PACC Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 14, 2003

1535

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance))

Mr. Hugh McRoberts (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

1540

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung (Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada)

1545

1550

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

1555

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ)

1600

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

1605

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Nancy Stableforth (Deputy Commissioner, Ontario Region, Correctional Service Canada)

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Ms. Lucie McClung

1610

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

1615

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1620

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

1625

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

1630

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

Ms. Lucie McClung

1635

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Nancy Stableforth

1640

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

1645

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucie McClung

1650

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

Ms. Lucie McClung

1655

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Diane Bourgeois

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1700

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

1705

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Dr. Larry Motiuk (Director General, Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

The Chair

1710

Dr. Larry Motiuk

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

The Chair

Dr. Larry Motiuk

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

1715

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

1720

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Hugh McRoberts

The Chair

1725

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

NUMBER 030

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 14, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Today, Wednesday, the 14th of May, is an auspicious day for the public accounts committee. We have to recognize that 125 years ago today, I believe, Parliament passed the legislation creating the office of Auditor General. I made a statement in the House earlier today under Standing Order 31 to congratulate the office for its professionalism and dedication to serving Canadians, which we all very much appreciate. Of course, we hope this is going to continue, for as long as democracy is in Canada we will always need the Auditor General to be a watchdog on government, because you never know what these guys get up to when you take your eyes off them. We need the Auditor General to keep watch, so it's an auspicious day to be recorded.

The orders of the day are, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of chapter 4, “Correctional Service Canada - Reintegration of Women Offenders”, of the April 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada we have Mr. Hugh McRoberts, the Assistant Auditor General; Mr. Ron Wolchuk, principal; and Ms. Jocelyne Therrien, a director from the office.

From Correctional Service Canada, we have Lucie McClung, commissioner; Nancy Stableforth, deputy commissioner, Ontario region; and Dr. Larry Motiuk, director general, research branch.

Without further ado, we'll turn it over to you, Mr. McRoberts, for your opening statements.

Mr. Hugh McRoberts (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to meet with the committee to discuss our April 2003 report chapter on Correctional Service Canada and its reintegration of women offenders into the community.

With me today are Ron Wolchuk, principal, and Joceylne Therrien, director, who are responsible for this audit, which we conducted as a result of a recommendation by the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Correctional Service Canada has accomplished a great deal in changing how women are incarcerated and rehabilitated, particularly by closing down the Kingston Prison for Women and replacing it with five facilities across Canada. Since 1994 the service has developed many rehabilitation programs and modified others to better meet the needs of women offenders, but it needs to make some improvements in delivering programs and services to women while they are incarcerated and while they are supervised in the community.

The service in the institution has not sufficiently tested the tools it uses in the initial assessment of women offenders, a critical first step in their reintegration that determines the level of risk they present and identifies the programs they will need in their rehabilitation. The service has not provided the necessary evidence of the tools' inter-rater reliability—that is, evidence indicating that different parole officers using them would assess the same offender in a similar manner. One of the most important tools, the custody rating scale, requires more validity testing to ensure it is the most appropriate tool for women.

Another of our concerns is that although employment is an essential part of effective reintegration, women offenders have little access to meaningful work opportunities and employment programs while they are incarcerated. Work releases and temporary absences help prepare offenders for release by affording them the opportunity to maintain positive contacts in the community, but the use of these releases has varied widely amongst women's institutions, from some use to very little.

The service should also do more to facilitate the increased use of special provisions available by law for the care, custody, and parole of aboriginal women offenders.

[Translation]

In the community, despite the best efforts of community parole officers and the fact that women are generally receptive to the assistance provided to them, a high percentage of paroles are suspended. Parole officers have identified some things Correctional Service could provide to help keep these women in the community: better access to substance abuse programs and to mental health services; temporary facilities as an alternative to sending suspended offenders back to the institution; suitable accommodation, especially in communities where a halfway house for women is not available.

Access to the right program or service in the community at the right time could help reduce parole suspensions and increase the efficiency of parole officers. What is more important, the potential for individual rehabilitation would improve significantly. The service needs to set priorities for programs and services to paroled women offenders, dedicate the necessary funds, and measure the results.

¹ (1540)

[English]

In conclusion, Correctional Service Canada has greatly improved conditions for women offenders over the last 13 years, and we are encouraged by its commitment to continue improving.

The committee might wish to consider asking the Correctional Service these questions:

How will it provide assurance that its assessment tools are reliable?

How will it better test the validity of the custody rating scale to assess women offenders?

How does it plan to better prepare women offenders for future employment?

What specific steps will it take to give offenders better access to appropriate programs and services in the community?

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McRoberts.

Now we'll turn to Ms. McClung for the opening statement for Correctional Service Canada.

Ms. Lucie McClung (Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada): Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the standing committee, Mr. McRoberts. I'm happy to have an opportunity to discuss how the Correctional Service of Canada plans to address issues raised in the Auditor General's report on the reintegration of women offenders.

Here with me today is Ms. Nancy Stableforth, deputy commissioner for women in the Ontario region, and Dr. Larry Motiuk, head of our research department.

I am pleased that the Auditor General has acknowledged the significant gains that were made in women's corrections in the past 12 years. However, as is suggested, we agree that further work is required. We are currently adjusting our plans to take into account the conclusions of the report.

The evolution of federal corrections for women has not been without difficulty. We have had to learn many lessons along the way, and some the hard way. As mentioned in the report, the service has been successful in changing overall direction. The Auditor General noted:

CSC has made a significant investment in changing the conditions of incarceration for women offenders and strengthening programming services for them.... Over the past 12 years, CSE has accomplished a great deal in changing how women offenders are incarcerated and rehabilitated.

[Translation]

Indeed, 12 years ago, there was one federal institution for women offenders in Canada—the prison for women in Kingston, Ontario.

Change was made possible when the federal government endorsed the task force report, Creating Choices, back in 1990.

Creating Choices made it clear that a new and different approach for women offenders was required. In 1990, it was therefore necessary to completely rethink traditional program design and delivery to capture the differences and characteristics and learning approaches of women. We knew that this would be a very long process, and would require significant investments.

As noted by the Auditor General, we have made progress. The first regional facility began its operations in 1995, and by 1997, four regional facilities and one healing lodge were operational.

Escapes and attempted suicides of women offenders in 1996 at the Edmonton Institute for Women made it clear that we had to rethink our approach for a small group of women. Undeniably, we had to create—urgently—a more suitable environment in terms of structure and support.

Four such environments were established within existing institutions for men while we turned our attention to the development of a more appropriate strategy, with the help of our partners.

In 1999, the Solicitor General at the time announced the intensive intervention strategy that was developed to deal with women with mental health problems and for those requiring a higher degree of supervision.

¹ (1545)

[English]

Today this new model is taking shape. We are opening secure units within regional sites to replace the co-located units in men's facilities, and I fully expect the latter units to be entirely closed by this summer.

Creating Choices stressed the need to provide women-centred programs. This is now enshrined in our legislation.

Women come to penitentiaries with many challenges. Most have been socially disadvantaged and present serious difficulties. Today, offenders are coming to us with an increased level of violence in their offences. The profile of offenders includes such problems as severe addictions, self-injury, victimization, sexual abuse, poor education, and low self-esteem. Often more difficult for these women is the continued responsibility for their children while they are incarcerated.

Given these needs, correctional interventions now include the added dimension of relational theory. Research and experience have taught us that we cannot ignore women's desire to connect and to develop relationships with other people; that we need to recognize this desire as a strong basis for developing coping skills and problem-solving abilities.

Today, there are situations where women, supported by their lawyers, have asked the courts to give them longer sentences so that they may access our programs. In some cases, judges are specifically referring to the availability of programming in rendering decisions.

Our results are telling us that our interventions are having positive impact, that they are indeed making a difference.

