Annual Report
O F T H E C O R R E C T I O N A L I N V E S T I G ATO R

2004-2005

2004-2005

Annual Report

Table of Contents
Correctional Investigator’s Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
The Three Pillars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Human Rights and Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Accountability of Front-line Staff and Senior Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Reintegration of Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Review of Key Areas of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Mental Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Women Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Aboriginal Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Inmate Grievances, Allegations of Harassment and Staff Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Case Preparation and Access to Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Population Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Security Classification of Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Ministerial Response to the Correctional Investigator’s Annual Report 2003-04 . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Annex A: Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Annex B: Ministerial Response to the CI Annual Report 2003-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Annex C: Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Response from the Correctional Service of Canada to the 32nd
Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Recommendation 1 a)
Recommendation 1 b)

WOMEN OFFENDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Recommendation 2

ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Recommendation 3 a)
Recommendation 3 b)

INMATE GRIEVANCES, ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT, AND STAFF MISCONDUCT . . . . . . . 58
Recommendation 4 a)
Recommendation 4 b)

CASE PREPARATION AND ACCESS TO PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Recommendation 5

POPULATION MANAGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Recommendation 6 a)
Recommendation 6 b)

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Offender Security Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Recommendation 7
Security Classification of Offenders Serving Life Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Recommendation 8

ANNEX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
ANNEX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004 - 2005

Annual Report

Correctional Investigator’s Introduction
It is my privilege to present the 2004-2005 annual report of the Office of the
Correctional Investigator of Canada.
This past year has been a difficult year for all who work in Corrections with the death under tragic
circumstances of Ms. Louise Pargeter, a Parole Officer who was killed in the line of duty in Yellowknife,
on October 6, 2004.This tragic event is a stark reminder of the difficult and sometimes dangerous
challenges faced by correctional authorities.

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

Again this year, the Correctional Service of Canada made significant progress in some key areas of
concern. For example:
• the Service is preparing to launch Canada’s first safe tattooing pilot project in six penitentiaries.
This will be a significant step to further curtail the spread of infectious diseases and will clearly
demonstrate a commitment by the Service to improve public health;
• the Service made some important gains in its level of compliance with “use of force” policy and
procedural requirements;
• the Service has expanded the use of agreements with Aboriginal communities for the custody
and supervision of Aboriginal offenders in the Prairie Region. Moreover, Aboriginal-specific
programming provided by the Service appears to be increasingly well received by Aboriginal
offenders;
• we noted measurable improvements in the timely processing at the institutional level of inmates’
claims against the Crown; and,
• this year marks the closure of the last co-located unit, where women offenders were detained
within otherwise male penitentiaries.

1
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

During this past year, I had an opportunity to visit many correctional institutions in diverse
communities across Canada and to engage with many correctional stakeholders. In my travels, it
became apparent to me that there are three pillars to ensuring that the federal correctional
system meets its two statutory objectives of safe and humane custody and supervision of
offenders, and assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their return to the community as
law-abiding citizens.The three pillars are:
1. the absolute necessity of fostering a strong culture of human rights within the
Correctional Service of Canada;
2. the need for correctional staff and senior managers to be accountable in their
administration of law and policy; and,
3. the requirement to assist offenders to ensure their timely safe reintegration into the
community.
This year’s Annual Report is structured differently from previous years. It is divided in two parts,
the first part dealing with the three pillars and the second with key areas of concern about the
treatment of federal offenders.
I begin with the three pillars because it is important for everyone that the correctional system
comply with the laws governing fair and effective treatment of inmates. Carrying out the law and
making fair decisions are key to increasing safety in penitentiaries for both staff and inmates.
Ultimately, by endorsing a human rights approach there is a greater likelihood that the correctional
system will release law-abiding citizens into society.

2
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

The Three Pillars

2004-2005

Annual Report

Human Rights and Corrections
Respecting and preserving fundamental human rights and freedoms should form the backbone of
any correctional endeavour.The regular duties and functions of all correctional staff – such as
initiating use of force, searches, placements in segregation and transfers to higher security –
significantly impede and intrude upon the rights of offenders.The Correctional Service of Canada
has great authority over every single aspect of the lives of offenders. For this reason, the actions of
the Correctional Service of Canada must comply with the rule of law and be consistent with
human rights protections afforded by law.
Human rights are universal legal guarantees protecting individuals and groups against actions that
interfere with fundamental human freedoms and dignity. Canada’s human rights obligations flow
from many international treaties, conventions and declarations1, and domestic statutes2 and
constitutional texts.3 Jointly, they form the bedrock upon which the Correctional Service’s operations
are based.Through respecting the human rights of offenders, we as a society convey a strong
message that everyone, regardless of their circumstance, race, social status, gender or religion, is to
be treated with inherent respect and dignity.

