JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 23, 1998

• 1541

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): It's Thursday, April 23, in the afternoon, and we're moving right ahead with our review of the estimates.

With us from the Office of the Correctional Investigator we have Ron Stewart, who is the correctional investigator; Jim Hayes, director; Todd Sloan, counsel; and Jo-Ann Connolly, who is an investigator.

Welcome. And it's nice to finally see a woman emerge from the depths of the Solicitor General's branch.

Mr. Stewart, do you have a presentation?

Mr. Ron Stewart (Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I should just add that Ms. Connolly is our coordinator for federally sentenced women. It was one of the recommendations of the Arbour commission that we have someone to deal with women's issues.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee again this year, as part of the estimates process. Appearing as a separate program within the context of the estimates process, besides reinforcing this office's independence and specific accountability to Parliament, affords me an additional opportunity to meet with lawmakers to review major issues of concern arising from our investigations.

These issues are outlined in my 1996-97 annual report, which was tabled by the Solicitor General on November 7, 1997. This year's annual report will be submitted to the minister within the next 70 days or so. We have three months after the end of the fiscal year to do so.

The correctional investigator is mandated as an ombudsman for federal corrections. The specific function of the office, as detailed in section 167 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

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

The fulfilling of this ombudsman function requires that the office maintain a thorough and responsive investigative process that is and is seen to be objective and independent of federal corrections and the ministry.

During the last fiscal year, the office received approximately 5,500 complaints from inmates. The investigative staff in my office spent 346 days at federal penitentiaries and conducted in excess of 2,800 interviews with the inmates and half again that number with penitentiary and regional corrections staff.

The correctional investigator, pursuant to section 192 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, submits an annual report to the minister on the activities of the office, which in turn must be laid before each House of Parliament. The annual report, in conjunction with a detailing of the office's activities, provides specific observations and recommendations on the service's policies and procedures associated with areas of individual complaint to ensure that systemic areas of concern are identified and appropriately addressed. The correctional investigator may as well, pursuant to section 193 of the act, submit a special report to the minister on urgent or important matters.

• 1545

Operationally, the primary function of the office is to investigate and attempt to bring resolution to individual offender complaints. The environment within which this function is performed presents a number of interrelated challenges.

First, the inherent tension between the keeper and the kept presents an environment which generates a high level of mistrust. Second, the increased federal inmate population, with resulting excessive overcrowding, has heightened institutional tensions and compounded many long-standing areas of individual and systemic concern. And the opening of five new federal correctional facilities for women and the housing of maximum security women in male penitentiaries has increased both the number of institutions to be visited and the number of correctional administrations that have to be dealt with.

In addressing these challenges presented by the federal corrections environment, it must be noted that this office virtually no control over the number of complaints or the scope of the areas of concern requiring investigation and that the recommendations of the correctional investigator, as with all traditional ombudsman functions, are not binding. As such, in large part, the effectiveness of the office in bringing resolution to areas of concern is dependent upon the responsiveness of the Correctional Service.

And it also must be noted that while the federal penitentiary population has increased significantly over the past years, as have the correctional services resources in response to both the population increase and the opening of new facilities, the resources afforded to my office have remained stagnant since the coming into force of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in November 1992.

With a professional staff of eight investigators and two directors reviewing in excess of 5,500 complaints from some 50 institutions and 5 regions, the office realized that in order to avoid being overwhelmed by volume it had to focus more attention on systemic areas of concern, with the expectation that reasonably addressing these matters would assist in more effectively responding to the specific areas of individual concern.

In order to maintain a thorough and responsive investigative process that is and is seen to be objective and independent, and in response to the areas of concern identified by the Auditor General in his December 1997 report, the office has or is in the process of initiating the following strategies.

To optimize the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of its investigative process, the office is developing procedures to facilitate the integration of individual and systemic areas of concern. In fact, more detailed policies and procedures will be established to assist staff in prioritizing their investigative activities.

Improvements will be made to our management information system, including the performance information in our annual report. Telephone access to the office will be restricted to emergency situations wherein our immediate intervention is perceived as absolutely essential. However, the office will conduct institutional visits with greater frequency, particularly in medium security and maximum security institutions.

Our increased presence within federal penitentiaries should result in a greater awareness of the office's existence, services and processes. To that end, the office will be targeting specific inmate groups, such as inmate committees, aboriginal organizations and lifers' groups.

And finally, the office will continue its efforts to establish, in cooperation with the Correctional Service of Canada, a more effective process for resolving and disposing of systemic areas of concern. Accordingly, it will continue to participate with the latter in task forces and internal reviews. The office will also finalize a memorandum of understanding with the Correctional Service of Canada to ensure that offenders' concerns are addressed in a fair, objective and timely fashion.