[Translation]

Because of progress made during the incarceration phase, women offenders are accessing early conditional release more frequently than male offenders, and are more successful while on supervision.

Today, 56 per cent of women offenders are under federal supervision in the community, compared to 40 per cent of male offenders.

[English]

And Mr. Chairman, of the 795 women offenders who were in the community on conditional release last year, 771 women did not return to crime; 18 committed a new offence, of which four involved violence; and six have outstanding charges.

Although one can say that these results are good—one could even say they are outstanding—I am of the view that our work is not complete. More could be done to better equip women with the skills required, as mentioned by the Auditor General, to remain in the community. We must tailor our program interventions to more fully take into account shorter sentences, and we must better support women offenders upon release to avoid reincarceration for non-criminal activity.

Short sentences of two to three years are most challenging, because we have less time to intervene prior to legislated National Parole Board hearings. While a return to custody because of signs of disorganization—such as drug use—is necessary to avoid the potential commission of crimes, it also points to the importance of support networks in the community.

Before I conclude, I would like to raise a matter the Auditor General has specifically highlighted; that is, the question of inter-rater reliability and the validity of our assessment tools. This is an important question, because our assessment steers what will follow.

I believe our tools are helping us do our work. Nothing, including the work done by the Office of the Auditor General, is telling us to stop using them. However, I agree that more reliability testing and validation needs to be done. We will seek additional expertise outside of the service to provide further assurance in this important area.

Dr. Motiuk, who is recognized as a world leader in corrections research, will answer any supplementary questions of a technical nature this committee may have.

Although research takes time and is resource-intensive, particularly given the small number of women offenders compared with the male population, let me reassure you that the Correctional Service of Canada will continue to invest in this area.

[Translation]

In conclusion, progress notwithstanding, the service remains committed to pursuing the evolution of women's correction.

As recommended by the Auditor General, we will focus on: improving program delivery in the institutions; increasing program availability in the community, including working to enhance women's capacity to secure viable employment; pursuing research and development; and finally, we will look to augment community support.

[English]

And because we cannot do this alone, we will actively seek out opportunities to involve communities across this country. We will encourage universities, colleges, and researchers to become more involved in the development of correctional initiatives specific to women offenders.

Equally important is the continued support from our criminal justice partners, non-governmental groups, and citizens themselves. We are thankful that we can count on the support of groups, such as the Elizabeth Fry Society, that focus specifically on women's issue, not only from a policy perspective but also from individual perspectives. These groups immensely support the reintegration of individuals across Canada.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. McClung.

Now we'll turn to questions. Ms. Meredith, you have eight minutes, please.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Auditor General's office and the corrections office for appearing before us.

I listened with interest and highlighted that you're opening secure units within regional sites to replace the co-located units in men's facilities. I was under the impression you had opened facilities strictly for women across the country when you closed Kingston. Was that not what happened?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, we did. We closed the Prison for Women and opened four regional facilities, including a healing lodge. There were incidents in 1996 that pointed to the need for more structure, more supervision--people will normally refer to maximum security types of environment.

Ms. Val Meredith: Just to jump in there, then, I understood that in British Columbia you had an arrangement with the province to share a facility that in my understanding was either closed down or cut back substantially, and that you have once again moved back into housing women in a facility right next to the institution where you have criminally insane or whatever you want to call them. I guess it's called a psychiatric unit.

Ms. Lucie McClung: The Government of British Columbia announced they will close their prison for women, of which federally sentenced women are incarcerated through an exchange-of-service agreement. They will close probably by the end of 2004. It then becomes necessary for us to provide other alternatives. The alternative will be to convert an installation in the Matsqui complex of British Columbia to house federally sentenced women.

Ms. Val Meredith: And my understanding of Matsqui is it's one of these institutions where you would have male individuals who are right across a fence from the new female population. Is this not right?

Ms. Lucie McClung: This will be a complex where the regional institution for women will be completely distinct from the institution for men. So we cannot possibly think of it in terms of co-location. They will be entirely separate. They are in the same region, in the same physical part of British Columbia.

Ms. Val Meredith: It's more than “in the same physical part of British Columbia”. Is it not right next door to the Matsqui Institution, as we know it today?

Ms. Lucie McClung: It's next door to the Matsqui Institution.

In the same way, the Sumas Community Correctional Centre was completely separate from Matsqui, and there were never any problems related to the interface.

Ms. Val Meredith: Any linkage?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We don't expect any linkage, nor will we plan the construction so there's any interface between these two. It's the same way in other complexes across this country where we have three separate institutions in one geographic location: Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Laval, the Kingston complex. We have complexes of penitentiaries where this exists, so I don't anticipate any problems related to the interface, nor do I anticipate problems related to vicinity.

Ms. Val Meredith: I actually had a tour of the Kingston facility before you closed it down. It struck me that women were not treated anywhere near the same as men in institutions simply because of the low numbers. Where some of them could have gone into minimum security, medium security, or maximum security, for all intents and purposes, women were all housed the same way. There wasn't a distinction, as there was in the male population.

Have you made any attempt to separate the maximum, minimum, and medium security requirements for women?

Ms. Lucie McClung: You're absolutely correct. That was the whole essence behind Creating Choices: The Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women. One of the major observations was that there was no distinction. The person's particular needs and the risk of reoffending or harming themselves or harming other people were not really fully taken into account. They were all mixed up. Therefore, Creating Choices suggested, rather than having one penitentiary, having four regional sites and a heavy emphasis on women-centred programs.

¹ (1555)

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay, but the Auditor General seemed to feel that perhaps the assessment tools you were using might not be reliable for making the distinction between maximum, medium, and minimum security requirements when you were dealing with women.

Do you have a separate assessment program for women, or do you just use the male assessment program and plunk it into the women offenders and feel that's going to give you the answers you want?

Ms. Lucie McClung: No. The hard lesson we learned out of 1994 was that women offenders needed particular assessment tools and particular forms of intervention.

First of all, I'd like to make a first point that a tool is an additional instrument that is included within a broader assessment process. So before we come to ratings of maximum, medium, or minimum security, there is a whole range of activities taking place, of which there is the custody rating scale--that is, a statistical instrument to delineate between maximum, medium, and minimum security. We have developed a test and we have conducted validity exercises, and they are still appropriate.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay. What about the employment preparation aspect? When I look at your list, I don't know what you pay a dog groomer and I don't know what you pay a seamstress, but why are the women not being offered furniture building or groundskeeping or something that may pay a little better when they are reintegrated into the community? Why would you take traditional kinds of women's jobs and focus on that, rather than giving them a greater opportunity of income to assist them in raising their families or in being able to look after themselves, to prevent criminal behaviour?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I agree with you that more could be done in terms of training for all jobs. I share your view that there is not a series of jobs only for women and a series of jobs only for men, neither for individuals in Canada, nor for offenders.

We have, first of all, focused on correctional programming needs, mental health needs. It's true that we focused our investment in terms of the development of programs and interventions on more criminal types of factors linked to personality needs.

Once that has been set--and there is still work to be done in that area--we need to focus more on activities that will lead to real jobs in the real world. Our CORCAN employment strategy has been adjusted to take more fully into account the needs of women offenders.

Ms. Val Meredith: As I've run out of time here, my final question is whether or not you have done an action plan to implement the recommendations from the Auditor General.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, we have.

Ms. Val Meredith: Would it be possible for you to provide that to the committee?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, I could provide it afterwards.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Meredith.

[Translation]

Ms. Bourgeois, you have eight minutes.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. McRoberts, Ms. McClung, ladies and gentlemen. I have been interested in the activities of the Correctional Service of Canada for a while now, and when I read the report of the Auditor General of Canada on the situation of female offenders, I was shocked. In fact, I don't think I am the only one who reacted that way. This morning, the National Association of Women and the Law issued a press release stating that the Correctional Service of Canada had violated the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You may address that issue, Madam McClung, if you will.