Human Rights
Respecting and preserving fundamental human rights and freedoms should form the backbone
of any correctional endeavour.
The human rights obligations of the Correctional Service of Canada can be summarized in four
key principles:
1. the safety of correctional staff, offenders and society at large is to be paramount;
2. offenders are to retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all members of
society, except those that are necessarily removed as a consequence of their sentence;
3. decisions affecting offenders are to be made in a fair and forthright manner consistent with
legislation and policy; and,
4. correctional authorities should apply the “least restrictive measures” in exercising their
responsibilities consistent with public safety.
1
For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the
Convention against Torture, and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
2

Among these are the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

3

An example is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

5
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Failure to comply with any of these four principles jeopardizes public safety because it hinders
rehabilitation of offenders. For example, offenders may attend very highly regarded and appropriate
rehabilitation programs aimed at reducing the risk of re-offending. However, if they live within an
environment inconsistent with fair and humane custody, gains made in treatment may erode or
dissipate completely. An environment respectful of human rights is conducive to positive change,
whereas an environment of abuse and disrespect has the opposite effect.
Canada’s domestic and international human rights framework was designed to ensure that the
correctional system:
1. promotes and monitors respect for human rights;
2. prevents human rights violations; and,
3. detects and remedies human rights violations.
When applied effectively, this framework can help prevent human rights breakdowns, detect
violations when they occur and rectify the situation to ensure that they do not happen again.
Compliance can only be achieved if correctional staff and senior management have a clear,
common understanding of human rights rules.

Accountability of Front-line Staff and Senior
Management
Accountability is fundamental to our democratic system of government. Accountability and transparency
in decision-making are fundamental features of a compliant and effective correctional system.
The Correctional Service of Canada must possess the means, strategies and methods for
evaluating its performance, and be able to demonstrate to Parliament and Canadians the efficacy
and fairness of its decisions.The corporate governance structure must be responsive and be
capable of preventing, detecting and rectifying violations of law and policy in a timely fashion.
Accountability in Corrections also means being responsive to the areas of concerns raised by
offenders. Mandated agencies, including the Service and this Office, must respond to the concerns
of offenders in an objective, timely and corrective fashion.
It is well understood that accountability and governance of a decentralized organization of the size
of the Correctional Service of Canada pose management challenges. Nevertheless, strong, central
leadership is required to ensure that front-line staff, mangers and senior managers understand their
respective responsibilities and remain fully accountable. Unions must also accept and promote the
dual roles – security and assistance – of the correctional mandate.

6
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Accountability
Accountability and transparency in decision-making are fundamental features of a compliant and
effective correctional system.
With the enactment of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, this past
year, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has a clear role and responsibility
to establish strategic priorities for her Portfolio agencies, which include the Correctional Service of
Canada.The Minister has the authority to initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement or promote
policies, programs or projects relating to public safety.
This Office was encouraged by the Ministerial response to the recommendations from last year’s
Annual Report and fully supports her role and commitment in ensuring the accountability of the
federal correctional system to Canadians and Parliament.

Reintegration of Offenders
The Correctional Service of Canada’s enabling statute, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
builds upon the belief that successful rehabilitation and safe reintegration of offenders depends
upon providing humane treatment and the least restrictive forms of custody and control, consistent
with public safety.The Act mandates that reasonable steps be taken to ensure that the living and
working conditions of offenders are healthful and free of practices that undermine personal dignity.
All of our international and domestic human rights instruments affirm that persons deprived of
their liberty have the right to be treated with fairness and have the right not to be subjected to
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.The best argument for observing human
rights standards is not merely that they are required by international or domestic law, but that they
actually work better than any known alternative – for offenders, for correctional staff and for
society at large. Compliance with human rights obligations improves, though does not guarantee,
the likelihood of releasing a more responsible citizen in a timely fashion.

Humane treatment
Successful rehabilitation and safe reintegration of offenders depends upon providing humane
treatment and the least restrictive forms of custody and control, consistent with public safety.