Expected results from this would be: an improvement in the office's complaint management methods and strategies; a greater awareness on the part of all inmates under federal responsibility of the office's existence and a better understanding of its services and processes; the establishment by the correctional service of procedures and monitoring mechanisms with regard to systemic areas of concern and a gradual decrease of complaints received by the office in those areas.

The central focus of this office's operation traditionally has been and will continue to be on the individual and his or her specific area of complaint.

• 1550

One of the key factors in this office's effectiveness has been the acceptance by both the inmate population and those active within the criminal justice field of the office's level of objectivity, thoroughness, and independence.

The effectiveness of the above-noted strategies in ensuring that this office meets its mandate depends in part on the responsiveness of Correctional Service Canada to the observations and recommendations raised on behalf of the inmate population and the willingness of the minister to cause corrective action to be taken when the service fails to reasonably respond to those observations and recommendations.

It further depends, quite obviously, on this office's ability to clearly identify and pursue solutions to areas of systemic concern that reasonably address the concerns of individual inmates.

It is important to appreciate that the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada is neither an agent of Correctional Service Canada nor the advocate of every complainant or interest group that lodges a complaint. The office is mandated to investigate complaints from an independent and neutral position, consider thoroughly the service's actions and reasons behind it, and either endorse or explain that action to the complainant, or, if there's evidence of unfairness, make an appropriate recommendation concerning the corrective action.

The interest of the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada lies in ensuring that inmate concerns are objectively and fairly addressed in a timely fashion. The ongoing review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will afford all individuals with an interest in criminal justice issues the opportunity to have their views heard.

My office is actively involved in the current public consultation part of this process, and I look forward to appearing again before this committee during your review of the legislation.

I will conclude this brief opening statement by saying that I've met recently with the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of Corrections, and both are supportive of the need for change in the way inmate complaints are resolved. We are working towards that end.

I'm confident that with a strong leadership within Correctional Service Canada that's committed to the values of openness, integrity, and accountability, as enunciated within the service's mission statement, effective relationships with both government and non-government agencies can be established, which will assist Corrections in ensuring that its operations are responsive to the populations it serves and consistent with the intent and letter of the law that governs those operations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks a lot.

Mr. Forseth, ten minutes.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you very much.

Welcome to the committee today. In your statement, a couple of words that keep standing out are “systemic” and “timely”.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): It must be in your handbook, no?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: “Timely” has another meaning for us these days.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Certainly you make repeated reference to “systemic” problems within the system. I would like you to expand on that, to talk about what you see as being those inherent internal problems. It relates to prevention, because if we can deal with those, then perhaps a lot of the repeated complaints you were dealing with would be ameliorated.

Since that's a word that has been repeated a number times, I would like you to focus in on what were, or are, those systemic problems, and perhaps suggest how they can be dealt with.

The other issue is timeliness. I take it you have some concerns about the ability of your own organization to respond in a timely manner. That also reflects then to the estimates. I see that staffing is going to decline.

I'll give you that to start off with.

Mr. Ron Stewart: In terms of systemic issues, we had so many individual complaints, as the numbers show, that we have had to deal with the systemic issues, or why these complaints are caused, in trying to reduce the number of individual complaints we get in the office.

Correctional Service Canada is a big operation. It takes a long time to make changes in the organization. But I must say, we have been fortunate in the past year or so, with the new commissioner, in being able to resolve some of these systemic issues, or at least work on some of them. Resolving these systemic issues will stop the flow of individual complaints—hopefully, anyway.

• 1555

As far as timeliness is concerned, we're interested in as quick a turnaround time as we can get. If you're an inmate and you're sitting in an institution and you have a problem, you don't want some bureaucrat telling you, well, we're looking at it, and three months later we're still looking at it, and six months later we're still looking at it.

We're trying to push the Correctional Service to make a decision so that we can get back to our clientele and let them know that their transfer is in the process of being dealt with, or this is being dealt with. It's important to us, so that's why we're pushing the Correctional Service to do things in a timely fashion.

Again, it's a big organization; it takes a long time to turn things around. I think we both share the same view that we'd like to get everything done in a quicker fashion, but sometimes that's not possible to do. We keep pressing them to try to make the turnaround time as short as possible.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Could you enumerate some of those systemic problems? What are they?

Mr. Ron Stewart: First of all, the overcrowding causes a back-up in the system. Inmates can't get the programs they want. They can't get the programs; they can't get released on time. Everything backlogs when you have an overcrowding situation.

Corrections are dealing with that right now, as a matter of fact, and have been dealing with it for a while, trying to reduce their non-violent population. But that's what we're stuck with, the back-up of the programs.

It's the same with the transfers. The medium institutions are clogged because we have too many people in an institution that's more secure than where they need to be. We can't get the people transferred; we can't get the programs. So it all boils down to inmates in all the five regions of the country having the same types of problems, and that's where the systemic part of it comes in.