My concerns have to do with timelines. Unless I'm mistaken, in 1938, a famous report, the Archambault Report, which led to the creation of the Archambault institution which still exists today, denounced the way the Correctional Service of Canada treated male and female offenders, violating their rights, among other things.

In 1994, a study conducted by the Correctional Service of Canada said that the organization should improve the situation of female inmates.

Every time, and it has just happened again, the Correctional Service of Canada takes the recommendations into consideration, but it seems that we are once more back where we started. But this time, it's extremely important. It has been acknowledged that the rights of native female inmates, and those of other inmates, are not respected. These women are ill, they are addicted and they are not receiving the appropriate care. It seems that the Correctional Service of Canada does not have the means to help them. That is the second point I would like you to respond to.

Will the Correctional Service of Canada finally create services to help these poor women? Canada now has comparative studies involving men and women; I think that each federal department should carry out this type of analysis. This means that in the last five years, nothing has been done.

I am interested in hearing your answers to my questions.

º (1600)

Ms. Lucie McClung: I will not go back all the way to 1938.

Since 1938, the government has been told that it should adopt a completely new approach, but it was only in 1990 that the government agreed to do so. But this new approach, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, was not defined. We had to create an operational plan to implement the new system. There are not, as is the case for men, existing university programs or private sector expertise as regards the needs of female offenders. Very few people in the field of corrections, and no doubt in other areas as well, are interested in this subject. So we had to create something based on a concept which called for a new way of doing things.

In 1990, we were told to create something different. In 1994, we already had some programs in place, which were based on the most up-to-date information we had on changes in human behaviour. The programs were solid and institutions were built. I think progress was made. We are still working on inventing new programs and approaches.

Today, we have female inmates who, in my opinion, need psychiatric care. But this type of intervention has not been developed yet, since psychiatric hospitals are afraid of getting involved. They are much more familiar with these types of problems than we are, but are hesitant to take in these women, who have sometimes committed violent offences. We have to think of completely new approaches, which we are working on. Other countries have sent observers to see how we are helping these women. That is the first point I wanted to make.

Incarceration conditions are completely different today, as are women's programs; today, the women are much more likely to have access to various kinds of parole and they often do well. I think it could be called a resounding success. Can we do more? Yes, we can do more, and it is important for all the sciences to focus more on issues affecting women.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: You did not answer my second and third questions, and I would like an answer.

I simply want to remind you that the Elizabeth Fry Society, amongst others, has expertise in this field and has often offered to work with you.

Second, in his opening statement, Mr. McRoberts said that “despite the efforts of community parole officers...”. The Correctional Service should turn to the parole officers to develop a clearer vision of what can be achieved.

º (1605)

Ms. Lucie McClung: I do not agree with the conclusions of the Elizabeth Fry Society, which said that there has been no progress. I cannot imagine that, particularly since we work very closely with the society, individually and on policy. This is a conclusion about which I will have to inform the members.

I would ask Ms. Stableforth, who works more closely with the Elizabeth Fry Society on programs, to answer this question.

[English]

Ms. Nancy Stableforth (Deputy Commissioner, Ontario Region, Correctional Service Canada): Yes, I would have to add to the commissioner's comments that we do in fact have an active and ongoing relationship with the Elizabeth Fry Society, both at the national level with respect to their umbrella organization, but also with individual member societies. We have in fact 23 community residential facilities for women operating across the country, and many of those are operated by the Elizabeth Fry Society.

We also partner with the Elizabeth Fry Society to provide a variety of programs and other support services to women in the community.

Additionally, I can advise the chair and this committee that I and members of my staff and the wardens and other staff members from the women's facilities do in fact meet regularly, not just with the Elizabeth Fry Society but also with other organizations that are active in terms of advocating on the part of women offenders. I can advise this committee that next month we are having a specific meeting that will bring together community-based staff from Correctional Services Canada, wardens, together with representatives of many community organizations, including the Elizabeth Fry Society, specifically to discuss how we might enhance reintegration support mechanisms for women in the community.

The Chair: Merci, Madame Bourgeois.

Now we'll turn to Ms. Beaumier, please, for eight minutes.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Thank you.

It has been a long time since I've been involved with corrections. I was on the parole board, but the provincial. From what I understand, there are no longer provincial and federal inmates. Are these people, no matter what their sentences, housed in the same facilities?

No? Are there still provincial facilities for sentences under--

The Chair: We can't get nods and the shaking of heads on the record.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: All right.

The Chair: Perhaps you can give us a fuller answer to that question. What is the situation regarding provincial and federal--

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I had understood when Vanier Centre closed in Brampton that these inmates were going to be moved to the facility in Kingston until other accommodations were made. Is that true?

Ms. Lucie McClung: There are still provincially managed institutions for men and for women, and federally managed institutions for men and for women.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Does the facility in which you are placed depend on the length of your sentence?

Ms. Lucie McClung: That's right. There is still the two-year, clear-cut distinction.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: One of the things I'm most concerned about is mental health services available to inmates after they're released. It's one thing to have them paroled on the condition they attend substance abuse programs, but what kinds of facilities are provided for psychiatric help, and are these only in large centres? How do you manage an inmate or a parolee who has severe mental health problems?

Ms. Lucie McClung: If you will allow me, I'll answer also for the incarceration phase, because it is an issue during the phase of incarceration.

We have 12 spaces in the regional psychiatric centre that is accredited through provincial authorities as a psychiatric hospital, but it's also an institution, a penitentiary. So during the phase of incarceration, or for that matter, if a person shows mental health distress and is diagnosed as requiring psychiatric treatment by a psychiatrist and there is no other outside hospital that is willing to take this person, we will consider a placement at the regional psychiatric centre, but there is a whole medical protocol to do that.

There is also an arrangement with l'Institut Philippe Pinel in Montreal that is willing to develop a program, and to develop as they proceed, to give services. So there will be 15 dedicated beds at l'Institut Philippe Pinel, and we are in the final stages of signing that agreement.

We have the mental health strategy in each regional site, and that is a new concept that was developed through Corrections Canada--with, of course, the assistance of researchers and partners outside of the service--which is a series of very focused interventions to start dealing with these mental health problems, because they are very real. If a person is about to disorganize and shows psychiatric distress, there is always one-on-one counselling offered through contracts with psychiatric medical doctors, as part of their conditions of release or their supervision in the community. If that is not possible, we will entertain placing them back with us in our regional sites.

That should be our last resort. Unfortunately, sometimes it is the only alternative because there are no services in the community, especially remote communities. It's an added difficulty for women offenders, small numbers. We are often talking about one person in one place that doesn't have enough resources to serve the community itself, and certainly not the added issues presented by women offenders.

º (1610)

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Are there special facilities or is there a special program for aboriginal women?

Ms. Lucie McClung: There are, and there are not enough. We are under development for violence, especially violence and high-intensity substance abuse.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: For those who require it now and are returning to more remote areas, do we have a way of delivering that care?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I cannot point to a program with a program manual, and so on. We will supplement one-on-one counselling, and aboriginal communities, through their circles of justice or circles of support, are very helpful, because they envelop the person, and that seems to work very well with women offenders, in particular.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: It has been a long time since I was on the parole board, but you can probably tell that there are a couple of cases that still haunt me.

Actually, I think many of the things you were talking about have been dealt with in answers to other members, so I thank you very much for that.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: If I decide that I have time to renew my interest in this, could I come and see some of your facilities?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Absolutely. Thank you.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Beaumier.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please, for eight minutes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I also want to thank the staff of the Auditor General's office and the departmental officials for appearing before us today on this important matter of women in our correctional institutions and women in the criminal justice system generally.

