CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR'S RESPONSE
to the Canadian Human Rights Commission's
Consultation Paper for the Special Report on
the Situation of Federally
Sentenced Women
Overall Recommendation
Women's Corrections, with the on-going transfer of female
inmates from the maximum security units in male
penitentiaries to the Regional Facilities, is again
experiencing significant change. The current state of
Women's Corrections at the federal level must be viewed
within the context of the "vision for change"
provided more than a decade ago by the Correctional
Service's Task Force on Federally Sentenced
Women (Creating Choices, 1990). The central theme of
Creating Choices was, "that women's
correctional needs are profoundly different from men's,
and that to do justice to the aims and purposes of a sentence
imposed on women, the correctional system must be gender
sensitive" (Justice Arbour, 1996).
The 1995 Arbour Commission of Inquiry into Events at the
Prison for Women provided both an impetus and a forum
for the Correctional Service to commit to a set of
operational principles for the future management of
Women's Corrections. Justice Arbour's Report of
April 1996, in addition to passing extensive comment on
the Correctional Service's "disturbing lack of
commitment to the ideals of justice", provided a series
of specific recommendations designed to ensure that future
correctional practices would meet the needs of women
offenders.
The initial response to the Arbour Report was positive. The
Solicitor General in June of 1996 accepted the Report's
central premise; "that there must be respect for the
rule of law by the Correctional Service in the way it carries
out its responsibilities". The Minister announced that a
Deputy Commissioner of Women's Corrections would be
appointed and the "recommendations for related
organizational and program changes" would be
implemented. A number of the Report's recommendations
were identified at the time as "requiring further
detailed study to determine the most effective means of
achieving the objective that underlies the
recommendation". These recommendations were to
"be dealt with as part of a final response
plan".
The Acting Commissioner of Corrections, that same month,
stated that the "rule of law is fundamental and
paramount in corrections and that women's corrections is
a top priority for the Service, requiring unique insights,
efforts and approaches".
Within two months of these initial responses to Justice
Arbour's Report, a decision was taken to transfer women
from the Regional Facilities to maximum security units in
men's penitentiaries. This decision which was roundly
criticized by this Office and others, and was characterized
at the time by the Correctional Service as a "temporary
measure".
Seven years later:
-
some women continue to be housed in maximum security units
within male penitentiaries;
-
the organizational and program changes related to the
appointment of the Deputy Commissioner for Women's
Corrections to support the "separate stream" for
Women's Corrections have not been implemented; and
-
there has been no "final response plan" issued by
Correctional Services on Justice Arbour's Report.
The Arbour Commission of Inquiry was a very public
and very inclusive process. The Report was a landmark for
corrections in this country. Its findings and recommendations
focussed our attention not only on the potential for
Women's Corrections but also on the requirement for
openness, fairness and accountability in correctional
operations.
The response to Justice Arbour's Report by the
Correctional Service has been anything but public and
inclusive. The clear "vision for change" of a
decade ago is clouded. The impact of the top priority
ascribed to Women's Corrections in 1996 is open to
serious question.
The current movement of women from the men's
penitentiaries to the Regional Facilities is presenting the
Service with a number of immediate and long-term challenges.
To meet these challenges, there is a need for a refocusing on
both the potential for Women's Corrections and the
requirement for openness, fairness and accountability. The
Office of the Correctional Investigator continues to
recommend that this refocusing begin with:
-
the completion of a "final response plan" by the
Correctional Service on Justice Arbour's
recommendations without delay;
-
immediately followed by the distribution of the response
plan to stakeholders (government and non-government) ;
-
immediately followed by the initiation of a public
consultation process on the "final response
plan"; and
-
the issuing of a final report on the status of Justice
Arbour's recommendations by April 2003.
As background on the issues detailed in the CHRC Consultation
Paper, we have attached as Appendix
A, our Submission to the Arbour Commission of
Inquiry.
We as well refer you to the sections that deal with Women
Offender Issues in our 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 Annual
Reports.
Response to Key Issue 1 : Programming
Over the years, the Office of the Correctional Investigator
has consistently received complaints from federally sentenced
women (FSW) regarding programming provided by the
Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). More specifically, FSW
have consistently complained about the lack of timely access
to appropriate individualized programming that will assist
them in reintegrating into society at the earliest possible
opportunity. Our investigations over the years have
consistently found that :
-
correctional plans are often not completed within the
mandated timeframes, which hinders a woman's ability to
access programming (you need the plan to get the program);
-
long waiting lists exist for core programming and for
employment programs;
-
women can rarely access long-term individualized
psychological counseling - even if it has been identified
in their correctional plan;
-
women often waive their right to go before the National
Parole Board for a conditional release hearing because they
were unable to fulfill the requirements of their
correctional plan due to having been wait-listed for
programming;
-
few opportunities for meaningful and
marketable employment exist within women's prisons.
