade ago still remain. To begin
addressing this issue, I recommend that two actions be taken. First,
the Correctional Service must ensure that a Senior Manager,
specifically responsible and accountable for Aboriginal programming
and liaison with Aboriginal communities, is a permanent voting
member of existing senior management committees at the
institutional, regional and national levels. Second, given the
continuing disadvantaged position of Aboriginal offenders in terms
of timely conditional release, it is imperative that the Service’s
existing policies and procedures be immediately reviewed to ensure
that systemic 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.
CONCLUSION
The issues detailed in this Report are areas
of long-standing offender concern. Although there have been years of
meetings and exchanges of correspondence with the Correctional
Service on these matters, the Commissioner requested an opportunity
to provide further comment on the specifics of this year’s Report. I
have included as appendix B those comments received from the
Service.
STATISTICS
TABLE A COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY
CATEGORY
Administrative Segregation |
|
a) Placement |
50 |
b) Conditions |
141 |
Case Preparation |
|
a) Parole |
219 |
b) Temporary Absence |
82 |
c) Transfer |
164 |
Cell Effects |
212 |
Cell Placement |
77 |
Claims |
|
a) Decisions |
45 |
b) Processing |
41 |
Correspondence |
47 |
Diet |
|
a) Food Services |
23 |
b) Medical |
37 |
c) Religious |
25 |
Discipline |
|
a) ICP Decisions |
33 |
b) Minor Court Decisions |
7 |
c) Procedures |
52 |
Discrimination |
25 |
Employment |
65 |
Financial Matters |
|
a) Access to Funds |
52 |
b) Pay |
|
Grievance Procedure |
110 |
Health Care |
116 |
a) Access |
254 |
b) Decisions |
207 |
Information
a) Access |
66 |
b) Correction |
223 |
Mental Health
a) Access |
31 |
b) Programs |
7 |
Other |
23 |
Pen Placement |
45 |
Private Family
Visiting |
104 |
Programs |
232 |
Request for
Information |
259 |
Security
Classification |
53 |
Sentence
Administration |
55 |
Staff |
272 |
Temporary
Absence Decision |
67 |
Telephone |
106 |
Transfer |
|
a) Decision |
231 |
b)
Involuntary |
219 |
Use of Force |
28 |
Visits |
201 |
|
|
Outside Terms of Reference |
|
National Parole
Board Decisions |
169 |
Outside Court |
29 |
Provincial
Matter |
25 |
TOTAL |
4529 |
TABLE B COMPLAINTS -
BY MONTH
Month |
Number |
1998 |
|
April |
418 |
May |
569 |
June |
358 |
July |
195 |
August |
335 |
September |
446 |
October |
365 |
November |
304 |
December |
472 |
|
|
1999 |
|
January |
254 |
February |
458 |
March |
355 |
|
|
TOTAL |
4529 |
TABLE C COMPLAINTS
RECEIVED BY INSTITUTION
TABLE D COMPLAINTS
AND INMATE POPULATION BY REGION
Region |
Complaints |
*Inmate Population |
Pacific |
411 |
1754 |
Prairies |
730 |
3151 |
Ontario |
1030 |
3373 |
Quebec |
1283 |
3335 |
Maritimes |
581 |
1163 |
Federally Sentenced
Women |
426 |
|
CCC’s and CRC’s |
68 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
4529 |
|
* Figures provided by the
Correctional Service for March 31, 1998
TABLE E DAYS SPENT IN
INSTITUTIONS
Institution |
Days |
Archambault |
8 |
Atlantic |
7 |
Bath |
5 |
Beaver Creek |
3 |
Bowden |
5 |
Collins Bay |
8 |
Cowansville |
7 |
Donnacona |
6 |
Dorchester |
7 |
Drumheller |
4 |
Drummondville |
8 |
Edmonton |
4 |
Edmonton Institution for
Women |
4 |
Elbow Lake |
1 |
Federal Training
Centre |
4 |
Fenbrook |
1 |
Ferndale |
4 |
Frontenac |
3 |
Grand Valley |
6 |
Grande Cache |
6 |
Hobema Healing
Lodge |
5 |
Isabel McNeil
House |
2 |
Joliette |
5 |
Joyceville |
8 |
Kent |
4 |
Kingston
Penitentiary |
11 |
La Macaza |
6 |
Leclerc |
10 |
Matsqui |
4 |
Millhaven |
5 |
Mission |
4 |
Montee St.
Francois |
4 |
Mountain |
4 |
Nova |
4 |
Okimaw Ohci Healing
Lodge |
2 |
Pittsburgh |
3 |
Port Cartier |
13 |
Prison for Women |
4 |
Regional Health Centre,
Pacific |
3 |
Regional Psychiatric
Centre, Prairies |
|
Men |
4 |
Women |
3 |
Regional Reception
Centre, Quebec |
|
Men |
4 |
Women |
2 |
Regional Treatment
Centre, Ontario |
7 |
Riverbend |
4 |
Rockwood |
2 |
Saskatchewan
Penitentiary |
|
Men |
4 |
Women |
4 |
Special Handling Unit
|
3 |
Springhill |
|
Men |
4 |
Women |
4 |
Ste. Anne des Plaines
|
4 |
Stony Mountain |
6 |
Warkworth |
14 |
Westmorland |
6 |
William Head |
3 |
TOTAL |
280 |
TABLE F INMATE
INTERVIEWS
Month |
# of Interviews |
1998 |
|
April |
270 |
May |
298 |
June |
156 |
July |
74 |
August |
144 |
September |
196 |
October |
190 |
November |
126 |
December |
277 |
|
|
1999 |
|
January |
51 |
February |
220 |
March |
211 |
|
|
TOTAL |
2213 |
TABLE G DISPOSITION
OF COMPLAINTS
Disposition |
Number |
Advice given |
308 |
Assistance given |
968 |
Information given |
941 |
Not justified |
294 |
Not within mandate |
171 |
Pending |
391 |
Premature |
882 |
Resolved |
362 |
Unable to resolve |
96 |
Withdrawn |
116 |
|
|
TOTAL |
4529 |
TABLE H COMPLAINTS
RESOLVED BY CATEGORY
TYPE |
RESOLVED |
Administrative Segregation
a) Placement b) Conditions |
4 11 |
Case Preparation
a) Parole b) Temporary Absence c)
Transfer |
18 6 14 |
Cell Effects |
41 |
Cell Placement |
14 |
Claims
a) Decisions b) Processing |
1 3 |
Correspondence |
2 |
Diet
a) Food Services b) Medical c)
Religious |
3 3 2 |
Discipline
a) ICP Decisions b) Procedures |
1 6 |
Discrimination |
1 |
Employment |
6 |
Financial Matters
a) Access to Funds b) Pay |
8 9 |
Grievance Procedure |
19 |
Health Care
a) Access b) Decisions |
22 18 |
Information
a) Access b) Correction |
11 8 |
Mental Health
a) Access b) Programs |
3 2 |
Other |
1 |
Pen Placement |
4 |
Private Family Visiting |
6 |
Programs |
24 |
Request for Information |
2 |
Security Classification |
4 |
Sentence Administration |
4 |
Staff |
12 |
Temporary Absence Decision |
11 |
Telephone |
10 |
Transfer
a) Decision b) Involuntary |
17 7 |
Use of Force |
1 |
Visits |
23 |
TOTAL |
362 |
APPENDIX A
Third Session,
Thirty-fourth Parliament
40-41 Elizabeth
II, 1991-92
STATUTES OF CANADA 1992
CHAPTER 20
An Act respecting corrections
and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to
establish the office of the Correctional Investigator
BILL C-36
ASSENTED TO 18th JUNE, 1992
PART III
CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR
Interpretation
Definitions |
157. In this Part,
|
"Commissioner"
|
"Commissioner" has the
same meaning as in Part I; |
"Correctional
Investigator" |
"Correctional
Investigator" means the Correctional Investigator of Canada
appointed pursuant to section 158; |
"Minister" |
"Minister" has the same
meaning as in Part I; |
"offender" |
"offender" has the same
meaning as in Part II; |
"parole" |
"parole" has the same
meaning as in Part II; |
"penitentiary" |
"penitentiary" has the
same meaning as in Part I; |
"provincial parole
board" |
"provincial parole
board" has the same meaning as in Part II.