I don't think anybody here is saying that nothing has been done. Certainly we acknowledge the Auditor General's report indicating that there has been some progress, and I'm sure the non-profit organizations involved in this area can see some improvements.

However, I think what the Elizabeth Fry Society is saying, and so many of the other organizations involved in this area today and every day, is why in this day and age is there still such a gender gap in our correctional institutions? Maybe it's too harsh to use the terminology that E. Fry and others have used, but I tend to agree with it because I see it in so many other parts of government--that is, that women are an afterthought. It would appear that in some ways women are an afterthought in our prison system, in that we still apply male models, traditional models, in terms of how best to approach women in the criminal justice system and women in correctional institutions.

My questions are as follows. First of all, with respect to the statements that were released today by eleven different organizations, which I think further reinforce the findings of the Auditor General with respect to the women in corrections, what is the response of the department, of the government, to eleven organizations, some from outside of Canada, who feel that we are failing as a nation to live up to the requirements under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and who have suggested that in some ways Canada presents almost an embarrassing situation internationally?

Perhaps that's too strong, but I think we have high expectations, and Canada, with its focus on equality, with our signed commitment to the CEDAW, would be at a different stage by this point and at least be cognizant in expressing the differential approach we have towards these issues.

º (1615)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, I would like to first say that traditional models were indeed being applied to women offenders prior to 1990. It was decried many times by many groups, task forces, etc. There were traditional assessment tools, programs, etc., that were designed and conceived for men that were applied to women offenders, in some cases, not all cases. Since that time, we have specifically developed women-centred programs and interventions.

Why has it taken so long? It's because they don't exist. We are developing as we go along. Serious development requires time to gain all of the observations from social sciences, psychology, etc. When you go to the books, there is very little there for women and women offenders.

We thought, for instance, before we really looked into the matter, that cognitive-behaviour-based interventions should lead women to better equip themselves and to better management of their lives. We now know that this is not sufficient. It has to be cognitive-based, including the dimensions of relational theory. It's brand new in the science of correctional interventions. It takes time because we are developing it as we speak. That's one reason.

The second reason has to do with the numbers, but it's not a sufficient reason. I often ask the question that if we can reproduce a whole series of resources that exist for men in communities across Canada, why can't we have at least the equivalent list for women offenders? They do not exist. You have more men in psychiatric hospitals. Therefore, the interventions and the researchers tend to develop programs for males in Canada and elsewhere. It simply does not exist.

The Auditor General mentioned that we have greatly improved the conditions of incarceration. Are they sufficient? They are sufficient in terms of a basis. What's missing are dedicated programs for violence to deal with the abuse that these women have had, especially a childhood of sexual abuse. I think we need to marry these needs with something that is linked to criminal behaviour. We need more support in the community. We need the help of the community to create the capacity to, one, acknowledge that there is a problem, and, two, define strategies for these women.

As a very small example, it took a non-governmental person one full year of dedication of her time to place one person for two to four months in a residential facility so that the person could access parole. It is an example of the investment that is required in order to create resources in the community.

I've partially answered your question. I would like Ms. Stableforth to add the international comparison to give you an idea of how women are incarcerated elsewhere.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

Before she answers that part of the question, perhaps she could also speak to the recommendations that have been made in the past and what has happened to previous studies. I know that we still need a developmental stage in terms of this whole area. It seems to me that lots of studies have been done and ideas have been presented, yet they don't translate into action.

Today, at the press conference, a number of organizations made serious statements about the lack of progress in this area and some specific recommendations. Reference was made to the Creating Choices report, the Arbour commission, and the correctional investigators' annual reports for a number of years. They referenced a number of ideas that I'm sure were floating around for a long time.

Is it a question of political will, or is it a question of a lack of resources? Is it a question of resources going in the wrong direction? Is it as matter of resources being designated for women in correctional institutions, but not being spent equally in terms of the actual institutions and community programs? That's certainty an area of contention.

Could you answer with some information on those issues as well?

º (1620)

Ms. Lucie McClung: I'd like to give members of the committee a sense of what has been developed since 1994-95.

We have substance abuse programming, a very serious series of interventions taking place on a daily basis for women, which did not exist prior to 1994. Other programs include reasoning and rehabilitation; anger and emotion management; sex offender programming; dialectical behaviour therapy for personality disorders; aboriginal circles of change; family life improvement; spirit of your warriors; survivors of abuse and trauma; psycho-social rehabilitation; a mother-child program; a peer support program; and keys to family literacy. These are the programs existing today that did not exist prior to 1995.

Still to come is higher-intensity substance abuse programming, because we know that they are prone to return to substance abuse. There will also be a substance abuse maintenance program in the community, because once the high-intensity substance abuse program is delivered, how are we going to make sure that there is a continued link and focus? A violence prevention strategy is under development today, as well as all of the mental health strategies with Institut Philippe Pinel, the regional psychiatric centres, which I have talked about—and some other institution that I'm missing.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I had a question I didn't get an answer to—the issue of resources. What resources are designated specifically for women in corrections? Is there any merit to the concern that's been brought to our attention that money designated for community and institutional programs for women in corrections has not been allocated?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Let me give you a simple answer, and perhaps we could explore it later. Whether in institutions or in the community, women offenders comprise 3.8% of the total federal offender population, and we spend 4.5% of CSC's overall operating budget on them.

The Chair: Ms. Meredith, for four minutes, please. We are now on the second round of questions.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I heard you say that you've brought in a lot of new programs for women and that you feel that they're working. I would suggest that your numbers show a fairly high degree of success, but the Auditor General did point out that 22% of women had their correctional plans finalized less than a month before their first parole eligibility date, or after that date had already passed.

When you were asked whether it was a question of resources or money or whatever, you gave me the impression that you felt you had enough resources and money, which begs me to ask, why do you have such a high percentage of late correctional release plans to manage those individuals, who aren't that many, when you feel you have enough resources, staff, and money? Why do you have such a high number that aren't being finalized early enough to do any good?

º (1625)

Ms. Lucie McClung: I have two points to make, and hopefully I'll be clear here.

The correctional plan is the path of what should happen, so it's very important that we have a correctional plan. It is distressing when there is non-compliance with a policy or standard of effective correctional practice in the organization. But one of the reasons why there was non-compliance was that the parole officers, or the people who were with offenders, were completing the form for assessment for first release and incorporating the steps of the correctional plan in that document, rather than doing the correctional plan.

Right now, let me reassure you that we are 100% compliant with correctional plans within the timeframes, and have been for the last four to six months, and we will continue to be that way.

Now, let me talk to you about—

Ms. Val Meredith: Let me jump in for just a minute here.

So you have an inmate who comes into the system. They're assessed to create a correctional plan of what treatment they need, what facility they should be in, and how they should be handled. Right?

Ms. Lucie McClung: They are already in the facility.

Ms. Val Meredith: When I asked earlier about whether you have a minimum, maximum, or medium security separation of women, I thought you told me you did have.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, we did. When a woman offender comes to us, they go to the regional site.

Ms. Val Meredith: Do they go for the pre-assessment?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, for the assessment.

Unless something untoward happens during transportation or in the courts, they are placed in the medium-minimum setting at the regional site, because to create choices for women offenders we recognize that medium security and minimum security should be together in one regime. So they're already at the site.

Ms. Val Meredith: So the facility has minimum and medium. Where are the maximum security people, who require greater intervention?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Because of the problems we had in 1996, we created the co-located units. Those are small units in existing men's institutions, and are something that was decried by everybody. It was an urgent temporary measure, and they are now being closed.

Ms. Val Meredith: So what happens to the maximum security inmates?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We've built up the units at the regional sites. There is one in Nova, for instance, which is operational. So there will be one in Nova, one in Joliette, one in Grand Valley, and one in Edmonton. So the site has been expanded to include a secure unit, in addition to what existed before.