7
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Successful, safe and timely reintegration is more likely to occur when rehabilitation programs, based
on solid evidence, are provided early and throughout the sentence.These programs might target
such problems as anger management and anti-social attitudes. Other programs, such as
employment skills and education, must also be made available to offenders to better equip them
for their eventual return to the community.
It is equally important to provide psychological and psychiatric services to offenders who have
been identified as suffering from mental health problems such as schizophrenia and depression.
Neglecting these areas of concern will jeopardize public safety and further cast doubts upon the
ability of correctional and conditional release authorities to fulfill their mandates.
While some progress has been achieved during this past year, the Correctional Service of Canada
continues to have significant and persistent challenges in the three pillars outlined above.The Office
of the Correctional Investigator remains concerned about unresolved human rights issues,
accountability gaps and failures to maximize offenders’ chances of safe reintegration into the
community.
We continue to encounter instances in which the legal and policy framework governing federal
Corrections is not consistently applied, resulting in unnecessary restrictions on offenders’ rights.
Accountability monitoring systems remain weak in several areas.
Too often we are confronted with situations where the Service is defensive about accepting
responsibility for human rights compliance breakdowns and is unresponsive about rectifying the
situation promptly.There are recurring management accountability problems – commitments are
made and not followed through; action plans are developed and not implemented; and
recommendations of this Office are repeatedly rejected, while underlying systemic issues remain
unresolved.
There are a number of issues from previous years which remain under active review by the
Service.The level of institutional violence and inmate injuries have for a number of years been an
area of concern for both this Office and the Service. Last year, more than a thousand offenders
required medical attention as a result of assaults, fights or self-inflicted injuries. A further thousand
offenders suffered “accidental injuries.” There were as well some 800 reportable use of force
incidents in federal institutions last year with approximately 20 per cent involving the use of
chemical agents.These numbers are to say the least disconcerting.
The Service’s investigative process continues to be non-compliant with policy requirements related
to analyzing and reviewing investigations into incidents of offender death or serious bodily injury.
This remains a significant area of concern and will be vigorously pursued with the Service.

8
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Key Challenges
The Office of the Correctional Investigator remains concerned about unresolved human rights
issues, accountability gaps and failures to maximize offenders’ chances of safe reintegration into
the community.
On a positive note, the Service has taken initial steps to collect information on a quarterly basis on
inmate injuries and use of force incidents in an attempt to identify causes and areas where
corrective action can be taken. Moreover, the Service has established an effective review and
training process.This has resulted in both a reduction in the use of force incidents and a higher
level of compliance with existing policy and procedural requirements.
This Office’s mandate as an ombudsman for federal Corrections is to investigate and attempt to
resolve individual offender complaints. As well, it is responsible for reviewing and making
recommendations on correctional policies and procedures dealing with individual complaints.This is
to ensure that systemic areas of concern are identified and appropriately addressed.This
responsibility cannot be met unless the Correctional Service is consistently responsive in a thorough,
objective and timely manner. I look forward to working with the Commissioner during the next
year to ensure that our collective responsibilities in addressing these areas of concern are met.

9
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

Review of Key Areas of Concern

2004-2005

Annual Report

In this section, I will highlight key areas of concern and make recommendations to improve the
Service’s overall performance on issues related to human rights, accountability and safe
reintegration.There are other areas which remain ongoing concerns for this Office and which are
not featured in this Report, such as investigations involving major injuries or death, inmate finances
and tailored programming and services for younger and older offenders. I will endeavour to
continue working with the Service to achieve progress on these ongoing matters.

Mental Health Services
Over the years, this Office has been concerned with the increasing needs of one of the most
vulnerable groups of offenders – those suffering from mental illnesses. In our last Annual Report,
we included a special section highlighting our concerns. By and large, the section reflected our
support for the mental health strategy recently developed by the Correctional Service of Canada
and endorsed by its Executive Committee in July 2004.The Correctional Service’s strategy
acknowledges that the proportion of federal offenders with significant, identified mental health
needs has more than doubled over the past decade.The strategy was released at approximately
the same time as the study on health care needs of federal inmates was published in the April
2004 issue of Canadian Journal of Public Health (see www.cpha.ca).
This study indicated that inmates have consistently poorer physical and mental health as compared
to the general population, regardless of the indicator chosen.That includes such socio-economic
measures as level of education and unemployment; health behaviour, such as smoking and
substance abuse; chronic conditions, including diabetes and heart conditions; infectious diseases,
such as HIV and tuberculosis; mental heath disorders, including schizophrenia and mood disorders;
and mortality, such as homicide and suicide.
Unfortunately, mental health services offered by the Correctional Service to these offenders have
not kept up with the dramatic increase in numbers.The level of mental health services available is
now seriously deficient.This has been further highlighted by a recent review on mental health,
mental illness and addiction conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs,
Science and Technology, chaired by the Honourable Michael J.L. Kirby. In the Committee's interim
report4, the Committee concurred with the Correctional Service’s conclusions that:
• the Service must have a greater capacity to respond to the needs of offenders to gain access
to mental health services and addiction treatment;
• the Service’s five treatment centres are not resourced at levels comparable to provincial
forensic facilities;
4
The report is entitled Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction: Overview of Policies and Programs in Canada (November 2004). It can be
found at www.parl.gc.ca.

13
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

• psychologists are primarily engaged in risk assessment for conditional release decision-making as
opposed to treatment and rehabilitation; and,
• there is no specific training for front-line correctional staff on mental illness and addiction.
The need for enhancements to community support for offenders on release was also identified as
a priority to provide services throughout the course of the sentence and beyond.