In the last two years, this Office has received complaints
from 18 individual women on this issue. More telling,
however, is the fact that this issue has consistently
been raised by Inmate Committees at 8 out of 10 of the
women's prisons that fall under the OCI's
jurisdiction. The lack of timely access to
appropriate individualized programming for FSW is a systemic
problem that clearly impacts on women's ability to
quickly and successfully reintegrate into the community.
Response to Key Issue 2 : Classification of Female
Offenders
In the last two years, this Office has received complaints
from 20 different women regarding their security
classification. With respect to security classification, this
Office is concerned with :
-
the appropriateness of the tools that are currently used by
the Correctional Service to determine a women's
security classification;
-
the Correctional Service's policy which requires
offenders serving a minimum life sentence for first or
second degree murder to be classified as maximum security
for at least two years of federal incarceration.
The OCI and other stakeholders have taken the position that
the current classification system does not accurately assess
the risks and needs of women offenders. The current tool
translates social disadvantage into pathologies. The system
also designates a disproportionate number of women with
significant mental health needs as maximum security.
Furthermore, the process results in a huge over
representation of Aboriginal women being classified as
maximum security. It is our opinion that the current
classification process is totally inappropriate for
Aboriginal offenders.
Two years ago, the Service conducted a qualitative review of
existing classification tools and came to the conclusion that
it was indeed appropriate to use the existing classification
system on women. This Office continues to have serious
concerns about the use of a classification system that has
been designed for men, that is designed primarily to
assess public risk, and which does not meet the unique and
individual needs of female offenders. It is
recognized that the Correctional Service has projected that
the number of federally sentenced women will increase
significantly by 2004. In addition, the newly opened secure
facilities are already very near full capacity. If the
Correctional Service continues to apply its existing
classification system on women, this Office has serious
concerns that the Service will be unable to
accommodate all of the maximum-security women within the
regional facilities, and a result, may be forced to return
some women to the men's prisons once again.
With respect to the CSC policy that condemns
"lifers" to serve their first two years in a
maximum-security setting, it is obvious that this change will
have a serious effect on women who are sentenced to life
terms. The effect of being housed in a strictly controlled
and, to say the least, stressful maximum-security environment
will produce special challenges and disadvantages for women
-- especially those that may be young, Aboriginal, older or
disabled.
This is all the more the case when you consider that the
frequency of review of these women's security
classification has also been revised under the new policy.
This will occur every two years, throughout their sentences,
contrary to the annual reviews that will take place for other
offenders.
As noted in last year's Annual Report, perhaps the most
prominent casualty of the policy is the Service's avowed
commitment to compliance with the law. It is not simply that
this policy flies in the face of the CCRA requirement to
determine the classification and housing of offenders on an
individual, case-by-case basis, according to a whole range of
factors - not simply the offence committed. The policy
patently ignores the statutory requirement of the least
restrictive custody and introduces the goal of
retribution to a legislative scheme
that specifically disallows such a consideration. This Office
has heard, directly and indirectly, numerous complaints about
this policy from both inmates and staff. We continue to
believe that the policy of adjusting the Custody Rating Scale
to ensure that offenders serving life sentences for first-
and second-degree murder are placed in maximum security
penitentiaries for at least two years, should be
immediately rescinded.
Response to Key Issue 3 - Minimum Security
Facilities
As of May 13, 2003, there were 101 federally
sentenced minimum-security women incarcerated in CSC
facilities (figure does not include the 6 women at Burnaby
Correctional Centre for Women). Isabel McNeill House in
Kingston can accommodate 13 women classified
as minimum security. All other federally sentenced women that
are classified as minimum security reside within the regional
women's prisons, which, inarguably, are medium security
environments. The net result is that women classified as
minimum security are not only being housed in more
restrictive environments than necessary, but they will
eventually move from a medium security environment to the
community -- with little to prepare them for successful
reintegration. This is not the situation with male offenders
in this country. It is patently discriminatory.
Response to Key Issue 4 - Community Release
Facilities and Services
The response to this question is simple : there are not
enough appropriate community release facilities and services
in Canada to meet the varying needs of women offenders. This
situation is even more bleak for those women who require
intensive mental health services. It is clear that male
offenders have far more access to community
facilities/services than women do, and that this situation
can only be characterized as discriminatory.