We're recommending to the Commissioner of Corrections that he try to deal with the systemic issues so that the individual complaints will dry up a little bit and give us a little relief.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Have you run across the inherent problem in Corrections Canada of a lack of training for the skill level in the jobs that are expected to be performed by the various officers on duty, both from upper middle management right down to the tier level, the systemic problem of insufficient training to do the job required?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I'll let Mr. Hayes handle that. He worked for Corrections Canada for a number of years, so he may be in a better spot to comment on the lack of training.

Mr. Jim Hayes (Director, Office of the Correctional Investigator): Frankly, I don't think we're in a position to comment on that, other than to give you my opinion.

Generally speaking, I would have to suggest that the quality of the training for the officers is probably very, very good. As Mr. Stewart has said, it's not so much that kind of training that is required, as they know the the types of programs that are required for the inmates within their populations; it is a question of delivery of those services. But for the most part, I would have to say that the commissioner has a very professional staff in the deliverance of those programs inside those institutions.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, I'll go one step further.

I'm referring to the Auditor General's report. It says under 33.55, on reporting results:

We reviewed the accuracy of data in a sample of cases to assess the reliability of the database.

I suppose this is your database. Then it goes on to say:

The cumulative effect of these deficiencies compromised the Correctional Investigator's ability to provide useful information both for management purposes and for his annual report to Parliament.

In your opening remarks you said that you're responding to the issues of the Auditor General. What specifically have you done to respond to that issue?

Mr. Ron Stewart: First of all, we're going to define things a little differently and try to get on the same categories as the Correctional Service so that we can better blend our information.

A lot of times, an inmate will complain at all different levels: they will complain to us; they will complain to their legal counsel; they will complain to Corrections. As a result, there's a lot of overlap.

• 1600

A lot of the contacts we make are not complaints at all, but requests for information. We find we're spending maybe too much time on the contacts for information rather than on the complaint issues. We have to find a better way to separate that out, and maybe there's another way to deal with the information side of it. I forget the percentage, but the Auditor General found that a fairly high percentage of our contacts were on an information basis, as opposed to a complaint basis.

Of course the problem is you never know until you go to see the inmate what his complaint is. We go to all the institutions on a regular basis, we notify the inmate committee that we're going to be there, the inmates put their name on a list to be seen, and we see them. Until we spend some time with them we don't know the nature of the complaint or information seeking concern they have. We have to spend some time but we're going to have to find a way to spend less time dealing with the contacts on the information side and more time with the complaints, and also match them up with Corrections to make sure we're not both spending time dealing with the same complaint from the same inmate.

Mr. Paul Forseth: In respect of efficiency matters of management of your own scarce resources, do you have any screening mechanisms to look at the issue of receiving a lot of complaints from one or two problem individuals who consume an inordinate amount of time or resources that's perhaps not really appropriate?

Mr. Ron Stewart: From time to time we do get the odd inmate who abuses the system. I know the correctional service over the years has limited the number of complaints an inmate can make through their grievance procedure. We haven't had any recently, but we've had a number over the years who complain about everything. We just go and talk to them and try to get them to be reasonable on the thing and we'll deal with the complaints on a priority basis. We have to sift through a lot of them.

It's difficult to deal with these people. Some of them have drug or alcohol abuse and don't think clearly, some aren't very well educated. It's difficult sometimes to deal with them, but that's part of the job.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I listened with a great deal of interest to what you had to say and to the report of your department. I just wondered at the level of frustration you and your staff must deal with on a daily basis. I just finished saying to my colleague that my concern quite frankly is why you keep that job. Who would want it anyway?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I don't think there's a line-up.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: In terms of the advisory role you have, I gather that you would find it far more effective and efficient if you had some powers to enable the carrying out of the results of your investigation. Would it be fair to say that there's something missing between the steps you take and the time and steps that are being taken by correctional officers to correct or to try to address the situation? Is there the need for another step in between or is there a need for a step at the end?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I'm not sure. The typical ombudsman—the classical ombudsman, if you like—doesn't have any decision-making authority; if he did he would just be another level of the bureaucracy. I think it's difficult to try to get another level. You're talking about solving—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Well, maybe I'll ask you the question in a different way. Do you think we need an ombudsman or do you think we need legal ability to insist and change the reason for complaints?

• 1605

Mr. Ron Stewart: The institution of ombudsmanship has been around for a hundred years or more, and I think it does serve a purpose. I think it can be effective.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Of the 5,500 complaints you said you had received, even if you cut them by half or three-quarters, how many do you believe have been resolved? How many can you comfortably assume have been resolved in a favourable manner that is fair and consistent with the type of practice that is proper in a country of this nature? You've had riots, you've had food fights, and you've had double bookings. From listening to your report, you've had all kinds of things that you have considered inappropriate treatment. How much of the success rate comes out of the fact that you've gotten these complaints and they have been led to a resolution that was satisfactory to you through your intervention as caring ombudsman and reporters of the incidents? Do you keep tabs on this?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I'll get my legal counsel to handle that one, Madam Chair.