Mental Health
The proportion of federal offenders with significant, identified mental health needs has more than
doubled over the past decade.
The Service’s strategy promotes the adoption of a continuum of care from initial intake through to
the safe release of offenders into the community.The strategy indicates that significant investments
are required in four major areas:
• comprehensive clinical intake assessment;
• specific requirements for enhancing the Service’s current Treatment Centres;
• intermediate mental health care units within existing institutions to provide on-going treatment
and assessment during the period of incarceration; and,
• community mental health services to support offenders on conditional release.
The Office was pleased that this past year the Executive Committee of the Correctional Service of
Canada fully endorsed the above four-point strategy, and that funding was secured for many
aspects of the community component of the strategy. Unfortunately, the Service has not secured
or identified funding for the other three key components of its strategy.
The Service has developed an action plan filled with desirable commitments and timelines, but we
anticipate little or no progress as the Service has admitted that it does not have a matching funding
plan to implement the front end of its strategy. We are encouraged that the Service is examining
its governance structure in the area of health and mental health care delivery to improve
accountability of both regional and national headquarters.To date, the Service has not injected
additional funds to support the implementation of the new structure.

14
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Again, we welcome the news of new investments in community mental health. Mentally disordered
offenders will be better served as they prepare for release and during their release into the
community. However, strengthening the back end of the Service’s mental health system provides
only a partial solution. Properly assessing the offender population at intake and ensuring that their
mental health needs are adequately addressed throughout their sentence is what should be done.
This would enhance public safety by maximizing safe reintegration into the community. And it
would fully capitalize on the community mental health component of the Service’s strategy.
Recommendation #1:
(a) I recommend that the Service secure and commit adequate funding for the
timely implementation of its entire mental health strategy.
(b) I recommend that the Service take immediate steps to sensitize and train all
front-line staff to appropriately identify disruptive mental health behaviour and
respond accordingly.

Women Offenders
Last year our Annual Report once again documented the failure of the Correctional Service of
Canada to implement key recommendations of Madame Justice Arbour’s 1996 Commission of
Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston. Over the years the Correctional
Service repeatedly claimed that it took “decisive action on all [of Justice Arbour’s] 87
recommendations/sub-recommendations, with few exceptions”. But subsequent significant inquiries,
commissions and reports5 for the most part have repeated many of Justice Arbour’s key 1996
recommendations.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission (http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca) concluded again in a Special
Report in 2003 that the Service had made some progress, but discriminatory practices were
present in many significant areas.These included security classification, risk and needs assessments,
responsive core programming, mental health services and reintegration policies for women
offenders in general – more acutely for women with disabilities and Aboriginal women.
The opening of new regional facilities has not resulted in the evolution of human rights and
effective correctional policies and practices anticipated in 1996.The Service continues to use
classification tools and procedures that have been identified as discriminating against, and overclassifying, women offenders.This is contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act.

5

The Service’s Working Group on Human Rights, 1997; the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, 2000;
the Cross-Gender Monitoring Project, 2000; the Auditor General, 2003; the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, 2003; and, the
Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2003.

15
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

A security classification process appropriate to women offenders has yet to be finalized.Yet it was
initially identified as problematic by the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women in 1990 and
further commented on by Justice Arbour in 1996.

Women offenders
Systemic barriers and limited opportunities persist for Aboriginal women offenders to reintegrate
in a timely fashion into their home communities.
The Service is failing in its obligation to promptly implement less restrictive alternatives to longterm segregation cases. It has not implemented independent adjudication of administrative
segregation decisions to ensure legal compliance and fairness as recommended by Justice Arbour
and the 2003 report from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).
There remain significant barriers to the safe reintegration of women offenders, such as the overall
lack of access to programming specifically designed to meet the needs of women. As well, there is
not enough meaningful employment and employability programming, and inadequate
accommodation and support for women offenders upon their release into the community.
Access to programs in secure units remains problematic. Only one true minimum-security
institution exists and it is under-utilized. Systemic barriers and limited opportunities persist for
Aboriginal women offenders to reintegrate in a timely fashion into their home communities as
evidenced by the disproportionate number of Aboriginal offenders on statutory release.
Appropriate and timely resolutions of harassment grievances have yet to become a reality. Limited
training in women-centred approaches for front-line staff has further hindered progress despite
previous commitments.
Finally, the Service’s governance structure remains inconsistent with that recommended by Justice
Arbour to ensure the development of an effective “separate stream” for women’s Corrections.
The Service’s response to the CHRC report was released in February 2005. While providing a
detailed bureaucratic action plan to the Commission’s report, it has skirted in large part the
substance and intent of the recommendations.This Office’s comments on the Service’s action plans
forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for Women in March of 2005 can be found on our
website (www.oci-bec.gc.ca).
The Minister indicated in response to the recommendations of my previous Annual Report that
she was advised by the Commissioner that the Service is preparing a 10-year public status report
on women’s Corrections, which will provide a detailed response to all of the recommendations in
the Arbour Report as well as other relevant reports.