|
CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR
Appointment |
158. The Governor in Council may
appoint a person to be known as the Correctional Investigator
of Canada. |
Eligibility |
159. A person is eligible to be
appointed as Correctional Investigator or to continue in that
office only if the person is a Canadian citizen ordinarily
resident in Canada or a permanent resident as defined in
subsection 2(1) of the Immigration
Act who is ordinarily resident in Canada. |
Tenure of office and
removal |
160. (1) The Correctional
Investigator holds office during good behaviour for a term not
exceeding five years, but may be suspended or removed for
cause at any time by the Governor in Council. |
Further terms
|
(2) The Correctional
Investigator, on the expiration of a first or any subsequent
term of office, is eligible to be re-appointed for a further
term. |
Absence,
incapacity or vacancy |
161. In the event of the absence or
incapacity of the Correctional Investigator, or if the office
of Correctional Investigator is vacant, the Governor in
Council may appoint another qualified person to hold office
instead of the Correctional Investigator during the absence,
incapacity or vacancy, and that personal shall, while holding
that office, have the same functions as and all of the powers
and duties of the Correctional Investigator under this Part
and be paid such salary or other remuneration and expenses as
may be fixed by the Governor in Council. |
Devotion to
duties |
162. The Correctional Investigator
shall engage exclusively in the function and duties of the
office of the Correctional Investigator and shall not hold any
other office under Her Majesty in right of Canada or a
province for reward or engage in any other employment for
reward. |
Salary and
expenses |
163. (1) The Correctional
Investigator shall be paid such salary as may be fixed by the
Governor in Council and is entitled to be paid reasonable
travel and living expenses incurred in the performance of
duties under this Part. |
Pension
Benefits |
(2) The provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act,
other than those relating to tenure of office, apply to the
Correctional Investigator, except that a person appointed as
Correctional Investigator from outside the Public Service, as
defined in subsection 3(1) of the Public Service Superannuation Act,
may, by notice in writing given to the President of the
Treasury Board not more than sixty days after the date of
appointment, elect to participate in the pension plan provided
for in the Diplomatic Service
(Special) Superannuation Act, in which case the provisions
of that Act, other than those relating to tenure of office,
apply to the Correctional Investigator from the date of
appointment and the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act do
not apply. |
Other Benefits
|
(3) The Correctional Investigator is
deemed to be employed in the public service of Canada for the
purposes of the Government Employees
Compensation Act and any regulations made under section 9
of the Aeronautics Act.
|
MANAGEMENT
Management |
164. The Correctional Investigator
has the control and management of all matters connected with
the office of the Correctional Investigator.
|
STAFF
Staff of the
Correctional Investigator |
165.(1) Such officers and
employees as are necessary to enable the Correctional
Investigator to perform the function and duties of the
Correctional Investigator under this Part shall be appointed
in accordance with the Public Service
Employment Act. |
Technical assistance
|
(2) The Correctional
Investigator may engage on a temporary basis the services of
persons having technical or specialized knowledge of any
matter relating to the work of the Correctional Investigator
to advise and assist the Correctional Investigator in the
performance of the function and duties of the Correctional
Investigator under this Part and, with the approval of the
Treasury Board, may fix and pay the remuneration and expenses
of those persons. |
OATH OF OFFICE
Oath of Office |
166. The Correctional
Investigator and every person appointed pursuant to section
161 or subsection 165(1) shall, before commencing the duties
of office, take the following oath of office: |
|
"I, (name), swear that I
will faithfully and impartially to the best of my abilities
perform the duties required of me as (Correctional
Investigator, Acting Correctional Investigator or officer or
employee of the Correctional Investigator). So help me God."
|
FUNCTION
Function |
167.(1) It is the function of
the Correctional Investigator to conduct investigations into
the problems of offenders related to decisions,
recommendations, acts or omissions of the Commissioner 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.