Mr. Todd Sloan (General Counsel, Office of the Correctional Investigator): In fact, Madam Chair, I don't answer wearing that hat, but one of the several others that I wear in our context.

In our environment, the specific aspects of what makes an ombudsman effective—that is, the persuasiveness of his or her argument and the ability to bring a question before the public and before the legislators—is problematic. That's a function of the urgency of a great many of the questions we deal with, as you've pointed out: the vastness of repetition of the complaints; the complexity of many of the issues, both from a factual and legal perspective; and, quite frankly, the relatively inflammatory nature of many of the individuals and incidents we deal with.

In that context, a departure from the normal ombudsman function—that being making the best case possible before the public and hoping that persuasiveness will have its intended effect—might need to be supplemented by some form of mediation, or, as our office has recommended in our annual reports, by the institution of an administrative tribunal that could be used to deal with the more complex or more notorious issues, if you will, that have a strong effect on important rights.

The correct answer is probably many of the above. At the same time as having made this recommendation, we're making a great effort to improve the basis upon which we deal with the Correctional Service, interact with them to bring closure to matters in the normal course of events. Quite frankly, it would be of great assistance to our office if the reporting relationship that we already have through the commissioner, to the minister, and before this committee were more effective.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I think it was in that light, because I must say I didn't enjoy hearing that in the administrative there is an adversarial relationship, if I can put it that way. Whether that's the right choice of words, I don't know, but it sounds to me like it could be.

Recognizing that Canada has the highest incarceration rate of any of the G-7 countries, I think that's a little embarrassing. If you have had the opportunity to be—or if you have already been—consulted by the Solicitor General, who is looking for ways to both cut down the population and ensure that the people who are released are not a danger to society, when we talk about all the wonderful things we've done, I think it's about time we talk about some of the things that need to be done. If you're getting this information and you have an adversarial relationship when it comes to resolving a situation, has the Solicitor General come to you and said he understands that you have recommended some type of administrative tribunal, asked what the basis of it is, and whether or not he should bring....? Has he examined that context?

• 1610

Secondly, I want to know if he's looked at the difference required in the treatment of women versus men, particularly in the nature of the institutions in which they are kept. I wonder if you had an opportunity to discuss both of those issues with the Solicitor General.

Mr. Ron Stewart: Yes, I have.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Is he interested?

Mr. Ron Stewart: He's interested, and we will be meeting again.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You did say that this is where the buck stops. So if you think there is a need for some kind of constructive change in any one of a number of areas, including....

Thank you very much. I see that one out of four is a woman, for the first time. This morning there were just a couple of women in the whole room. This is a nice change. Congratulations on that score.

If this is where the buck stops, we need to have a reaffirmation so we can approach the Solicitor General, who seems to be very open to suggestions for change, with respect to what you said in your last annual report and with respect to the view that you feel an administrative tribunal would be empowered to compel the CSC to comply with some form of compliance legislation or some form of policy legislation.

Did that not sound like a question, or are you thinking about an answer?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I wasn't sure. I thought you were....

We have broached the idea of the administrative tribunal, both with the commissioner and with the Solicitor General. The Commissioner of Corrections countered with a proposal of a memorandum of understanding approach to the problem, whereby we could take these unresolved, long-standing issues, and with the terms of the memorandum of understanding, set up a process that would be able to deal with these and bring some closure to them.

That is still on the table. We're actively pursuing that with the Commissioner of Corrections, but we haven't given up the administrative tribunal as another method of bringing closure to some of these long-standing issues.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm glad to hear that the 125-year history is not allowing you to think forward with a new vision. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mrs. Finestone.

Mr. MacKay, are you ready, or do you want to go another round?

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I'm ready, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Ten minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Stewart and members of the panel, I want to thank you for being here. We appreciate your time. I know you have an extremely important task to pursue.

I want to ask you a question with respect to your reviewing investigations conducted by the Corrections Service of Canada, the CSC, most recently in the case of the P4W. It was actually much due to your efforts that new light was shed on this incident.

I am concerned about the lack of the existence of any ombudsman for victims of crime. I would suggest the CSC is in serious fault for not addressing that.

This committee has seen internal reviews conducted by the CSC and the National Parole Board that frankly I have problems with. Any time a body is investigating itself there is perhaps fear of bias, and concerns about impartiality have been expressed.

As an individual who is independent from CSC and who has experience with internal investigations, I would ask you what your thoughts are on the suggestion there should be a similar appointment for victims within the system, a person who would act in a capacity similar to your own on behalf of victims.