Ms. Val Meredith: So they come there, they're in the facility, and they get their assessment. At what point do they have a correctional plan put together?

Ms. Lucie McClung: That happens 70 days after their reception.

Ms. Val Meredith: Just for clarification, so 22% have their correctional plans finalized less than a month before their first parole eligibility date. Does this mean that it's the minimum security inmates who are going to be out on statutory release or some kind of parole—

Ms. Lucie McClung: They were not focusing on the correctional plan, because they were focusing on the assessment for decisions. In the case of women offenders who have less than five years as a sentence, 61% of those women were on the street or granted parole in less than a year. So rather than fixing the plan, they were incorporating elements of the plan in the decision for assessment, which must be done within four months.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Meredith.

[Translation]

You have four minutes, Ms. Bourgeois.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the briefing notes prepared for the committee, we read that two of the factors that cause women to commit crimes are drug addiction and mental health problems. In addition, the staff who work with women offenders in institutions and in the community has told the Auditor General that women offenders have a hard time getting drug addiction treatment when they need it.

Moreover, the data supplied by the Correctional Service of Canada show that since 1999 there has been an increase in the percentage of women offenders who have been reincarcerated because their parole had been revoked, even though they had not reoffended. They had simply violated the parole conditions set by the National Parole Board, but they had not committed any crime.

It states again here that the parole officers mentioned that the most frequent reason for parole suspension was a relapse into drug addiction.

I would like to know what you intend to do about this or, if applicable, what you have already done to correct this situation.

º (1630)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you. This matter is of great concern to us. I do believe there are better solutions than incarceration for dealing with a personal problem, however significant it may be. We can do better than that. I would like to put the phenomenon into perspective before answering your question more specifically.

Last year, 795 women had one type or other of community supervision; 14% of them, or 108, had to be reincarcerated, because it was feared that they would commit crimes. In most cases, the problems had to do with psychiatric disturbances or a relapse into substance abuse.

This percentage—14%—is more significant than it was in the past. In 1995, for example, parole revocations for non-criminal activities amounted to some 7%. Consequently, we must redouble our efforts to find resources that can provide services to these women during the time of their supervision in the community.

We must work with the mental health services so that once and for all women with mental health problems are accepted. We must also find people with expertise on substance abuse and women offenders. That is what we plan to do. We are constantly looking for people who can give these women structured support. We must convince the National Parole Board that it is a viable option to keep them in the community.

We must find resources with enough credibility to provide assurance that this can be done. At the same time, we are doing some development work, but this takes roughly two years. I do not know whether it will be possible to simply wait two years.

So we are talking here about a combination of in-house development work and an ongoing attempt to find resources—the Philippe Pinel Institute will be giving us a hand in this regard, as will the University of Montreal, in the area of research.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: I see. I think I have a few seconds left to ask you one last question. Paragraph 4.83 of the Auditor General's Report reads as follows:

4.83 Women offenders have minimal access to meaningful work opportunities while they are incarcerated. Furthermore, they have few opportunities for job training that will prepare them for eventual employment in the community.

It goes on to say that the jobs they can get are in sewing shops and embroidery shops, for example. These jobs have always been held by women, have never been well paid and do not help women get out of their poverty. Do you intend to establish other programs and if so, how and when? You tell us that you want time and that you are setting aside two years to do this. Are you saying that when we meet again in two years, everything you have mentioned will be done?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We're starting right away. I have given clear directives asking CORCAN, through which we are involved in joint ventures with Canadian companies to allow inmates to acquire certain skills and find and keep a job, to devote 10 per cent of its efforts this year to jobs exclusively, not to development and planning, but to jobs. I hope to be able to count on the support of a number of individuals. We would like to have some joint ventures with Canadian companies to give women offenders a viable opportunity once they are released.

º (1635)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Madame Bourgeois.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, four minutes, please.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

I only want to ask questions in two areas.

It seems to me that we're dealing with systemic barriers and deep-rooted attitude and cultural conditioning in terms of this whole area. My question in terms of systemic barriers comes back to funding and resources. There is a certain percentage of resources designated for women in corrections. As I understand it, money that should be allocated to go into institutions, as well as into community-based options, is not going there. In fact, the money ends up in the expensive end of an incarceration level and not in community-based options.

I'd like to have that clarified. Can you tell us what money goes into community-based options? What percentage of the total does it represent?

The other question is on the concerns raised today in the press conference that have more to do with blatant discrimination and violations of human rights. If there are cases of women being discriminated against in the prison system on the basis of sex, race, and disability, are there not measures that can be taken? Could we train corrections officers through gender-based programs, sensitizing the people in the system to the issues we're dealing with, so we can at least deal with the blatant discrimination that's happening?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I'd like to have the deputy commissioner for women speak to that. There was a new position created specifically for us not to forget about women offenders, the deputy commissioner for women, Nancy Stableforth.

Ms. Nancy Stableforth: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The commissioner has already indicated that we have in fact developed and put in place a number of specific programs for women. The programs are research-based and take into account not only gender, but issues with respect to culture, ethnicity, etc. It is very much a part of what we do. We're directed by our legislation to take those matters into consideration, and we certainly do take them into consideration.

With respect to the issue of the staff who work in the women's facilities, we have a separate selection process for the front-line workers who work in the facilities. It specifically addresses appropriateness in terms of attitude, knowledge, behaviour, and expertise for staff to work in the women's facilities.

In addition, all front-line staff who work in the women's facilities do receive ten days of what we call women-centred training. We have developed a specific program where we educate and train people, in terms of some of the issues we've been discussing today, on how women build relationships to move forward to learn new skills; what issues of abuse they may have faced in the past; other issues they may have faced in the community with respect to low self esteem, and how these matters should have been dealt with; and the impact of sexual abuse, etc.

A shorter version of the program is provided to all staff who work in women's facilities. We do have very specific training and very specific protocols in place in terms of the conduct of staff within institutions.

With respect to the charter, of course, we're bound by the charter. As part of staff training, staff are given specific training on the boundaries of our legal and policy framework that address those types of charter issues.

In addition, there is a grievance system. If women believe that they are being treated unfairly in any way or their rights are being violated, there is an internal grievance system they may access that goes through several levels, up to and including myself. They also have access to the Office of the Correctional Investigator. They have access to legal representation and advice, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Of course, in some cases they can have access to the courts.

We've put very specific policies in place with respect to such matters as the interventions of our emergency response teams. We have an all-women emergency response capability in our facilities. We've taken very seriously some of the issues that were raised by the Arbour commission. We have very specific policies that prevent men from being involved in any way with a strip search or frisk of a woman offender in our institutions, or in being part of an initial response in terms of emergency response teams.

º (1640)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. Finlay, you have some questions.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm interested particularly in section 81 and section 84. Section 81 authorizes the service to enter into agreements with aboriginal communities for the provision of services and care and custody of inmates. Section 84 allows an inmate to apply for parole into an aboriginal community, and gives the community an opportunity to propose a plan covering the inmate's release to and integration into that community.

I noticed further, as prepared by the researchers, that there hasn't been a great deal of use of the two sections. There are only eight section 84 releases and no section 81 agreements. Can you suggest why the uptake of the programs has been so low?

Ms. Lucie McClung: On section 81, it is indeed, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, an arrangement whereby the community and the Correctional Service Canada agreed to work together.

There is a healing lodge in Okimaw Ohci that is CSC-run right now, with an intention for the community, when it is ready, to take over the incarceration phase of the institution. The section 81 agreement is not present, but there is a plan to move towards the community being in charge of the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge. The reason it is not in place today is because neither party, especially the community, feel they are ready to totally manage the institution.

Section 84, as was suggested by the member, is an opportunity for aboriginal communities to step up to the plate and demonstrate to the National Parole Board and also to Correctional Service Canada, in terms of recommendations, that they are able to provide assurances that the person will not return to crime.