|
Restrictions |
(2) In performing the function
referred to in subsection (1), the Correctional Investigator
may not investigate
(a) any decision,
recommendation, act or omission of
(i) the National
Parole Board in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction
under this Act, or
(ii) any provincial
parole board in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction
(b) any problem of an
offender related to the offender's confinement in a provincial
correctional facility, whether or not the confinement is
pursuant to an agreement between the federal government and
the government of the province in which the provincial
correctional facility is located; and
(c) any decision,
recommendation, act or omission of an official of a province
supervising, pursuant to an agreement between the federal
government and the government of the province, an offender on
temporary absence, parole, statutory release subject to
supervision or mandatory supervision where the matter has
been, is being or is going to be investigated by an ombudsman
of that province. |
Exception |
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph
(2)(b), the Correctional Investigator may, in any province
that has not appointed a provincial parole board, investigate
the problems of offenders confined in provincial correctional
facilities in that province related to the preparation of
cases of parole by any person under the control and management
of, or performing services for or on behalf of, the
Commissioner. |
Application to Federal
Court |
168. Where any question arises
as to whether the Correctional Investigator has jurisdiction
to investigate any particular problem, the Correctional
Investigator may apply to the Federal Court for a declaratory
order determining the question. |
INFORMATION PROGRAM
Information Program
|
169. The Correctional
Investigator shall maintain a program of communicating
information to offenders concerning
(a) the function of the
Correctional Investigator;
(b) the circumstances
under which an investigation may be commenced by the
Correctional Investigator; and
(c) The independence of
the Correctional Investigator. |
INVESTIGATIONS
Commencement |
170.(1) The Correctional
Investigator may commence an investigation
(a) on the receipt of a
complaint by or on behalf of an offender;
(b) at the request of the
Minister; or
(c) on the initiative of
the Correctional Investigator. |
Discretion |
(2) the Correctional
Investigator has full discretion as to
(a) whether an
investigation should be conducted in relation to any
particular complaint or request;
(b) how every
investigation is to be carried out; and
(c) whether any
investigation should be terminated before its completion.
|
Right to hold
hearing |
171.(1) In the course of an
investigation, the Correctional Investigator may hold any
hearing and make such inquiries as the Correctional
Investigator considers appropriate, but no person is entitled
as of right to be heard by the Correctional Investigator.
|
Hearings to be in camera
|
(2) Every hearing held by the
Correctional Investigator shall be in
camera unless the Correctional Investigator decides
otherwise. |
Right to require
information and documents |
172.(1) In the course of an
investigation, the Correctional Investigator may require any
person
(a) to furnish any
information that, in the opinion of the Correctional
Investigator, the person may be able to furnish in relation to
the matter being investigated; and
(b) subject to subsection
(2), to produce, for examination by the Correctional
Investigator, any document, paper or thing that in the opinion
of the Correctional Investigator relates to the matter being
investigated and that may be in the possession or under the
control of that person. |
Return of document, etc.
|
(2) The Correctional
Investigator shall return any document, paper or thing
produced pursuant to paragraph (1)(b) to the person who
produced it within ten days after a request therefor is made
to the Correctional Investigator, but nothing in this
subsection precludes the Correctional Investigator from again
requiring its production in accordance with paragraph (1)(b).
|
Right to make copies
|
(3) The Correctional
Investigator may make copies of any document, paper or thing
produced pursuant to paragraph (1)(b).
|
Right to examine under
oath |
173.(1) In the course of an
investigation, the Correctional Investigator may summon and
examine on oath
(a) where the
investigation is in relation to a complaint, the complainant,
and
(b) any person who, in
the opinion of the Correctional Investigator, is able to
furnish any information relating to the matter being
investigated, and for that purpose may administer an oath.
|
Representation by
counsel |
(2) Where a person is summoned
pursuant to subsection (1), that person may be represented by
counsel during the examination in respect of which the person
is summoned. |
Right to enter |
174. For the purposes of this
Part, the Correctional Investigator may, on satisfying any
applicable security requirements, at any time enter any
premises occupied by or under the control and management of
the Commissioner and inspect the premises and carry out
therein any investigation or inspection.
|
FINDINGS, REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Decision not to
investigate |
175. Where the Correctional
Investigator decides not to conduct an investigation in
relation to a complaint or a request from the Minister or
decides to terminate such an investigation before its
completion, the Correctional Investigator shall inform the
complainant or the Minister, as the case may be, of that
decision and, if the Correctional Investigator considers it
appropriate, the reasons therefor, providing the complainant
with only such information as can be disclosed pursuant to the
Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
|
Complaint not
substantiated |
176. Where, after conducting an
investigation in relation to a complaint, the Correctional
Investigator concludes that the complaint has not been
substantiated, the Correctional Investigator shall inform the
complainant of that conclusion and, where the Correctional
Investigator considers it appropriate, the reasons therefor,
providing the complainant with only such information as can be
disclosed pursuant to the Privacy
Act and the Access to Information
Act. |
Informing of problem
|
177. Where, after conducting an
investigation, the Correctional Investigator determines that a
problem referred to in section 167 exists in relation to one
or more offenders, the Correctional Investigator shall inform
(a) the Commissioner,
or
(b) where the problem
arises out of the exercise of a power delegated by the
Chairperson of the National Parole Board to a person under the
control and management of the Commissioner, the Commissioner
and the Chairperson of the National Parole Board of the
problem and the particulars thereof. |
Opinion re decision,
recommendation, etc. |
178.(1) Where, after conducting an
investigation, the Correctional Investigator is of the opinion
that the decision, recommendation, act or omission to which a
problem referred to in section 167 relates
(a) appears to have been
contrary to law or to an established policy,
(b) was unreasonable,
unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, or was in
accordance with a rule of law or a provision of any Act or a
practice or policy that is or may be unreasonable, unjust,
oppressive or improperly discriminatory, or
(c) was based wholly or
partly on a mistake of law or fact, the Correctional
Investigator shall indicate that opinion, and the reasons
therefor, when informing the Commissioner, or the Commissioner
and the Chairperson of the National Parole Board, as the case
may be, of the problem. |
Opinion re exercise of
discretionary power |
(2) Where, after conducting an
investigation, the Correctional Investigator is of the opinion
that in the making of the decision or recommendation, or in
the act or omission, to which a problem referred to in section
167 relates to a discretionary power has been exercised
(a) for an improper
purpose,
(b) on irrelevant
grounds,
(c) on the taking into
account of irrelevant considerations, or
(d) without reasons
having been given, the Correctional Investigator shall
indicate that opinion, and the reasons therefor, when
informing the Commissioner, or the Commissioner and the
Chairperson of the National Parole Board, as the case may be,
of the problem. |
Recommendations |
179.(1) When informing the
Commissioner, or the Commissioner and the Chairperson of the
National Parole Board, as the case may be, of a problem, the
Correctional Investigator may make any recommendation that the
Correctional Investigator considers appropriate.