Mr. Ron Stewart: I have no problem with that whatsoever. If the suggestion is our office might undertake that as well, that would be a conflict of interest as far as we're concerned. Certainly the resources needed to do something like that just aren't there in our office, so that would have to be a major thing. But I don't see any problem with an ombudsman for victims, and I think the Solicitor General might look favourably at that suggestion.

• 1615

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm glad to hear you say that, and I agree with your assesment that it would pose a very apparent conflict of interest. But along that line, is there a process in place now where families of persons who are incarcerated can approach anyone in your office or receive any information through your office?

Mr. Ron Stewart: If the family member is complaining about the treatment being afforded the family member who is incarcerated, certainly we deal with that just as if it were the complainant himself. But as far as victims of crime are concerned, who would not be speaking on behalf of an inmate, no, there is no process I'm aware of that would give them some relief.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Are you familiar—and this may be an unfair question, because I know you have a tremendous territory to cover—with a case that arose in the Springhill Institution in Amherst involving a Jimmy White, and whether there were ever inquiries from Mr. White's family? Mr. White was murdered while in prison. Were there ever inquiries through your office about that individual?

Mr. Jim Hayes: Not that I recall, but certainly if there were I could review them when I get back to the office and comment as to whether inquiries were made. But off the top of my head, not that I can recall.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right. Would you mind giving us that undertaking?

Mr. Ron Stewart: Jim's a lot older than I am, so he would know that, you see. I'm just a young fellow.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I believe the timeframe was about eight to ten years ago when this offence occurred.

Mr. Ron Stewart: I'd be happy to research that for you.

Mr. Jim Hayes: The question is did some member of the family ever contact the Office of the Correctional Investigator with respect to his death?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes. And what, if anything, was done with that inquiry?

This morning we were informed, sir, of the Solicitor General's commitment to hiring 1,000 additional employees. I'd like your reaction to that announcement and how you feel it might impact on the operations of your office. And what, if any, adjustments have you made to your budget as a result?

Mr. Ron Stewart: Madam Chair, let me be clear on this. He's advocating hiring 1,000 new people?

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's right.

Mr. Ron Stewart: And doing what? Placing them where?

Mr. Peter MacKay: They'll be with CSC and used throughout the system, but I assume that most of them are going to be in the capacity of guards.

Mr. Ron Stewart: But strictly CSC?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Ron Stewart: He didn't mention our poor little office, did he?

Mr. Peter MacKay: No.

The Chair: I think what he said was 1,000 correctional officers. We aren't getting any more staff either.

Mr. Ron Stewart: No. With the increases in the number of inmates, I'm sure there is a need for more staff. You said he said that this morning at the hearing?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Ron Stewart: That's great. I'm sure it will help the system.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Were you not aware?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I wasn't aware of his intentions in that regard, no.

Mr. Peter MacKay: There have been problems in the past with overcrowding, and I know they have had to, on occasion, in my home province of Nova Scotia, move prisoners from provincial institutions to federal institutions. You may have already answered this in your opening remarks, and I apologize for arriving late. I wonder if you could update us on that situation.

Mr. Ron Stewart: On the overcrowding situation?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Ron Stewart: I think in our last annual report we were talking about double-bunking being at the level of about 4,000 inmates. These are all two inmates in a cell built for one inmate. Basically, they are about the size of a normal bathroom in an ordinary home.

That number has decreased a little bit. I think we're down to about 3,500, but it's a marginal decrease. There's still an overcrowding problem, and as I said before, that backs up the program availability and just the line-ups in general to get any of the things, such as transfers, temporary absences, etc. So it's still a problem, but I know the Correctional Service is looking to reduce the number of non-violent inmates they keep incarcerated and to reduce their numbers significantly.

• 1620

Mr. Peter MacKay: Are you aware of any situations where a person who is incarcerated for violent offences is being double-bunked with an individual who is not in for violent offences, who may be there for property or commercial crime offences?

Mr. Ron Stewart: Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

Mr. Jim Hayes: I don't think that's a discrimination they make when they do double-bunking. I think it's a question of incompatibility for other reasons. For instance, if a person has testified against another person, obviously that presents a problem. They may have some particular protective custody concerns. Alternatively, if a person has committed a sex offence, again they look at those considerations. Obviously with violent offences they would not knowingly put somebody who's a sex offender with somebody who is not. If that became public within that environment it could be very dangerous.

Certainly somebody who robs a bank, which is considered an armed robbery and therefore a violent offence, could well be double-bunked with somebody who has committed another violent offence.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I appreciate the difference between sex offenders. Most often they're not housed with anybody. Is there any policy in place or is there anything that would ensure that persons who...? I realize what you're saying here, that overcrowding is still a problem, but I'm just concerned about the fact that a person who is there for something other than violence and may be serving a lengthy period of time would be in the same cell with somebody who is serving time for violence.