16
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Recommendation #2:
I recommend that in May of 2006 the Minister appoint an Expert Committee to
publicly report on the progress detailed in the Service’s response on the
advancement of human rights, fairness and equity issues since Madame Justice
Arbour’s report of 1996 – the Committee’s report to be provided to the Minister
by October 2006.

Aboriginal Offenders
The treatment of Aboriginal offenders has been a grave concern for this Office for a very long
time. In fact, in the very first Annual Report 1973-74 of this Office, the then Correctional
Investigator, Inger Hansen, reported instances of systemic discrimination against federally-sentenced
Native offenders. Over the past decade, our Annual Reports have made specific recommendations
focused on addressing the systemic and discriminatory barriers that prevent Aboriginal offenders
from full benefit of their statutory and constitutional rights and that significantly limit their timely
and safe reintegration into the community.
Despite some positive steps, it is our view that the overall situation of Aboriginal offenders has not
measurably improved in recent years. Aboriginals account for a disproportionately high share of the
prison population.They represent a staggering 18 per cent of the federal prison population
although they amount to just 3 per cent of the general Canadian population.

Aboriginal offenders
Despite some positive steps, it is our view that the overall situation of Aboriginal offenders has
not measurably improved in recent years.
The Service does not have control over admissions into its penitentiaries. But it has a statutory and
constitutional obligation to do what it possibly can to attend to the rights and unique cultural needs
of Aboriginal offenders and to effectively assist Aboriginal offenders to reintegrate into the community.
The Service has many mechanisms at its disposal to improve the situation and circumstances of
Aboriginal offenders.The Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides a powerful and effective
framework to mitigate against systemic discrimination during federal custody and community
reintegration.The Service also continues to benefit from many years of government-wide
commitments and financial investments to improve the overall situation of Aboriginal People in
Canada.These commitments and investments have translated into some successful programming
initiatives, but the overall impact has been sadly limited.

17
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

The Service’s own statistics confirm our belief that the situation of Aboriginal offenders is not
improving in many areas that the Service can positively influence. Aboriginal offenders are released
much later in their sentence than non-Aboriginals, and tend to waive their rights to parole hearings
at a much higher frequency than non-Aboriginal offenders.
Compared to non-Aboriginals, Aboriginal offenders do not benefit equally from earlier forms of
discretionary conditional releases, such as temporary absences, work releases and parole. Compared
to non-Aboriginals, a disproportionate number of Aboriginal offenders continue to exit federal
penitentiaries on statutory releases. In this regard, the situation for Aboriginal offenders has
deteriorated in the last five years as more and more are now released at their statutory release date.
Aboriginal offenders are also more likely to have their conditional release revoked than nonAboriginals – the higher rate of revocation without new offences is especially worrisome.
Aboriginals are under-represented in minimum security institutions and measurably more likely to
be identified as having a low reintegration potential and being high-needs offenders.They are also
significantly over-represented in administrative and disciplinary segregation.
The Service may claim that these developments are the direct result of the changing offender
profile. However, an equally valid conclusion is that this state of affairs flows from the continued use
of culturally-insensitive decision-making and a lack of national focus.
The Service has invested a great deal of effort and resources to address Aboriginal issues.
However, these efforts and resources have not resulted in the kind of significant progress needed
to improve the overall situation of Aboriginal offenders.
After years of changes in leadership within the Service, task force reports, studies, national
strategies, partnership agreements and action plans, the efforts and resources remain in large part
unfocused, fragmented and ineffective.The Service has failed to establish a representative
workforce at all levels of the organization and it has provided limited career opportunities for
Aboriginal staff.This has hindered progress in attracting and retaining Aboriginal employees.
The Service recently issued a further updated draft strategic document, entitled Strategic Plan for
Aboriginal Corrections (2005/06-2009/10), aimed at improving its performance on the management
of Aboriginal issues.This latest draft document is superior in overall quality and focus to previous
incarnations. However, the organization has failed to appoint a specific Deputy Commissioner
responsible for Aboriginal issues to ensure the implementation of the strategic plan. For that
reason, we are not optimistic that this plan will succeed in improving human rights compliance and
timely, safe reintegration of Aboriginal offenders.
This plan could yield some much-needed progress if there is a significant change in the Service’s
governance and leadership structure, paired with a commitment to independent review of policies
and evaluation of actuarial tools. Moreover, this is an area where we believe that strong Ministerial
leadership and accountability, consistent with the overall government direction in the area of
Aboriginal justice policies, is required to move this challenging agenda forward.