|
Recommendations in
relation to decision, recommendation, etc. |
(2) In making recommendations in
relation to a decision, recommendation, act or omission
referred to in subsection 167(1), the Correctional
Investigator may, without restricting the generality of
subsection (1), recommend that
(a) reasons be given to
explain why the decision or recommendation was made or the act
or omission occurred;
(b) the decision,
recommendation, act or omission be referred to the appropriate
authority for further consideration;
(c) the decision or
recommendation be cancelled or varied;
(d) the act or omission
be rectified; or
(e) the law, practice or
policy on which the decision, recommendation, act or omission
was based be altered or reconsidered. |
Recommendations not
binding |
(3) Neither the Commissioner nor
the Chairperson of the National Parole Board is bound to act
on any finding or recommendation made under this section.
|
Notice and report to
Minister |
180. If, within a reasonable
time after informing the Commissioner, or the Commissioner and
the Chairperson of the National Parole Board, as the case may
be, of a problem, no action is taken that seems to the
Correctional Investigator to be adequate and appropriate, the
Correctional Investigator shall inform the Minister of that
fact and provide the Minister with whatever information was
originally provided to the Commissioner, or the Commissioner
and the Chairman of the National Parole Board, as the case may
be. |
Complainant to be
informed of result of investigation |
181. Where an investigation is
in relation to a complaint, the Correctional Investigator
shall, in such manner and at such time as the Correctional
Investigator considers appropriate, inform the complainant of
the results of the investigation, providing the complainant
with only such information as can be disclosed pursuant to the
Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
|
CONFIDENTIALITY
Confidentiality |
182. Subject to this Part, the
Correctional Investigator and every person acting on behalf or
under the direction of the Correctional Investigator shall not
disclose any information that comes to their knowledge in the
exercise of their powers or the performance of their functions
and duties under this Part. |
Disclosure authorized
|
183.(1) Subject to subsection (2),
the Correctional Investigator may disclose or may authorize
any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the
Correctional Investigator to disclose information
(a) that, in the opinion
of the Correctional Investigator, is necessary to
(i) carry out an
investigation, or
(ii) establish the
grounds for findings and recommendations made under this Part;
or
(b) in the course of a
prosecution for an offence under this Part or a prosecution
for an offence under section 131 (perjury) of the Criminal Code in respect of a
statement made under this Part. |
Exceptions |
(2) The Correctional
Investigator and every person acting on behalf or under the
direction of the Correctional Investigator shall take every
reasonable precaution to avoid the disclosure of, and shall
not disclose, any information the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected
(a) to disclose
information obtained or prepared in the course of lawful
investigations pertaining to |
|
(i) the detection,
prevention or suppression of crime,
(ii) the
enforcement of any law of Canada or a province, where the
investigation is ongoing, or
(iii) activities
suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada
within the meaning of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service Act, if the information came
into existence less than twenty years before the anticipated
disclosure;
(b) to be injurious to
the conduct of any lawful investigation;
(c) in respect of any
individual under sentence for an offence against any Act of
Parliament, to
(i) lead to a
serious disruption of that individual's institutional or
conditional release program, or
(ii) result in
physical or other harm to that individual or any other person;
(d) to disclose advice or
recommendations developed by or for a government institution
within the meaning of the Access to
Information Act or a minister of the Crown; or
(e) to disclose
confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada referred
to in section 196. |
Definition of
"investigation" |
(3) For the purposes of
paragraph (2)(b), "investigation" means an investigation that
(a) pertains to the
administration or enforcement of an Act of Parliament or of a
province; or
(b) is authorized by or
pursuant to an Act of Parliament or of a province
|
Letter to be unopened
|
184. Notwithstanding any
provision in any Act or regulation, where
(a) a letter written by
an offender is addressed to the Correctional Investigator, or
(b) a letter written by
the Correctional Investigator is addressed to an offender, the
letter shall immediately be forwarded unopened to the
Correctional Investigator or to the offender, as the case may
be, by the person in charge of the institution at which the
offender is incarcerated. |
DELEGATION
Delegation by
Correctional Investigator |
185.(1) The Correctional
Investigator may authorize any person to exercise or perform,
subject to such restrictions or limitations as the
Correctional Investigator may specify, the function, powers
and duties of the Correctional Investigator under this Part
except
(a) the power to delegate
under this section; and
(b) the duty or power to
make a report to the Minister under section 192 or 193.
|
Delegation is revocable
|
(2) Every delegation under this
section is revocable at will and no delegation prevents the
exercise or performance by the Correctional Investigator of
the delegated function, powers and duties.
|
Continuing effect of
delegation |
(3) In the event that the
Correctional Investigator who makes a delegation under this
section ceases to hold office, the delegation continues in
effect so long as the delegate continues in office or until
revoked by a succeeding Correctional Investigator
|
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ACTS
Power to conduct
investigations |
186.(1) The power of the
Correctional Investigator to conduct investigations exists
notwithstanding any provision in any Act to the effect that
the matter being investigated is final and that no appeal lies
in respect thereof or that the matter may not be challenged,
reviewed, quashed or in any way called into question.
|
Relationship with other
Acts |
(2) The power of the
Correctional Investigator to conduct investigations is in
addition to the provisions of any other Act or rule of law
under which
(a) any remedy or right
of appeal or objection is provided for any person, or
(b) any procedure is
provided for the inquiry into or investigation of any matter,
and nothing in this Part limits or affects any such remedy,
right of appeal, objection or procedure.
|
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Acts not to be
questioned or subject to review |
187. Except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction, nothing done by the Correctional
Investigator, including the making of any report or
recommendation, is liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed
or called into question in any court. |
Protection of
Correctional Investigator |
188. No criminal or civil
proceedings lie against the Correctional Investigator, or
against any person acting on behalf or under the direction of
the Correctional Investigator, for anything done, reported or
said in good faith in the course of the exercise or
performance or purported exercise or performance of any
function, power or duty of the Correctional Investigator.