Mr. Jim Hayes: It's possible. I think the overriding factor is incompatibility in and of itself. The fact that one person is serving time for a violent offence and one isn't would not necessarily make them incompatible.

Mr. Ron Stewart: If I could just add to that, if the inmate had a problem with his cellmate he could bring that to the attention of the staff at the institution and I think they would look at that fairly quickly. He can always access our office as well and we would certainly act on it quickly if he felt his life or his health were in danger. We would respond to that fairly quickly. I think the institution does a good job in making sure that the double-bunkees are compatible.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just as a general question, how many complaints or investigations would you be handling in the run of a year?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I mentioned that in the opening remarks. We had about 5,500 last year.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In the 1997 Auditor General's Report there was a suggestion that there was some adversarial tension that still existed between your department and CSC and that this might stand in the way of future change. Has that been alleviated or is there still a feeling out there that there is some tension and that sometimes you're working at cross purposes?

Mr. Ron Stewart: There's always a certain amount of tension when you have one government body overseeing another one. We're working on this and it's a daily thing. We work on it trying to ease some of the animosity that builds up over the years. Nobody knows where it starts, but all of a sudden it's there and it's very difficult to alleviate.

I meet with the commissioner of corrections on a regular basis. We're always looking for ways and means to improve our relationships. We're putting some of our investigative staff and some of their task forces together, working on a daily basis with the corrections people trying to increase that rapport and get away from this old evil that keeps lurking every now and then. You have to work at it.

• 1625

There's no question, the Auditor General's comment was good. He perceived that. You can't get anybody to accept that there isn't a certain amount of animosity there. But we're aware of that and we're working to improve our relationship.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So it's just by virtue of the title “investigator”. It tends to make anybody you're investigating a bit uneasy.

Mr. Ron Stewart: I think so.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Cadman, did you have some questions?

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Following up on that theme, I realize the frustrations your office must deal with, coming back year after year reporting many of the same problems. But from the taxpayer's perspective, I guess the bottom line is are we really getting value for the money we expend on this?

This is by no means meant to be a reflection on your office, but is there a willingness of CSC to cooperate and to really make this worth while to the taxpayer? Or are we looking at something that's basically designed to appease the inmates into thinking that something is actually being done when nothing is? Again, that's no reflection on your office.

The Chair: He's hoping it will reflect on the government.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Are we getting value?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I think so. If you're locked up in a cell and you really don't have any family and friends to help you out, I think you need the support of the corrections staff and the support of the people who work in the ombudsman's office, trying to correct what some employee might have regarded as not being important.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I understand that, and I certainly agree with that, but my question is are you getting the cooperation? Is something actually being resolved for these people who have what we have to assume are legitimate complaints? Is something actually happening for them?

Mr. Ron Stewart: I think we have a pretty good record of resolving issues in conjunction with the Correctional Service. You can't do it by yourself. I think the taxpayer is getting good value for his money. Eventually, the inmate is going to get out on the street. If you let him sit in there a little sore, he'll just keep festering and festering and will not do anybody any good when he gets out on the street. So I think the money is well spent in trying to solve the problems and help these people while they're incarcerated.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: You've also stated that if you felt that basically you were being stonewalled and nothing was getting done, you were prepared to go directly to the minister with some of these issues. Can you tell us if you have had to do that within the past year? Have you actually approached the minister?

Mr. Ron Stewart: In the past year I have not written any letters under the section. Prior to that, a couple of years ago, I think I had five or six individual complaints that weren't being dealt with in a reasonable and timely way, so I wrote to the then Solicitor General. He took some action with the Commissioner of Corrections to bring some closure to those issues.

I have a good working relationship with the present commissioner, Mr. Ingstrup, and we're able to sit down with that type of situation and thrash it out and resolve it, so I haven't had occasion to write that letter to the Solicitor General in the past year and a half or so.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have just one more short one, Madam Chair.

This is a specific thing. I was at Collins Bay about a month and a half ago and I talked to a particular employee there who is responsible for programming, or is involved with the programming. You mentioned that a lot of the problems that are being brought about by the overcrowding are because of the inability to get the programming going in a timely way.

This person told me that a high-intensity drug and alcohol program had been cancelled at Collins Bay, something they felt was really worth while. Now you're telling me that the inmates can't access the programs quickly enough, while programs are being cancelled that are meaningful. Have you run into that? I'd like to get your comments on that.

Mr. Ron Stewart: Mr. Hayes has probably been at Collins Bay in the last while. He may be better suited to answer that.

Mr. Jim Hayes: We're aware of that. The difficulty with programming generally is that they have to tie the programs in with risk assessment for conditional release. The service is finally getting around to deciding what program is going to help reduce risk and so on and so forth.

• 1630

Obviously, programs that have to do substance abuse are high on the list of requirements for an awful lot of the inmates who are federally incarcerated. As you well know, that is certainly one of the inherent factors in their criminal histories.