At one point, over the last year, there were 17 section 84s that were under discussion, where the communities said they were interested but wanted to find out a little more about it. At the end of the day, only three remained, mostly because the communities didn't feel that they had the wherewithal. It was a little scary. Although they did provide support in terms of initiatives or a presence in the supervision plan, they did not feel they wanted total ownership.

The absence of section 84 does not mean that the communities are not there to enhance and support the person through the reintegration process. There is a hesitation to formally take over. We are in discussions with many aboriginal leaders, and I personally am in discussions with aboriginal community leaders, to see how to best make the community comfortable.

Aboriginal communities, because of reoffending and because it took place on the reserve, will often not want, as a policy, this person to come back to them. There are many cultural and societal issues to deal with in each case, and each case presents very different characteristics.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Meredith, please, you have four minutes.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'm fine.

The Chair: You're fine.

[Translation]

Ms. Bourgeois, you have four minutes.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My questions are still for Ms. McClung. The Auditor General of Canada tells us that there has been an improvement in the way you classify women offenders, but that there is still room for improvement in the way women offenders are placed in rehabilitation programs both in institutions and in the community.

I told you earlier that usually the Correctional Service agrees to the improvements requested or recommended by the Auditor General. I asked you whether we would be able to see some improvements in two years, and you replied that improvements were underway at the moment. Could you take two minutes to tell me what improvements you are planning to make in the way in which women offenders are placed in rehabilitation programs in institutions and in the community?

º (1645)

Ms. Lucie McClung: First of all, what is required with respect to the classification tools? We have to be able to produce a report that demonstrates that the tool used is valid and that a number of individuals involved in case studies arrive at the same classification using this tool. That is what the Auditor General recommended. She asked us to do more studies to ensure that our tools were valid. We are going to have a study done by outside experts to make sure that our tools are really geared to women. That is starting immediately. We are in the process of defining the terms of reference, and once we get that, we will take the necessary steps.

I'd like to make two points about the programs offered in institutions.

First of all, we want to finalize our contract with the Philippe-Pinel Institute concerning women offenders with psychiatric or mental health problems.

Second, we want to develop a program or a series of initiatives—I do not know which form this will take—to counter violence. I'm talking about preventing violence. We want to teach these women how to manage situations when they are victims of sexual or cultural abuse. So we are in the process of establishing a program to help them manage violence.

Finally, we will be able to deliver a high-intensity substance abuse program for women. I apologize, I do not have the exact French equivalent.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Only for serious problems?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, because we already have a regular program. So we'll be intensifying the program for some categories and we'll also set up relapse prevention programs. I am sorry I don't have the French term.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: It's okay.

[English]

Ms. Lucie McClung: The relapse prevention and substance abuse prevention programs will be strengthened, in the institution and in the community.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you have four minutes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you very much.

I appreciated the earlier answer to my question about funding. I'm just wondering if I could get some more specific answers; or if not today, maybe you could table with the committee a breakdown of the budget that is allocated for women offenders—what percentage goes to programs in the community. The answer I heard was about research. I didn't hear a specific percentage or amount of money that is designated for programs in the community to help with reintegration, and of course to help with prevention. I'm wondering if you can give that now, or at some point.

Ms. Lucie McClung: I could give you a first global figure, and if that's not sufficient I would have to go back to break it down.

To make it relevant, this year there will be $2.5 million designated for women offenders in the community, and $1 million of research activity. If you wish, I could break down the $2.5 million in the community a little more, but I would have to go back to deal with halfway houses. Or I could give members of this committee a more detailed account as the year proceeds—say in six months—as to where we are and what the results are.

º (1650)

The Chair: Do you want that information for the committee, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I would really appreciate it if we could get a breakdown now and then an update in six months about the way the money is flowing. I think that would be really useful.

One of the issues the Auditor General raised in her report ties in to this whole question of how you ensure access to appropriate programs and services in native communities. You've acknowledged the problem, and you obviously have some money going into the area, but it seems to me there is a pretty significant shortfall in that regard, and we're still not finding a way to address the problem, from that point of view.

One question I have, related not just to money, is to seek some ideas from you about specific steps you're taking to ensure better access to appropriate programs in the community; and secondly, to ask to what extent you think the problem of lack of access to safe, affordable housing is a factor in the whole pursuit of reintegration.

Ms. Lucie McClung: In terms of the community, other than the moneys we spend, the idea I have is that we'll work with the provincial heads of corrections, who are facing the same dilemma. We have to start going to communities, to mayors of cities or to aboriginal leaders, and saying to them: “These are the people who are returning to your community. These are the support mechanisms that exist so far. Do you think they are sufficient, or that in some cases more could be done? And how can we work together to prepare the community to avoid the pitfalls of crime?” After all, we are dealing with the security and wellbeing of communities.

That's one thing, and I will be personally involved in a lot of outreach to communities, to make them less afraid and more willing to accept responsibility for these women, because they're returning to their communities.

The second thing we will do is try to access funds available, such as the government initiatives through Human Resources Development Canada, for instance. Yes, housing is a problem, so we need to talk to the people who have resources available to help individuals who represent an area of need. There will be definite steps to try to tap into either funds or capacities that exist outside corrections and outside the world of criminal justice per se. Those are some ideas.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: No, thank you.

The Chair: Madame Bourgeois.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Chairman, I still have two questions for Ms. Lucie McClung.

Mr. McRoberts said in his statement that another fact that was a concern is that female delinquents have very little access to interesting work opportunities or employment programs during their incarceration, whereas a job is an essential element for a successful social rehabilitation and placements outside are difficult.

I'm thinking about establishments for women like the one at Joliette that are close to a city where the women can get out of the establishment to participate in social reintegration programs. I think it's relatively easy for Canada's Correctional Service to establish some contact with the people in the community. However, if I'm not mistaken, the new detention establishments for women are far away from the major centres and don't allow for the social reintegration of the women. Have you provided for a mechanism to help get the women out, to accompany or help them?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I'll give you an answer and then I'll ask Ms. Stableforth to give more details on the Joliette establishment. The more concrete the example, the easier it is to understand the reality of the situation.

It is true that temporary absence without escort and external placement, which are the precursors of successful parole, are fewer by 65 per cent, but that's because they're already on parole. For the woman herself, for the Service and for the safety of the public, it is far healthier to give a woman day parole as soon as possible rather than insisting she spend a 6, 8 or 12-month period on temporary absence.

That's one of the reasons why day passes have decreased. It's better to give them day parole because the eligibility date for those women is the same. That's an important factor, on the order of 65 per cent, and I won't insist on having the delinquent women go through useless stages. Because of the results in terms of rehabilitation and the low rate of criminality once they're in the community, they don't have to go through an extra stage. It's better to have them on parole and to provide for very specific support.

º (1655)

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: On the other hand, we saw earlier that parole was hard to get. At least that's what the Auditor seemed to say, unless I misread or didn't see things properly.

Ms. Lucie McClung: It's totally the opposite.

Ms. Diane Bourgeois: Fine. I was wrong and I'm happy I was.

One last thing. Some fifty-odd million dollars were given to the Correctional Service and only $13 million were targeted for rehabilitation. Did I read the documents correctly?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Could you give me more details?

In 2001-2002, $57 million was spent on women offenders. Of this, about $13 million was for institutional reintegration activities and custody-related costs totalled $44 million.

This information is taken from the briefing notes prepared for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

However, it says here:

The Service does not know how much is spent annually for the delinquents under supervision in the community. The Service knows what it spends for their lodging, but not what it spends for their programs.

I'm amazed by that note. Isn't Correctional Service Canada, like any other department, accountable, and don't the accounts have to be detailed? How come there are no real figures on the costs of the community supervision?