|
No summons |
189. The Correctional
Investigator or any person acting on behalf or under the
direction of the Correctional Investigator is not a competent
or compellable witness in respect of any matter coming to the
knowledge of the Correctional Investigator or that person in
the course of the exercise or performance or purported
exercise or performance of any function, power or duty of the
Correctional Investigator, in any proceedings other than a
prosecution for an offence under this Part or a prosecution
for an offence under section 131 (perjury) of the Criminal Code in respect of a
statement made under this Part. |
Libel or slander |
190. For the purposes of any law
relating to libel or slander,
(a) anything said, any
information furnished or any document, paper or thing produced
in good faith in the course of an investigation by or on
behalf of the Correctional Investigator under this Part is
privileged; and
(b) any report made in
good faith by the Correctional Investigator under this Part
and any fair and accurate account of the report made in good
faith in a newspaper or any other periodical publication or in
a broadcast is privileged. |
OFFENCE AND PUNISHMENT
Offences |
191. Every person who
(a) without lawful
justification or excuse, wilfully obstructs, hinders or
resists the Correctional Investigator or any other person in
the exercise or performance of the function, powers or duties
of the Correctional Investigator,
(b) without lawful
justification or excuse, refuses or wilfully fails to comply
with any lawful requirement of the Correctional Investigator
or any other person under this Part, or
(c) wilfully makes any
false statement to or misleads or attempts to mislead the
Correctional Investigator or any other person in the exercise
or performance of the function, powers or duties of the
Correctional Investigator,
is guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not
exceeding two thousand dollars. |
ANNUAL AND SPECIAL REPORTS
Annual reports |
192. The Correctional
Investigator shall, within three months after the end of each
fiscal year, submit to the Minister a report of the activities
of the office of the Correctional Investigator during that
year, and the Minister shall cause every such report to be
laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first
thirty days on which that House is sitting after the day on
which the Minister receives it. |
Urgent mattersReporting
of public hearings |
194. Where the Correctional
Investigator decides to hold hearings in public in relation to
any investigation, the Correctional Investigator shall
indicate in relation to that investigation, in the report
submitted under section 192, the reasons why the hearings were
held in public. |
Adverse comments |
195. Where it appears to the
Correctional Investigator that there may be sufficient grounds
for including in a report under section 192 or 193 any comment
or information that reflects or might reflect adversely on any
person or organization, the Correctional Investigator shall
give that person or organization a reasonable opportunity to
make representations respecting the comment or information and
shall include in the report a fair and accurate summary of
those representations. |
CONFIDENCES OF THE QUEEN'S PRIVY
COUNCIL
Confidences of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada |
196.(1) The powers of the
Correctional Investigator under sections 172, 173, and 174 do
not apply with respect to confidences of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, including, without restricting the
generality of the foregoing,
(a) memoranda the purpose
of which is to present proposals or recommendations to
Council;
(b) discussion papers the
purpose of which is to present background explanations,
analyses of problems or policy options to Council for
consideration by Council in making decisions;
(c) agenda of Council or
records recording deliberations or decisions of Council;
(d) records used for or
reflecting communications or discussions between ministers of
the Crown on matters relating to the making of government
decisions or the formulation of government policy;
(e) records the purpose
of which is to brief ministers of the Crown in relation to
matters that are before, or are proposed to be brought before,
Council or that are the subject of communications or
discussions referred to in paragraph (d);
(f) draft legislation;
and
(g) records that contain
information about the contents of any record within a class of
records referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f). |
Definition of "Council"
|
(2) For the purposes of
subsection (1), "Council" means the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada, committees of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada,
Cabinet and committees of Cabinet. |
Exception |
(3) Subsection (1) does not
apply with respect to
(a) confidences of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada that have been in existence
for more than twenty years; or
(b) discussion papers
described in paragraph (1)(b)
(i) If the
decisions to which the discussion papers relate have been made
public, or
(ii) where the
decisions have not been made public, if four years have passed
since the decisions were made. |
REGULATIONS
Regulations |
197. The Governor in Council may
make such regulations as the Governor in Council deems
necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this
Part. |
HER MAJESTY
Binding on Her Majesty
|
198. This Part is binding on Her
Majesty in right of Canada. |
APPENDIX B
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
RESPONSE TO CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR’S 1998-1999
ANNUAL REPORT
SPECIAL HANDLING UNIT
CSC agrees it is important to
enhance reintegration programming. To address this issue the CSC
commissioned a Task Force to review programming at the SHU and to
suggest methods of program improvement. The position of the Task
Force is that offender program participation can improve
substantially at the SHU without the need for policy revisions
regarding the role or mandate of the Unit. The final report of the
Task Force to review programming at the SHU is currently in
preparation. The Report will contain recommendations that will be
presented to EXCOM. Decisions will then be made with respect to
specific actions to be taken. The Task Force has identified several
areas that should increase program effectiveness. Some of these
areas are:
- Providing structured incentives for the
offenders who participate in programs;
- Reducing the existing obstacles
associated with program participation;
- Design the SHU program to include
motivation enhancement intervention and flexible modes of program
delivery. The model for this type of program exists in the
Segregation Program currently piloted at one institution in each
region.
INMATE PAY
The Service agrees that the
current pay envelope is inadequate and will continue to make efforts
to get additional funds. In the meantime, CD730 on Inmate Program
Assignment and Pay was revised in order to ensure consistency,
clarity and equity in the pay system and to establish a minimum pay
level. According to the new policy, a basic daily allowance of $1.00
will be provided to inmates who have refused to accept all program
assignments offered by the program board and unemployed inmates.
Furthermore, the zero pay level has been eliminated for all but
inmates who are under suspension from their program assignment or
who are directly involved in the shutdown of all or part of an
institution or who are on unauthorized absence.
In response to the continuing
concerns to address insufficient pay levels, the Commissioner
created a Working Group to look at the impact of the new pay system
on the purchasing power of inmates. The CSC will also be including
proposals within the National Capital Accommodation and Operations
Plan for further improvements to the Inmate Pay system. The
proposals include increasing all pay levels; introducing annual
indexing into the inmate pay system; and, increasing offenders'
purchasing power to offset costs for certain products and services
that inmates must currently pay for.
In response to claims made by
the CI, in the area of the Millennium telephone system, the Service
provides the following information. CSC does not apply any
administrative costs to inmates for this system. The charges
involved are the standard CRTC approved rates for collect calls, and
apply for both inmates as well as the public at large.
The CI has been advised that
CSC does not receive any revenue from inmate calls, and that the
Service is not in a position and has never agreed to provide
refunds. The CI's office is aware that the Service is actively
pursuing avenues to reduce the costs of telephone calls through
other means.
INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
CSC has analyzed data on
timeliness of complaints and grievances and has found that in
1998/99, 80% were handled within prescribed time limits. However,
our second level grievances were late 48% of the time. Clearly, the
Service must make an effort to improve performance in this area.