I was aware that this particular program you're referring to was cancelled at Collins Bay. I think it was purely a matter of resources. Obviously, when it comes to our attention, if we find this out through complaints from offenders, we ask the warden or the deputy commissioner how he is going to deal with the resource problem. That's because, obviously again, it's going to be backed up in terms of giving programs in a timely fashion to assist conditional release. If it's boxed or they're blocked at the medium security institution, it means they're backed up at the maximum ones, and they don't get out to the minimums. The cascading doesn't occur, and the whole thing just creates problems with double-bunking, and so on.

For example, cognitive skills and anger management are two of the core programs that an awful lot of inmates get referred to as they come in through the reception units, and so on. I think for instance at Collins Bay or Joyceville, or some of those larger medium institutions, you might have well in excess of 100 people waiting to get the programming. They're on the list. Of course their dates come and go for eligibility for conditional release purposes. Again, it takes over in terms of just not having enough resources, people, or programs, because there are just too many people in the hotel.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Hayes.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Yes, I have just one quick question.

Mr. Stewart, on page 8 of your brief, in the second to last paragraph, on the CCRA review, you say your office is actively involved in the current public consultation part of the process. What would your office be doing in that public consultation?

Mr. Ron Stewart: As a matter of fact, my executive director is out in Winnipeg today doing a round table on the review of the CCRA. The minister has hosted several meetings with the stakeholders. We've been active in that respect.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So you have a representative from your office as one of the stakeholders?

Mr. Ron Stewart: That's right.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: You are discussing this among stakeholders. Do you consult with the public as well or the inmate community? Who do these people meet with?

Mr. Todd Sloan: Another one of my hats is the CCRA review. What has occurred is that, as part of the CCRA review, part III is up for review, which is our segment of the legislation. In addition to that, there are perspectives that our office has on the rest of the act that are useful.

As such, and in line with this attempt to be more interactive with the service, we have been involved in the preparation for the CCRA review from the outset, and we're taking part in the consultations not as stakeholders but as observers. We're part of the government agencies affected by the legislation.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: What other groups or organizations would be at the table?

Mr. Todd Sloan: Stakeholders?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes.

Mr. Todd Sloan: There's a whole range: policing organizations, probation, church groups, and inmates. Each of the consultations that are going on now, for example, has one day with the various stakeholders and another day where they are consulting with inmate committees at one or two of the institutions.

I should mention as well that aboriginal and women's representatives are prominent in the consultation because those are some of the issues that I think are going to be of greatest relevance.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. DeVillers. Mr. Forseth and then Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much. I direct you to your report “Office of the Correctional Investigator, Part III—Report on Plans and Priorities”. Page 13 has your key plans, priorities, and strategies, which are, for next year, “Improve management practices and operational strategies”. Well, that sounds nice, but that's something that's in all plans. It's almost like a throwaway item.

The next one says: “Increase awareness of the Office of the Correctional Investigator's existence, services and processes”. It means you're going to advertise a little bit and tell us what you do.

• 1635

Then the third one says: “Establish a more effective process, in cooperation with the Correctional Service of Canada, for resolving and disposing of systemic areas of concern”. Well, you've just told us what those systemic areas are: overcrowding and program availability. Both of those are something over which you have absolutely no responsibility and no authority to effect a change.

So we've got three items. The two first items are somewhat throwaway items, and the last item is one that you have absolutely no authority to change. It doesn't leave much at all for you to do according to your key plans, priorities, and strategies.

Now I'm not trying to trap you, because I thoroughly believe in your office and what you should be doing. I really think that if your office does an effective job, we're all better off. But I look at this and I have to put it to you from a critical point view for accountability. I read your key plans, priorities, and strategies. You outline the plans, one, two, three. You've got one that's basically a throwaway item and it's in every report. In number two, you're going to advertise a little bit about what you're going to do. In number three, which is supposed to be the substantive one, you have absolutely no responsibility or authority in any way so that you can even change it.

I would like for you to perhaps respond to that a bit and tell me how I'm full of hot air.

Mr. Ron Stewart: If you continue on in the final item, it says that we'll continue to participate in the task force and internal reviews on that. Again, our recommendations aren't binding, so it's a matter of persuasion with the Correctional Service in trying to get them to deal with some of these systemic problems. The only power that the ombudsman has is the power of persuasion. You're quite right that I don't have the ability to do these things on my own, but if we work together, I think we can be successful.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, all I can say is that in the way I read it, if we had a journalist who wanted to do a story on your office and wanted to be particularly negative, they would look at this page. You really leave yourself open for some severe criticism.

Now on the specific strategies, I see that you plan to participate with the Correctional Service of Canada's task forces in internal reviews. To my mind, that seems to be one of the most substantial ones that you could do, because I've seen these internal reviews keep repeating the same problems over and over again, yet Corrections Canada doesn't seem to learn by their mistakes. If you can be involved in that to improve their internal reviews, that would certainly be of help.