Ms. Lucie McClung: The financial data system does not itemize expenses based on the sex of the person. The Auditor General was asking us why we didn't adjust our financial system so as to be able to get those data. Presently, we calculate those figures ourselves so we can tell you how much we did spend. Next year, we'll be spending $2.5 million in the community. The Auditor General suggests that rather than doing these calculations by hand, we should adjust our financial systems so that they can make those calculations. It will be easier and more accurate.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Bourgeois. We'll go back to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I'd like to go back to the press conference that was held today and the presentations that have been made to your department from eleven different organizations, including the Elizabeth Fry Society, LEAF, National Association of Women and the Law, Amnesty International, Disabled Women's Network, West Coast Prison Justice Society, Strength in Sisterhood Society, and others that I've missed. Together these organizations make a pretty strong statement of pretty serious allegations about flaws within our government in carrying out its fiduciary responsibilities involving women in prisons, particularly those women who have double and triple jeopardy—aboriginal women, women with disabilities. They make the case that these women are often kept segregated because of a lack of understanding about their particular circumstances and because of a discriminatory approach to particular problems such as mental health issues.

We've talked a lot about the Auditor General's report today, but I would like to hear what your response and the government's response will be to this powerful statement and presentation made to you as commissioners and to the government.

» (1700)

Ms. Lucie McClung: The first thing I would like to say—I'm not government, but I'm certainly the Commissioner of Corrections—is that we have made tremendous progress over the last twelve years and have completely changed women's corrections in Canada.

The second thing I would point to is what we have done. We have gone from one major institution where women were incarcerated far away from home and with absolutely no support, with no women-centred programs available to them—because they were incarcerated in the Prison for Women—to a system where we have five facilities, a series of very serious, women-centred, research-based programs leading to results that, when you compare the results women offenders achieve on parole with what women achieve with all of the resources for them, are much better. That's what I would say.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you have the capacity to investigate complaints and do you have the ability to proactively assess the situation? I guess I'm wondering if there isn't a more complete answer required to these serious allegations. I would hate to see them ignored and dismissed. I don't think you're doing that. I only wonder if there are some specific steps you will take to assess these presentations made by eleven different organizations, to look at the specific allegations and report back, or to make recommendations for action and for further consultation.

Ms. Lucie McClung: The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been seized with these statements. They are investigating, and their report is due in the winter of 2003.

I don't dismiss them. Women corrections in 1990.... I've been personally involved with corrections since 1980, and when you compare the system for women at that time and the system for men, although we are talking about incarceration, the state of incarceration was horrendous. People from everywhere across Canada were dropped into the Prison for Women in Kingston. Some couldn't speak the language. Very few possibilities existed for maintaining relationships there, and no programs, basically. I believe the statement around Prison for Women that stuck in my mind the most was “You wouldn't place bears there”. That was the statement that was made to encapsulate what was happening in the Prison for Women.

I believe we have come a long way, and Elizabeth Fry members themselves--because we interact on a daily basis with these people--would say the same thing, that we have come a long way. Is it sufficient? No, it is not sufficient because of lack of resources. There is a lack of available capacity of expertise for women offenders, not only within Correctional Services of Canada but within corrections worldwide and also within communities. It is distressing when a person who is disorganized psychiatrically cannot access a psychiatric hospital because they're afraid of them and they have to return to incarceration.

This is not the case for men in Canada. They can access readily available resources, either provincially managed or privately managed or through non-governmental agencies, that are simply not there for women in this country.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. McClung.

I have a couple of questions myself. I'm looking at the Auditor General's report, paragraph 4.39, saying that when an offender enters an institution, Correctional Services Canada uses a custody rating scale to determine the classification. It goes on to say the scale was designed in 1987 based on the characteristics of male offender population.

We've heard today, and in the report it's obvious, that you've done a great deal of work in the last 10 or 15 years to ensure you have developed programs and facilities specifically for the needs of women. But it seems to me this is a serious failure if when they enter prison you're still using the ratings based on a male scale and it's 15 years out of date.

» (1705)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Perhaps I may supplement the information that was provided by the Auditor General.

All of the scale instruments designed were based on male characteristics, based on the studying of male offenders. However, in 1994 this scale was adjusted and tested at the Prison for Women. Subsequently, a number of studies were made to make sure that, indeed, they responded well and took full account of women's characteristics.

I would like to turn it over to Dr. Motiuk, who will get into more specifics about that.

The Chair: Dr. Motiuk.

Dr. Larry Motiuk (Director General, Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak about the custody rating scale. The custody rating scale, as we mentioned, was initially developed in 1987 and was developed principally using male offender populations to derive the items and the weights for the instrument. Subsequent to that, in the early 1990s, we retested that instrument to see if it was applicable in terms of assigning women offenders to maximum, medium, and minimum security designations. We tested the validity of this instrument on several occasions and found it to be adequate at the time, and it continues to be to this date.

However, I should add that we've continued to do further developmental work on security classifications for women offenders and have developed a security reclassification scale that is very gender responsive. It's unique in the sense that it represents state of the art in terms of security classification. The field test that has been under way for about the last year and a half is winding up, and we will be looking to implementation this fall.

It is shedding new light in terms of our understanding about what works best in terms of a custody level assignment for women offenders. At the same time, we are continuing to look at the custody rating scale that is used for initial placement, as opposed to subsequent reclassification and testing out the items, the cut-off points that are used. Nevertheless, we still find that it is valid as a predictor, a valid predictor of institutional adjustment for incidents and what not. And as soon as we complete the work in the future with the security reclassification scale, we may be able to redesign and redevelop further research in the custody rating scale.

The Chair: Mr. McRoberts, in paragraph 4.43 you say, under “Testing for reliability”,

We found that the reliability of the Custody Rating Scale for classifying women offenders has not been tested. Correctional Service needs to complete a full test of the Scale's reliability for women...

And on it goes. We seem to have differences. In 1994 they did some testing, but you say no testing.

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: They were testing for different things, Mr. Chairman. Validity in essence--and I'm oversimplifying it a little bit--deals with the extent to which the instrument measures what it purports to measure. Reliability deals with the extent to which it will give the same measure under varying conditions when you're measuring the same thing. In this context, if the same offender was rated by a number of different parole officers, it's the extent to which each of those parole officers, using that instrument, would arrive at the same result.

The Chair: That's the definition of reliability.

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: That's reliability.

The Chair: It doesn't matter who uses it, they should come up with the same answer.

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: They should come up with the same answer in that setting.

The Chair: If I'm correct, what I'm hearing--correct me if I'm wrong here--is that you're saying that in 1994 you tested the rating system for its validity for women, you found it acceptable, and now you're doing some other analysis and programming and so on. But Mr. McRoberts and the Auditor General's office are saying that while you may feel comfortable with these new ratings and the fact that the 1987 rating is reasonably applicable for women, you've never tested the reliability, such that it doesn't matter who uses it, they come up with the same answers.

You could have a varying answer, depending on who applies it, according to Mr. McRoberts. I guess that is the question I would therefore pose to Ms. McClung or Dr. Motiuk. What about this reliability of the rating scale when it's used by different people?

» (1710)

Dr. Larry Motiuk: In response to the question of reliability, there are basically three main areas of establishing the quality of an effective classification tool, one being reliability--will it measure consistently with different administrators of the instrument? The second is whether it is valid, whether it is measuring what it's supposed to be measuring. And the third is whether or not it's practical. With respect to the issues of validity, we have done testing in the past on this instrument and found it to be valid.

The Chair: One more. You're quite happy with the validity of the testing system, are you, Mr. McRoberts?

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: With the caveat that we do not believe that the testing is yet complete. There has certainly been some done, and the testing that has been done supports the direction in which Correctional Services is going with the instrument. However, at the same time, we have also observed that we do not believe, according to professional standards, that that testing is yet complete, and we again encourage completion of the validity testing.

The Chair: Your next point, Dr. Motiuk.