There are numerous ways in
which the data are being used, including:
- quarterly production of grievance data
for women which is shared and discussed at national wardens'
meetings, and a current project which is being conducted by the
Women Offenders Sector (shared with the CI) to undertake a
qualitative examination of the grievances related to staff
performance and harassment categories based on the "cumulative
data" from the grievance system;
- quarterly production of grievance data
for health care issues which is shared and discussed at national
health care meetings;
- preparation of grievance data for various
audits and security investigations;
Regarding the recommendations
by Justice Arbour, these have been examined and responded to by CSC
more than two years ago. Our position has not changed. Although the
Commissioner does not review individual 3rd level grievances, the semi-annual
report of grievance data provided to all Executive Committee members
and the CI allows him to "…keep abreast of the conditions of life in
institutions…(basis for Arbour recommendation)". With respect to the
DCW's role in the grievance process, it was considered to be more
appropriate for all grievances to be responded to by a single
position (Assistant Commissioner Corporate Development), however,
each response to a grievance from a woman offender is reviewed and
signed off by the DCW before consideration by the ACCD. CSC felt
that it was important that the Regional Deputy Commissioners
continue to be involved in the system as the 2nd level respondent given their need to
keep abreast of the issues that are raised by women offenders who
come under their jurisdiction.
In 1998-99, 406 women
offenders used the complaint level of the grievance system. Of those
406 complaints, 19% were upheld or upheld in part. It appears that
women are becoming accustomed to and comfortable with using the
system.
CASE PREPARATION AND ACCESS TO
PROGRAMMING
CSC shares the CI's desire for
timely case preparation and access to programming. Operation Bypass,
a project aimed at streamlining the case management process, was
implemented in February 1999. The major changes brought about by
Bypass should ensure the accurate identification of dynamic risk and
need factors along with proper matching to programs at the front end
of the sentence. This will improve the chances of safe and
successful reintegration to the community at an earlier point in the
sentence. At
this time, it is too early to
determine the effectiveness of Bypass. As we measure the
intermediate and final results of the implementation of Bypass, this
information will be shared with the CI.
A recent review of waivers
revealed that approximately 25% of offenders have not completed
identified programs prior to their Parole Eligibility Date. As a
result of this review exercise, the Service is currently refining
and broadening OMS codes to provide more information as to the
specific reasons offenders remain incarcerated past their
eligibility dates and to act on them.
CSC recognized the need to
increase the provision of community programming and adjusted the
submission to the National Capital Accommodation and Operations Plan
to secure additional resources in 1999-2000 to increase program
capacity in the community. This has improved the balance between
institutions and the community.
To address the provision of
community services aimed at maintaining safe reintegration for all
offenders in the community, the Service will initiate or is in the
process of conducting studies in the following areas:
- Parole Officer Workload (completed);
- Role of Community Corrections Centres (in
progress);
- Community Management and Administration
Infrastructure (to be completed this fiscal year);
- National Case Management Audit (to be
completed this winter)
In addition, the following
actions will be undertaken:
- A review of intensive supervision
programs and initiatives across Canada will be completed this
fiscal year.
- An alternative to suspension paper will
be completed. This paper will examine our collective experience
using suspensions and where improvements and approaches can be
effected.
- We are exploring opportunities for new
CCCs in four cities across Canada.
- CSC is also preparing an NCAOP submission
for 2000-2001 in order to get appropriate funding for the
provision of employment assessment, counselling and job search
program in each district.
With respect to aboriginal
offenders, a review of the case management practices and programs
will be undertaken to determine what changes could be made to
improve their timely and safe reintegration. Some of the changes
will include: changes to intake assessment to ensure it is more
responsive to cultural differences, determination of the
applicability of standardized actuarial assessment tools to
aboriginal offenders, increasing the capacity to deliver more
aboriginal-specific correctional programs and addressing community
reintegration through section 81 and 84 initiatives.
DOUBLE-BUNKING
The Service acknowledges that
the issue of double-bunking is an area of concern and is taking
steps to address these concerns. CSC’s accommodation policy was
promulgated in November 1998. This amended policy addresses the
issue of double occupancy and affirms that CSC believes that double
occupancy is inappropriate as a permanent accommodation measure
within the context of good corrections. However, it was also noted
that CSC expects the reduction of double occupancy (including
double-bunking) will be gradual, given current resources and the
inmate population.
It is likely that
double-bunking will continue on a temporary basis given current
population management needs. For example, the following situations
may result in temporarily housing two inmates in one cell:
- housing inmates at the least restrictive
environment;
- housing federal offenders of a particular
province in a penitentiary in their province of origin; and,
- special circumstances, such as
emergencies or maintenance/retrofitting of cells.
Statistics describing levels
of double-bunking in segregation and general population areas are
included in the Corporate Results Report that is reviewed at each
EXCOM meeting. The Corporate Results Report for April 1999 indicates
that there has been a decrease in the percentage of offenders
double- bunked at all security levels except in multi-level
institutions. Additionally, the percentage of offenders sharing a
cell while in segregation status has also shown a decrease (February
98 - 14.9% to February 99 - 12.9%).
The CI was informed in
February 1999 that we are experiencing data quality issues with the
Offender Management System's (OMS) ability to provide the length of
time individual inmates have been double-bunked for the purpose of
monitoring at the regional and national level. These data quality
issues came to light after the CI was informed in November 1998 that
the Service was monitoring the length of time individual inmates had
been double-bunked. Unfortunately, due to the concerns raised with
Y2K and the updates being made to the OMS victims’ module, the
definitive changes required in OMS to accurately reflect the length
of time spent in double-bunking situations will not be completed in
the near future. The field has been advised through a Security
Bulletin dated November 17, 1998, of our commitment to the office of
the Correctional Investigator to better track the extent of
double-bunking. This bulletin advises staff to pay particular
attention during data entry to ensure the accuracy of information
until such time as this problem is addressed in an automated way.
In the meantime, we have begun
to produce quarterly reports on the length of stay in double-bunked
cells for segregation areas only and are sharing this information
with the Regional Administrative Segregation representatives so that
they may take appropriate action. The CI was provided with our first
such report in May 1999.
Double-Bunking in
Segregation
The Commissioner's Directive
on Inmate Accommodation (CD 550) specifies that segregation cells
shall not be used to accommodate two inmates or more. According to
Section 27 of the policy, other than in emergency situations, any
exception to this policy as it relates to housing more than one
inmate in a cell must be included in CSC’s Accommodation Plan and
approved by the Commissioner. Furthermore, Section 28 states that
"In an emergency situation, and as a temporary measure, the
institutional head may make necessary exceptions to the normal
accommodation policy. The rationale and expected duration of such
actions shall be provided to the respective Regional Deputy
Commissioner and reported to the Commissioner."