18
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Recommendation #3:
(a) I recommend that the Service modify its governance structure and immediately
appoint a Deputy Commissioner for Aboriginal Offenders with the authority to
implement the Service’s Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections.
(b) I recommend that the Service publicly release quarterly reports on the
implementation of its Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections, along with the
quarterly performance reports on Aboriginal issues currently being developed
by the Service.

Inmate Grievances, Allegations of Harassment
and Staff Misconduct
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act requires the Service to establish “a procedure for fairly
and expeditiously resolving offenders’ grievances”. And it states that offenders must “have complete
access to the offender grievance procedure without negative consequences.”
With more than three decades of experience trying to create an effective system, it would be
reasonable to expect that the Service would have already met these mandatory requirements.
One could also expect that the Service would be highly skilled at relying on grievance statistics and
other initiatives, such as alternative dispute resolution programs, to reasonably and fairly address
offender complaints at the institutional level.
Unfortunately, over the years the Service has had a dismal overall performance in these areas. Its
grievance policy is overly bureaucratic resulting in continuing unacceptable delays in response to
offender grievances.The system has been ineffective in dealing with the chronic backlog of cases.
There is a lack of commitment by senior management to the grievance process and as a result, the
process is dysfunctional in terms of “expeditiously resolving offender grievances,” most notably at
the national level.This situation continues to have an impact on the operations of this Office as
increasingly more offenders now turn to us to resolve their concerns.

Inmate grievance process
The process is dysfunctional in terms of “expeditiously resolving offender grievances,” most
notably at the national level.

19
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Grievance data collection has improved in recent years, but there is little evidence that senior
management uses the information to implement strategies to prevent future complaints or
systematically address areas of concern.This is, in our view, one of the best long-term solutions to
ensure a consistent application of policies and procedures related to areas of complaint. We are
also aware that many Service policy sectors at the national level are unaware of the nature of the
complaints and grievances that are resolved at the institutional or regional levels within their areas
of responsibility.
The Service appears to be tentatively pursuing promising alternative dispute resolution initiatives,
such as appointments of institutional mediators or the introduction of increased outside review of
offender complaints. Such initiatives have the potential of alleviating the organization’s grievancerelated workload issues while diminishing tensions and reasonably addressing disputes in
penitentiaries. However, these initiatives appear to be without senior management commitment.
The Service’s lack of long-term vision in this area is regrettable.
The Service introduced a new procedure two years ago to reasonably address harassment
grievances.This was seven years after Justice Arbour recommended the immediate development
and introduction of a responsive policy.The issues pertaining to harassment grievances have been
repeatedly raised as a key priority in our past Annual Reports and the most recent 2003 report
from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
More than two years after introducing this new procedure, the Service released in March 2005 a
report entitled Assessment of Monitoring Systems for Offender Harassment Grievances.The report
candidly admitted that “…there remain significant gaps in compliance with policy and procedures.
Key is a lack of understanding of what constitutes harassment.This translates into
non-compliance with the harassment grievance management process.” The report makes several
positive recommendations, but a reasonable and committed action plan has yet to be developed
and endorsed by the Service’s senior management. It is as well noted that the Service does not
have accurate statistics on the total numbers of harassment grievances, outcomes or resolution rates.
While the Service would appear to have finally developed a reasonable harassment policy, we remain
extremely concerned that so little progress has been made in ensuring compliance with the policy
provisions in such a key priority area, given the recommendations of Justice Arbour almost a decade ago.
Recommendation #4:
(a) I recommend that the Service take immediate steps to overhaul its operations
and policies in the area of inmate grievances to ensure fair and expeditious
resolution of offenders’ complaints and grievances.The review should include a
specific focus on addressing harassment and staff misconduct grievances.
(b) I recommend that an external consultant be retained to assist the Service’s
review of its operations and policy to ensure fair and expeditious resolution of
offenders’ complaints and grievances, and to improve its use of evidence-based
strategies to ensure consistency in addressing areas of offender concern.