Mixed Gender Facilities
Mixed gender facilities are an option for federally sentenced
women, but, we believe, they must be one of many
options available to women on conditional release - and never
the only option. There is an obvious need for the
Correctional Service of Canada to ensure adequate community
resources are available to accommodate women offenders on
community release.
With respect to the release of Aboriginal women prisoners
under sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, this Office is acutely aware of the fact that
very few Aboriginal women are ever conditionally released to
the care of their communities. We have been told by some
Aboriginal women that they were either unaware of this
section of the CCRA, and/or their Case Management Team was
not providing the necessary support and information to assist
them with making this possibility a reality.
At the present time, this Office is not aware of a single
woman that is currently being supervised under section 84 of
the CCRA. This speaks for itself.
The Office of the Correctional Investigator rarely receives
complaints from women residing in community release
facilities. We believe that the majority of offenders in
community settings are aware of the OCI's existence and
services, given their earlier passage in institutions. That
said, this Office does distribute brochures and posters to
all parole offices and Community Correctional Centres across
Canada.
When a woman has contacted this Office from a community
facility, it has usually been for one of the following
reasons :
-
she was dissatisfied with her conditions of parole
-
she was dissatisfied with her community parole officer.
-
she was concerned that her conditional release may be
suspended and that she may be returned to prison.
Response to Key Issue 5 - Health Issues
In the last two years, 89 different women filed one
or more complaints related to Health Care with this
Office. These women were concerned with one or more of the
following:
-
their lack of access to health care (long waiting lists to
see a physician or specialist)
-
the quality of the health care provided by the institution
-
medical decisions that were made by the institution
-
lack of appropriate mental health services.
Involuntary Transfer
This Office maintains the position that the policy of
involuntarily transferring women offenders to psychiatric
facilities for the purpose of risk assessment should be
rescinded. It is our opinion that transfers of this nature
and for this purpose violate s.88 of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, which provides that an inmate cannot
be treated without their informed consent. Compelling women
to undergo psychiatric assessment without consent cannot be
considered a legitimate correctional objective. For further
details on this issue, please see
Involuntary
Transfer and Consent to Mental Health
Interventions in our 2001/2002 Annual Report.
Women with Mental Health Needs
This Office receives daily phone
calls from women who are struggling to deal with their
serious mental health issues while "in the care of"
the Correctional Service of Canada. Clearly, this speaks to
the Correctional Service's inability to meet the special
needs of this population. This Office agrees with the
position put forth by CAEFS and DAWN, namely, that women with
serious mental health needs would be more appropriately
assisted within their own communities, and not within the
walls of the Correctional Service of Canada.
Response to Key Issue 6 - Use of Male Guards
There are currently men in front line positions at all of the
regional facilities for women, including Edmonton, and all
positions are open to men. For similar reasons outlined by
CAEFS in their response to CHRC's discussion paper, the
Office of the Correctional Investigator maintains the
position that men should not be hired to be the primary
support for women in their day to day living situation.
As will be discussed in the next section, the OCI does not
believe that an effective and timely mechanism exists for
incarcerated women to report problems of sexual, racial or
other types of harassment, abuse or assault. In addition, the
Correctional Service has to date not responded to the 2000
Cross Gender Monitor Report which recommended :
It is recommended that males should not be permitted
to be front line Primary Workers. This would include not
being permitted to act in a security function with respect to
living and segregation units, cell extraction teams
regardless of time of day, and escorts of any kind.
Response to Key Issue 7 - Redress Procedures and
Accountability
This Office has had a long-standing concern that prisoners
lack an effective and timely remedy for unlawful acts of CSC
staff, and in particular, sexual harassment. The problem
arises from the power relationship between inmates and staff,
and especially women inmates and male staff in the
penitentiary setting. It is well known that federally
sentenced women have experienced abusive relationships, often
going back to childhood, and that the legacy of these
relationships can affect women offenders' attitudes
toward male staff and their expectation of fair treatment
from them.
Many women have come to believe that the culture of CSC
involves denial of criticism, resistance to outside influence
(especially by prisoners and their families or associates)
and fear of yielding authority and control by upholding
offender complaints. There exists a very jaundiced view by
offenders on the effectiveness of the current grievance and
complaint system. In addition, the timeliness of responses
remains a serious area of concern.
It is our experience that women prisoners often perceive
staff members as:
-
mutually supportive in opposing offender attempts to reduce
staff authority or even to demonstrate that offenders can
successfully contest staff decisions or conduct
-
likely to share information on inmate complaints with the
accused staff member(s)
-
being able to unfairly the processing and outcomes of
complaints against themselves or co-workers.