The Service has attempted to,
and continues to strive to reduce and wherever possible eliminate,
both the instances and the duration of double-bunking in
administrative segregation areas.
A database has been developed
to allow us to monitor both the duration and the number of
segregated inmates who are double-bunked. We are currently seeing a
reduction of double-bunking in segregation (February 98 - 14.9% to
February 99 - 12.9%).
In May 1999 the Regional
Segregation Oversight Managers were asked to:
- Familiarize themselves with the database
that has been created and to work with their OMS Coordinators to
ensure timely and accurate reporting of information related to
double-bunked inmates;
- Evaluate the use of double-bunking in
each of the regions in the context of CD 550 and steps that are
being taken to reduce the instances of double-bunking;
- Isolate voluntary instances (inmates who
insist on remaining double-bunked) and the options that are
available to manage these cases; and,
- Provide status reports to NHQ and develop
initiatives to reduce the instances of double-bunking.
National responsibility for
segregation related issues have recently become the responsibility
of the Institutional Reintegration Operations Division at NHQ. This
Division is currently developing further direction for the Regional
Segregation Oversight Managers. This direction will reinforce the
Services' commitment to minimizing, and to the extent possible,
completely eliminating the practice of double- bunking in
segregation cells. Regional Segregation Oversight Managers will be
asked to provide action plans detailing how the matter will be
resolved and a timetable for the elimination of systematic
double-bunking in segregation cells in their respective regions.
TRANSFERS
CSC agrees with the CI that
offenders have the right to timely transfer decisions. The 1999
Auditor General's Report recognized that CSC had made improvements
in the timely completion of intake assessments resulting in
offenders being transferred to their placement institutions earlier
in their sentence. The major changes brought about by Bypass should
lead to further improvements. However, there has not been enough
time for these changes to make their influence felt in terms of
concrete results.
A recent preliminary report
indicates that 87% of transfer decisions are made within the
prescribed timeframes. In the case of involuntary transfers, some
delays can be attributed to the fact that offenders require legal
assistance to respond to the proposed transfer. This anomaly will be
addressed with the implementation of the revised Commissioner's
Directive (CD) and Standard Operating Practice.
About 6% of offenders are
accommodated at a higher security level than called for by their
security classification. Of that 6%, the following are the causes:
- 63% is as a result of program
considerations;
- 11% because of victim/community reaction;
- 10% because of protection issues;
- 16% because of deportation orders,
medical reasons and compassionate/family related reasons.
For the most part,
accommodation of the offender at a security level higher than his
security classification is temporary until a program is completed or
a protection concern is resolved.
The Service is monitoring
performance in the area of transfers. A report was provided to the
CI in July 1999 and included data as well as an analysis of the
timeliness of transfer decisions. With respect to the quality of the
data, it is steadily improving as we continue to do in-depth reviews
of sample cases, identify discrepancies and take action to resolve
them.
PREVENTIVE SECURITY GUIDELINES
The CSC has developed a
framework for policy development on issues related to Security
Infrastructure, Management of Security Information, Preventing
Situations and Containing and Controlling Situations. The area of
Preventive Security is a priority for the Service.
The Preventive Security
Standard Operating Practices (SOPs) are in draft form and we are now
proceeding with our consultation process. The office of the CI will
be included in our consultation. The SOPs will provide policy
guidance in the following areas: creation, control and handling of
preventive security files, reporting of security incidents,
recording of preventive security information and management of human
sources. Once the SOPs have been approved by EXCOM and promulgated,
Preventive Security Standards will be developed and the necessary
training will be provided.
USE OF FORCE - INVESTIGATIONS AND
FOLLOW-UP
The Service remains committed
to providing a means for information contained in the Use of Force
Report to be entered into OMS. This is a significant task consisting
of the collection, recording, reviewing, analysis, and sharing of
information, on a national basis. To that effect, we have expanded
our planned changes to the existing incident report screen to
include the capability of producing additional information related
to Use of Force. It is anticipated that these changes to OMS will be
part of release 6.1 which will be the first operational release
following the implementation of Operation By-Pass, planned for
February 2000. In the meantime, the Security Branch has committed to
producing a manual report on Use of Force information which will be
included as part of the monthly incident reports. This will assist
the Service in monitoring Use of Force incidents. Our first manual
report was shared with the CI in early May 1999.
We agree that despite our
continuous efforts to improve both the quality and timeliness of our
Use of Force Reports, we are not yet satisfied with our performance
in this area. The Service will continue in its efforts to provide
the Institutions, via Regional Headquarters, the appropriate
feedback to address noted problem areas and deficiencies.
The Service has developed a
draft procedure dealing with the provision and review of videotapes.
This SOP is currently in the consultation process. The SOP will
address the issues of provision and review of videotapes to the CI
and CSC senior management as recommended by Madame Justice Arbour.
The SOP will also clarify specific responsibilities and
accountabilities within the Service for ensuring that these
incidents are thoroughly and objectively reviewed.
INMATE INJURIES AND INVESTIGATIONS
Violence
EXCOM reviews statistics
dealing with institutional violence as part of the regular
Correctional Results Report. In addition, a report on trends is
provided to the regions, on a monthly basis, for information and
action.
The Service agrees that
violence in our institutions is of serious concern. We continue to
monitor its' occurrence, and the Security Task Force will address
this issue in its' December 1999 report to EXCOM.
As a result of discussions
with the office of the CI, we have proposed to expand our reporting
of institutional violence to include a wider range of indicators.
This should result in a more representative picture of violence
within our institutions.
In addition to broadening the
indicators for institutional violence, the Service will ensure that
the data are analyzed and that appropriate actions are taken. To
this end, a multi-sectorial group of individuals who have
involvement in the area of institutional violence will be formed to
analyze each report that is produced. The following areas will be
represented on this group: Security, Performance Assurance,
Reintegration, Correctional Investigator Relations, Inmate Affairs
and Research.
With respect to the number of
violent deaths in institutions, the CI reports that this rate has
doubled over the past year. According to CSC data, the national
average over the last six years is 19.5 suicides and murders per
year. Last year there were a total of 22 suicides and murders.
Comparison of last year's total to the previous year's all time low
total of 11, does indicate a 'doubling' of the numbers over the past
year. However, when viewed in the broader context of the national
trends over the last several years, last year saw a slight increase
in the number of murders and suicides.
Suicide
CSC shares the CI's concern
for the lives lost through suicides. Investigations of inmate
suicides are the responsibility of the individual regions.