20
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Case Preparation and Access to Programs
This Office initially raised the issue of delayed case preparation and access to programs in its
1988/89 Annual Report.The focus at that time was on the increasing inability of the Service to
prepare the cases of offenders in a thorough and timely fashion for conditional release
consideration. It was evident from our review of the complaints received at the time that a
significant number of these delays were directly related to the Service being unable to provide the
required assessments and treatment programming in advance of the offender’s scheduled parole
hearing dates. Seventeen years later, these issues have yet to be adequately addressed.
The timely provision of inmate programming continues to be a problem.There is overcrowding at
the medium and maximum security levels while there are significant vacancies at the minimum
security levels. Last year, on average minimum security institutions operated at 35 per cent below
capacity. Delays in the preparation of cases for conditional release consideration remain
unreasonably high. Work release and unescorted temporary absence programming, particularly at
the medium security level, continue to decline. It is important to note that again Aboriginal
offenders are particularly negatively affected by these practices.
The Office's previous recommendations in an attempt to begin addressing this issue have called for
a review in the following areas:
•

current program capacity, the extent of waiting lists and the introduction of measures
required to address deficiencies;

•

the specific reasons for the high number of waivers, postponements and adjournments
of National Parole Board hearings;

•

the causes for the dramatic decline in unescorted temporary absence and work release
programming; and,

•

the factors having an impact on the continuing disadvantaged position of Aboriginal
offenders in terms of timely conditional release.

In an attempt to address some of our recommendations, a joint working group involving the
Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board and the Office of the Correctional
Investigator was established and in December 2004 issued a document entitled Report on Factors
Causing Delays in National Parole Board Reviews.The report of this Joint Review provided concrete
recommendations to facilitate timely Parole Board reviews. It also recommended ensuring that
offenders appearing before the Board have received the assistance and programs they need for
their eventual safe community reintegration.The issues raised in this report continue to be a
significant concern for all of the organizations involved.

21
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Recommendation #5:
I recommend that the Service immediately develop a responsive action plan to
implement the recommendations of the Correctional Service of Canada/National
Parole Board/Office of the Correctional Investigator Joint Review Report on
Factors Causing Delays in NPB Reviews in collaboration with the Parole Board and
the Office.The action plan should include a strong audit and evaluation component.

Population Management
After years of calls for fundamental reforms, the Service continues to place offenders in
administrative segregation and other more restrictive environments as its main tool for resolving
disputes and tensions in penitentiaries. Over the last fiscal year, the Service made yet again a
staggering 7,200 placements in administrative segregation. On any given day, there were, on
average, approximately 800 offenders in segregation during this past year.This number is excessively
high when one considers that a few years ago the Service introduced a number of other restrictive
environments, such as transitional units, to assist in reducing the segregated offender population. In
these instances, offenders have limited access to programs and services and limited ability to
associate with other inmates.

Segregation
After years of calls for fundamental reforms, the Service continues to place offenders in administrative
segregation and other more restrictive environments as its main tool for resolving disputes and
tensions in penitentiaries.
In recent years, this Office has witnessed a “widening of the net” of restrictive correctional
environments. Long-term administrative segregation persists – on any given day during this past
year, over 40 per cent of segregated offenders spent over 60 days in administrative segregation. At
the same time, the Service has dramatically expanded the number of placements in other
restrictive environments, without providing adequate procedural safeguards and access to programs
and services. For example, it has opened several “transitional units”, which allow somewhat more
interactions between offenders and limited access to programs compared to segregation units.
Unfortunately, the Service does not keep any statistics on the number of offenders housed in these
“transitional units” or on their average length of stay.
In her 1996 report, Madame Justice Arbour concluded that “the management of administrative
segregation that I have observed is inconsistent with the Charter culture which permeates other
branches of the administration of the criminal justice.” She went on to say: “I see no alternative to
the current overuse of prolonged segregation but to recommend that it be placed under the

22
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

control and supervision of the courts. Failing a willingness to put segregation under judicial
supervision, I would recommend that segregation decisions made at an institutional level be subject
to confirmation within five days by an independent adjudicator.” In response to these findings and
recommendations, the Service appointed a Task Force to assess whether the situation in men’s
penitentiaries was similar to the one observed by Justice Arbour at the Prison for Women.
The Task Force on Administrative Segregation concluded in its final report in March 1997 that
there was “…sufficient evidence of a casual attitude towards the demands of the law by CSC staff
members and managers to justify Madame Justice Arbour’s assertion that CSC has a culture that
does not respect the ‘Rule of Law’.” The Task Force went on to recommend rigorous
enhancements to the administrative segregation process and experimenting with models of
independent adjudication as proposed by Justice Arbour.
The Task Force also recommended the introduction of “transitional units” as temporary measures
to bridge segregated offenders into the general inmate population. Unfortunately, many offenders
now serve a significant part of their penitentiary sentence in these “transitional units” without
benefiting from a pro-active reintegration strategy and formal regular reviews as legally afforded to
offenders in administrative segregation. Contrary to their initial objective, “transitional units” are
rapidly becoming permanent living quarters for many offenders.
The Service never assessed the model of independent adjudication as recommended by the
Arbour Report, but instead piloted and evaluated an alternative model.The evaluation of this
model conducted by the Service instead assessed the benefit of adding an external community
member to existing Segregation Review Boards.The evaluation was also deficient as few cases
were reviewed and the duration of the pilot project was insufficient to adequately assess the
benefit of the expanded external membership of these review boards. Nonetheless, the evaluation
did in fact conclude that procedural fairness was improved.The fact that the outcome of the
decision was unaffected is not in our view relevant – fairness is a key principle of administrative law
and a failure to provide due process is subject to judicial review.
In the end, the Service rejected independent adjudication and continues to this day to argue that
an enhanced internal segregation review process can achieve fairness and compliance with the rule
of law. Recent changes proposed by the Service, such as reviews by Regional Review Boards at the
120-day mark instead of 60-day mark, also fail to demonstrate a strong commitment to fairness
and the timely implementation of less restrictive alternatives. Since the Arbour Report of 1996,
several other internal and external reports6 have all observed similar fairness and non-compliance
issues as highlighted in the Arbour Report.They have also made similar recommendations for the
independent adjudication of segregation cases.