Dr. Larry Motiuk: Yes, it's on the issue of continued testing and further testing. Certainly with the issue of reliability of the instruments, we have done some reliability testing to look at the internal consistency of the instrument itself, and we have found it to be internally consistent.

However, as the Auditor General's report pointed out, a good risk assessment tool should also be reliable in the sense that two different raters will arrive at the same evaluation they give an offender when using the instrument. What we call these observed differences in ratings due to administration or due to scoring of the instrument is known as “inter-rater reliability”.

What we will do and what we have agreed to do is to provide an assurance that our assessment tools are reliable. The service is planning to conduct psychometric research into the inter-rater reliability of the custody rating scale. Last year we began exploring various methodologies to test inter-rater reliability, and we will undertake to complete this work this year.

The Chair: Are you happy with that, Mr. McRoberts, that it will be done this year?

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: And your third point regarding this scale...one was reliability, one was the practical utility....

Are we all happy with that? There's no problem with the practicality issue? Okay.

Moving on to paragraph 4.60, it says:

Delays in developing individual correctional plans can contribute to offenders' inability to meet their parole eligibility date. Correctional Service data indicate that the on-time completion of correctional plans from April to October 2002 ranged from 41 percent to 85 percent across all women's institutions.

So there seems to be a significant variation. What's going on there?

Ms. Lucie McClung: There are two things. One is that the elements of the correctional plan, as I've mentioned before, were being captured in the preparation for parole hearings, which is a different document. Nevertheless, it's been reinforced with our parole officers that you must complete the plan within the prescribed timeframe and then assess how the offender is progressing against the plan and make it into two distinct steps so that it provides better clarity for the woman offender herself, for the staff, and also for the National Parole Board.

Mr. Chairman, we are 100% compliant, and we have been over the last month, and we'll continue to insist that this standard in the correctional process is met.

The Chair: So there's no inconsistency across the board any more?

Ms. Lucie McClung: That's right, sir.

The Chair: And you're meeting the parole eligibility dates?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We are meeting the legislated parole eligibility date. In the case of women offenders, we are meeting, to a much greater extent than for men, the day parole eligibility date. So women are accessing discretionary forms of release earlier in their sentence than is the case for men.

The Chair: In paragraph 4.74 the Auditor General says, “We found that the use of temporary absences is highly inconsistent from region to region.” Any comments?

» (1715)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes.

Part of the issue, Mr. Chairman, is that 61% of women access day parole rather than temporary absence, because, in terms of managing the sentence, women may access temporary absence and day parole at the same time. For women having five years of sentence in length, 61% are accessing parole. So there is logic behind the decrease in temporary absence.

Where there is less logic, however, is that the discrepancy is so wide between facilities. I have personally, upon reception of the Auditor General's report, met with women wardens across the service to deal with the recommendations, and I have begun exploring why this was. The reasons I received from women wardens were community support for receiving women among them, and a lack of definite opportunities, such as work releases, resources, etc., that exist around the community. We are focusing on developing these resources, because those are not sufficient reasons.

The Chair: Is that all right, Mr. McRoberts?

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: And it goes on to say in the next paragraph, 4.75:

Our file review indicated that work releases are not regularly built into correctional plans for women offenders, even though developing marketable skills contributes to an offender's successful reintegration into the community.

So why were we not working to try to build in these work releases so that we could give people the training? Was there any reason for that?

Ms. Lucie McClung: One of the reasons was that our attention was directed towards personality deficits, psychological deficits, and substance abuse deficits for women offenders, rather than specifically on employment. And their relationship needed to be created.

Once that base is put in place--only as a base, as it is not a complete answer--we will be focusing on providing viable training opportunities for women. And we must recognize it as viable.

The Chair: And in paragraph 4.83 it says “Women offenders have minimal access to meaningful work opportunities while they are incarcerated.” Again, you are addressing that.

And you are happy, Mr. McRoberts, that they are addressing these issues?

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: Yes, we are, sir.

The Chair: Okay.

In paragraph 4.95 it says: “According to data provided by Correctional Service, since 1999 there has been an increase in the proportion of offenders returned to the institutions for revocations without reoffence...”. That's primarily, I guess, drug abuse.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, primarily.

The Chair: Do you have any comment on this increase?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes. Last year 14% were reincarcerated basically because of non-criminal activities, mostly because of a return to drugs or a psychological disorganization. When resources are not readily available in the community, and because we can't jeopardize their protection or public security, we need to reincarcerate them. We are looking to lessen the number of times we have to do this.

The Chair: Very good.

You have healing lodges for our native population in many cases, and I think you mentioned you have a healing lodge for 21 people at Okimaw Ohci. Have you done any comparative analysis on the success rates of these? Are they better or worse than what we use for other people who are returned to the community? Do you have any comments about the two different styles of treatment? Has it produced two different answers or similar success rates?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I don't have statistics readily available, but I will give them to you. In the case of women offenders, because the numbers are small relative to the male population, there is more familiarity about the cases.

The Chair: What about the male population--because you're using the same concepts there too. It doesn't matter if it's men or women. Do you have any comments on the success or otherwise of the two different styles of treatment?

» (1720)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Women are doing much better on conditional release than is the case for men. They are accessing parole earlier and they are committing less crime. The modes of intervention are based on relationships, and relationships are a factor that leads to success. And women are open.... As was suggested by the Auditor General, women are more cognizant and respectful of the relationships they have in the community, so they're doing much better in terms of reoffending during supervision than are men, including aboriginal women offenders.

The Chair: It seems to me you haven't done any comparisons. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that you have a different style of treatment with these healing lodges and so on for the aboriginal population. Is that more successful or less successful than what we have for the rest of the population? Or do you have any comments on the two different styles of treatment?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We have a research study to take a look at that this year, but I know from a very pragmatic and practical perspective that women who go to the healing lodge do extraordinary things.

That is the case in Joliette as well. Every person who was released from the Joliette institution remained crime-free, as far as we know--I think we would know--upon return to the community. That's an extraordinary thing.

So there is something extraordinary happening in these sites. I would like to say it's women offenders being in a site that is much more respectful of women, because of the women's centre program and staff that are able to absorb the emotional volatility that these women present.

Yesterday, for instance, three people disorganized at Edmonton Institution. The disorganization is very immediate and very volatile because of all of the needs they present. When women run into difficulty they react violently. They harm themselves to a degree that is absolutely unbelievable.

There are some women, for instance, who don't even have any place left on both of their arms to slash any more, the skin is so thin from years of abuse that started at a young age. It's absolutely incredible. Yet they go through these centres, and they are able to reintegrate successfully into society.

This is a model that needs to be studied, and this is a model that needs to be applied to male offenders who are doing less well upon release.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think there's a fairly good-news story there that you have recognized, the issues raised by the Auditor General. So we'll ask Mr. McRoberts for some closing comments.

Mr. Hugh McRoberts: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think I'd be remiss if I didn't begin by indicating the progress, certainly, that our audit has observed Correctional Service Canada made in its work in rehabilitating women offenders.

As our audits indicated, there are some areas where further work is needed. Based on the work we've done, we have made recommendations in those areas, and we are gratified by the responses Correctional Service Canada has provided. We look forward, in future follow-up work, to being able to observe the further progress they have made.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McRoberts.

I think we all, as parliamentarians, acknowledge the complexity of the job you have to deal with at the prison service. As you mentioned, you're dealing with people who have had a history of abuse, perhaps sexual abuse from a very young age. I'm sure many of us can't really appreciate how difficult it is to deal with and manage these people, yet you have a responsibility to try to return them to society in such a way that they will be contributing members to society rather than a danger to society.

On behalf of the committee, we acknowledge the work you do. Perhaps you can mention to your staff that we are communicating to them that Parliament appreciates the work they do.

» (1725)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.