Subsequently, Health Services at National Headquarters responds to
suicide investigations by completing an Annual Retrospective Report
on Suicides, albeit 18-24 months after the events. The retrospective
report allows for the analysis of each suicide, with the aim of
gathering statistics, identifying trends and identifying any areas
for corrective action. EXCOM is updated on the number of suicides
within the context of the Corporate Results Report.
Analysis of investigation
reports has not revealed ways in which the majority of suicides
could have been prevented. For example, there are few
pre-indicators, most suicides are unpredictable and they are done on
the spur of the moment. Further to a recommendation of the 1996-97
Retrospective Study, the Research Branch has initiated a study on
male suicide attempters versus completers. This study is designed to
examine predictors of suicide attempts and to assist in the
management of risk and prevention of attempts.
Commissioner’s Directive 843,
Prevention of Suicide and Self-inflicted Injuries is being revised,
based in large part on the recommendations of a recent independent
external review of our policies and practices with respect to
suicide prevention. A Standard Operating Practice will also provide
even greater specificity to our institutional and community
personnel with respect to issues of intervention and prevention.
EXCOM has committed to
implementing one of the strongest recommendations in the report; the
national implementation of a peer support program ("buddy system").
This fiscal year, CSC will also be reviewing the safety of inmate
housing as well as determining the training requirements of its
front-line staff. Finally, Health Services will consult with the
Security Division regarding the appropriateness of stripping,
special gowns, isolation, and camera observation.
Investigations
In response to concerns raised
by the CI regarding:
- the timeliness of regional investigation
reports, including suicide investigations;
- the need for more thorough investigations
in instances of natural deaths; and,
- transmittal of investigation reports to
the CI.
NHQ reinforced the importance
of improving in these areas during a meeting in May 1999 with
Regional Administrators, Performance Assurance. In addition,
direction on these same issues was provided to the Regional Deputy
Commissioners in June. This direction has been shared with the CI.
NHQ works closely with regional counterparts to ensure a high
quality of reports and regions are consistently advised of
unsatisfactory reports. Our current training initiatives will also
contribute to the quality of regional reports.
With respect to national
investigations, CSC has reviewed the investigative process and made
a number of changes, which has assisted in expediting the
finalization of investigations. CSC will continue to consider other
methods to speed up this process. CSC is currently conducting an
analysis of the timeliness of national investigation and this will
be shared with the CI.
The Service is also
undertaking analysis in the area of the discrepancy between section
19 investigations received by the CI and those received at NHQ.
Results of this analysis will be shared with the CI.
The Service acknowledges that
the absence of adequate direction for the recording and reporting of
inmate injuries has been a long-standing issue and there is a need
for policy direction in this area.
In order to ensure that a
coordinated approach to recording and reporting inmate injuries is
in place, a commitment was made to the CI in late March 1999 to
implement policy specific to this issue. Policy development will
ensure that all injuries are reported and recorded and that those
injuries that are categorized as "serious bodily injury" are
investigated as per s. 19 of the CCRA. Further to consultation on CD
041, the definition of "serious bodily injury" was approved by the
Executive Committee without changes and will therefore not be
revisited.
FEDERALLLY SENTENCED WOMEN
The conditions of confinement
for maximum security women do not meet the legal requirement of
segregation, i.e. only out of cell for shower and 1 hour exercise
daily.
As is the case with men
offenders, maximum-security women are housed separately from medium
and minimum-security offenders. There are those who do not accept
the legitimacy of separating maximum- security women from the
minimum and medium security women. This is problematic in that
minimum and medium security women also have rights to safe and
secure custody. Maximum-security inmates have institutional
adjustment problems; they are often assaultive not only to staff but
also towards other women offenders.
Maximum-security women are
provided with programs and services and have freedom to associate
within the maximum-security unit, unless they are segregated in
accordance with the law. It should be noted that under the original
plan for the regional facilities, maximum-security women also would
not have associated freely with the general [minimum and medium
security] population; they would have been housed in the Enhanced
Units and would have left the unit for programming only under
escort.
CSC has kept the CI informed
of the status of the Intensive Intervention Strategy. A significant
amount of work has been done to develop the Strategy and CSC is
eager to move forward on its commitment to implement a long-term
strategy that will see the closure of the co-located units. CSC
hopes to be able to make the details of the Strategy public in the
near future.
ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS
CSC agrees with the CI that
overrepresentation by Aboriginal offenders is a high priority for
continued action, and will review his recommendations carefully.
The disproportionate
representations of Aboriginals in the federal correctional system
are caused by many socio-economic factors beyond the control of the
CSC. Although courts, through the recent Supreme Court decision in
Gladue, will
begin to consider alternatives to incarceration, it is highly likely
that Crown Prosecutors will continue to advocate for federal
incarceration for convicted Aboriginal offenders due to the fact
that CSC offers a wide range of Aboriginal programs.
The CSC is committed to making
federal corrections more responsive to the unique needs of
Aboriginal offenders and to focussing on their reintegration by
ensuring their safe, timely and successful conditional release. We
have been working towards implementing a comprehensive aboriginal
community correctional strategy that specifically addresses issues
faced by Aboriginal offenders. The Service has engaged aboriginal
communities in the development of a wide array of initiatives that
may reduce the period of incarceration for aboriginal offenders.
The Service has five dedicated
Aboriginal facilities, either existing or under construction. These
facilities have full aboriginal community support and highly
focussed programs for aboriginal offenders. They will greatly assist
in addressing the timely release of Aboriginal offenders.
The Prairie Region together
with National Headquarters has made significant gains in the area of
reintegration. The Solicitor General, under Section 81 of the CCRA has transferred the Stan Daniels
Centre from CSC authority to the Native Counselling Services of
Alberta (NCSA). Also, in May of 1999, the Minister signed a Section
81 agreement with Alexis First Nations of Alberta. This agreement
allows for the transfer of up to five Aboriginal offenders to a
non-institutional care and custody environment. This type of
agreement is the first of its kind and will act as a model that will
lead to new dynamic Aboriginal care and custody initiatives.
The Service agrees with the
comments made by the Correctional Investigator with regard to the
under-representation of aboriginal offenders on conditional release.
The service is committed to addressing this issue through its new
approved Aboriginal Community policy. The new policy identifies the
need for the Service to develop Aboriginal community correctional
capacity where it does not exist, and more comprehensively access
capacity where it does exist. This will be completed in full
partnership with First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities.
|