The last one says: “continue discussions towards our recommendation of the establishment of an administrative tribunal”. Now that sounds particularly interesting. Perhaps you could flesh out a little bit just what you really mean by that.

Mr. Todd Sloan: I have just perhaps a clarification. Mr. Stewart highlighted two of the issues that are examples of being systemic. I could give you probably 15 others in the space of the next ten minutes: health care, transfer questions, administrative segregation, obviously issues arising from the Arbour inquiry, the grievance and complaints procedure, inmate discipline, involuntary transfers, the effects of long-term segregation, mental health access and mental incompetence, suicide, reviews of the use of force, inmate injury and death, and so on. There are a great number of systemic or generic issues that we would hope to deal with in this context, not just the two you referred to.

With respect to the tribunal, as I was saying to the other member who asked, this is something that's in a relatively embryonic stage. It has been determined that contrary to what exists with other ombudsman, this is one option that should be considered.

• 1640

As for what it would consist of, there are many options. It could use an existing administrative tribunal infrastructure, such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Its members could be appointed in a way similar to that of the commission or other administrative tribunals. Its members could be appointed on either an ad hoc basis or a relatively permanent basis by the two parties involved, Correctional Service Canada and us, or on an ad hoc basis by the offenders who may be involved in a particular dispute.

As to how it would function, it's safe to say the idea is that it should function in such a way as not to detract from the basic role of an “ombuds” organization, or our own function, but to be used in relatively rare circumstances where, as I've said before, highly complex issues of fact and law have arisen.

We would prefer that the initial referral to an administrative tribunal would be by our office as an option to, in some cases, referring to the minister or to this committee. However, once a referral took place, obviously it would make more sense from a cost-effectiveness point of view if both the offenders involved and CSC could raise issues as well.

That's more or less along the lines of what we have in mind.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I guess my question focuses in on the issue of information exchange. At different levels in the justice food chain we've talked about whether information was being forwarded and received between various departments, whether it be the parole board or CSC and on down the line to front-line probation or parole officers, getting to—most importantly, in my opinion—those in the general public.

So that's a general question to you, Mr. Stewart—your satisfaction with information exchange from your office and the cooperation you receive from others you're in correspondence with.

Mr. Ron Stewart: We have no problem getting any information we want. In fact, there's a section in the act that says we're entitled to copies of whatever. You name it, we get a copy. The odd time there's a bit of balking and we don't get it because people don't understand we're entitled to it, but we've never had a serious problem with information exchange. Of course, our information is privileged, and it doesn't leave our office, but we—

Mr. Peter MacKay: To interrupt you for a second, does that include information from the courts, for example? Would it include transcripts, judges' comments, prosecutors' recommendations? Is that information you would ever be privy to?

Mr. Ron Stewart: No. I'm sorry if I was sounding too general on it, because I'm just talking about information that's in the possession of CSC and the parole board.

On occasion we've written to the judiciary to get copies of things, and usually we're able to acquire them, but we don't normally need that type of information. Normally all the information we need, Corrections has.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Have you ever encountered a problem where an inmate or a person in the system has tried to block, through your office, information being exchanged or released? I guess I'm thinking in particular about a transfer from one institution to another, where the inmate perhaps didn't want information that was compiled about him while he was in one institution being forwarded along with his documentation to a new institution. Has that ever cropped up?

Mr. Ron Stewart: Not to my knowledge, but it would be on his file anyway. It would go with him to the new institution. I don't think he could block it out.

Jim?

Mr. Jim Hayes: No, I'm not aware of that, and frankly, I've never heard of anything like that. It probably has happened from time to time, but the file is owned by CSC, and they are the proposing transfer authority. How he could block information, I would have no idea.

It may well be that he may have some privileged conversation with his own attorney or a lawyer for some other reason that possibly the service might be aware of, but if it was privileged, that probably could not be used in that type of process.

• 1645

Mr. Peter MacKay: Along those same lines, has there ever been an attempt by a person pending release to prevent or block information from being released? I know CSC has access to a great deal of information. Have you ever encountered a situation where an inmate is complaining about information about them being disseminated in the system, or to the public, I guess, more generally?

Mr. Ron Stewart: Not from CSC. I think we're all aware of the more front-page-type criminal histories reaching the neighbourhood before the inmate is paroled or released. As you know, police in some jurisdictions have posted the picture, and that type of thing. But in terms of information from CSC, no, we've never experienced that, to my knowledge.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So you've never been involved in investigating any type of complaint about the release of information.

Mr. Ron Stewart: No, we haven't.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thanks, Peter.

Thank you very much for your assistance here. We appreciate hearing from you.

We're adjourned.