-
being able and willing to take reprisals against inmates
who lodge complaints against staff - the more serious the
allegation, the more serious the reprisal.
-
unwilling to review and decide complaints against staff in
a considered, objective fashion, bringing to bear effective
investigative skills and knowledge
-
unwilling to manage complaints systems to make them
effective and to provide accountability for improper review
of complaints
While aware of their rights in terms of the offender
grievance and other processes, for the reasons outlined
above, it is our experience that many women are very
reluctant to use the internal redress system. We have also
found that Aboriginal women and women with mental health
needs do not tend to access the current internal redress
system. The internal system, as it is currently designed and
functioning, does not reasonably take into consideration the
socio-cultural and historic realities of these populations,
and as such does not meet the needs of these women.
Sexual Harassment Policy
It is well documented that victims of harrssment in any
context are very reticent to complain and are suspicious of
recourses that they believe may disappoint, embarrass or
re-victimise them. This is even more the case when harassment
is sexual in nature. This Office was very concerned when, on
November 13, 2002, the Correctional Service introduced a new
policy with respect to harassment. It is patent to this
Office, and to any reasonable reader, that the new policy
abandons almost all of the principles set out by Madame
Justice Arbour. The policy is also void of accountability,
transparency, training, objectivity, independence,
administrative fairness and ongoing oversight. Accordingly,
we find that this new CSC policy is unreasonable and reflects
none of the principles of effective, timely review included
in most harassment policies, including that of the Treasury
Board, and should be immediately reviewed and revised.
Attached as Appendix B is our Position Paper on Sexual
Harassment.
Contacting the Correctional Investigator
All women may contact the Correctional Investigator. The
Office has a toll free line for emergencies, which operates
on weekdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m and 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. Outside regular office hours (evenings,
weekends and statutory holidays), a message may be left on
our answering machine. In non-emergency situations, women are
encouraged, when possible, to submit a complaint in writing
to our Office. Furthermore, the Co-ordinator for Federally
Sentenced Women's Issues makes regular visits to each of
the women's institutions. She meets with women to discuss
any individual issues, and also meets with the various
prisoner-led institutional groups to discuss any general
areas of concern.
Information Provided by CSC
Information on the numbers and types of internal complaints
against the Correctional Service have been provided to the
Correctional Investigator Service in the past, however, this
data is often one to two years old by the time it is
received, and it is generally devoid of any reasonable
analysis. The CSC does provide some information regarding
corrective action taken, however, it rarely, advises what
corrective action has been taken when a complaint has been
made against a staff member.
OCI Staff and Financial Resources
The OCI recently received funds to hire a Co-ordinator for
Federally Sentenced Women. In the last 2 fiscal years (April
1, 2001 to March 31, 2003), this Office received 870 contacts
from women prisoners. It is clear that :
-
given the distinct needs of women prisoners,
-
the number of women's prisons,
-
the distance between the women's prisons,
-
the sheer number of contacts made with this Office, and
-
the current state of women's corrections in Canada,
it is extremely challenging for one person to effectively
address the concerns raised and to ensure that the rights of
women offenders are respected.
OCI Reporting to Parliament
As detailed in our 1992/1993 Annual Report, the reporting
relationship of the Correctional Investigator to the
Solicitor General of Canada, given that Minister's direct
responsibility for Corrections, has been an ongoing point of
debate within the corrections field. During the public
consultations leading to the finalization of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act many,
including this Office, advocated for the establishment of
direct legislative reporting.
As indicated below, in November 2000, the
Parliamentary Sub-Committee on the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act recommended a more
direct reporting relationship between our Office and
Parliament :
RECOMMENDATION 28
The Sub-committee recommends that section 192 and section 193
of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be
amended so that the annual and special reports of the
Correctional Investigator are submitted simultaneously to the
Minister and to Parliament.
RECOMMENDATION 29
The Sub-committee recommends that section 192 and section 193
of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be
amended so that the annual and special reports of the
Correctional Investigator are automatically referred to the
standing committee of the House of Commons responsible for
considering the activities of the Office of the Correctional
Investigator.
This Office is supportive of the Sub-Committee
recommendations, which are designed to provide a more direct
and effective reporting relationship to Parliament.
Post-scriptum
The above-mentioned appendices are available in hard copy or
electronic copy by contacting our office at (613) 990-2692,
or toll-free at 1-877-885-8848, or by e-mail at org@oci-bec.gc.ca
|