6

Among these are the CSC Working Group on Human Rights, chaired by Maxwell Yalden in 1997; the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2000; the Cross-Gender Monitoring Report in 2000; Justice Behind the Wall, by Michael Jackson
in 2002; and, the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2003.

23
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

In 2004, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada undertook its own
evaluation and found that the Service’s repeated attempts to achieve compliance with the rule of
law and fair decision-making through operational enhancements to administrative segregation
processes did not yield sufficient, sustained or desired results.The Department recommended to
the Service’s Executive Committee that it implement and test models of independent adjudication,
but again this recommendation was rejected by the organization.
The Task Force on Administrative Segregation contained a set of key recommendations that were
never addressed by the Service.These 1997 recommendations are even more relevant today after
the Service has expanded its reliance on more restrictive population management.The Task Force
observed that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act only refers to two types of incarceration:
those inmates in the general inmate population and segregated inmates.The law stipulates precisely
the rights and entitlements of each of those two populations, and describes rigorous procedural
fairness for placements in administrative segregation. For example, this includes notices, reviews,
hearings, regular visits by heads of institutions and health care.
Over the years, the Service introduced a multitude of different offender sub-populations that fall
in-between those two defined populations. Unfortunately, the law is silent on the rights and
entitlements of these offenders, and what degree of procedural fairness is required for each
sub-population.
The Task Force recommended that this legislative omission be addressed to provide a statutory
framework for the Service to create and manage sub-populations in accordance with due process.
It was further recommended that, pending enactment of this legislation, the segregation review
process under the Act should be used for any offender confined in any situation that is not
considered to be within the general inmate population.This would allow inmates separated against
their will from the general prison population to seek a decision with respect to:
• the grounds of their involuntary presence in any condition of separation from the general inmate
population, including segregation;
• the measures which should be taken to permit release as soon as possible; and,
• the rights, privileges and conditions of confinement which they should be given.
The Service did not follow up on these important Task Force recommendations. It still has no clear
national policy on the rights and entitlements of offenders incarcerated in various forms of
restrictive settings, and what degree of procedural fairness is required for each of these offender
sub-populations.
Recommendation #6:
(a) I recommend that the Service immediately adopt the independent adjudication
model for administrative segregation proposed by the Department of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

24
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

(b) I further recommend that the Service conduct a comprehensive review on the
rights, entitlements, access to programs, level of association and applicable
procedural safeguards for all of its sub-populations that are not considered to be
the general inmate population or administrative segregation.The review should
be completed by March 31, 2006, and specific recommendations should be made
to ensure legal compliance with due process/fairness requirements and the
application of less restrictive alternatives.

Security Classification of Offenders
Offender Security Classification
Good decisions about security classification of offenders are essential to ensure public safety and
safe reintegration of offenders.Those decisions are at the core of the Service’s accountability to
the public. Assigning a security classification that is too low may jeopardize public safety. On the
other hand, over-classifying offenders hinders safe reintegration; violates the law which requires that
the offender population be managed using the “least restrictive measures consistent with the
protection of the public”; and unnecessarily diverts resources away from more productive
rehabilitative programs and services.
Over the years, this Office and others have become increasingly concerned about overclassification of offenders and the discriminatory use of the Service’s actuarial risk assessment tools.
Actuarial risk assessment tools are psychological scales that measure risk such as recidivism,
institutional adjustment or escape.
In May 2003, the Auditor General of Canada raised questions about the Service’s initial
classification scale for women offenders, including its validity and reliability.This followed concerns
expressed in 1996 by Justice Arbour.The December 2003 report of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission concluded that the tools used by the Service for intake risk and needs assessment,
initial security classification and reviews of classification were “…blunt instruments that tend to lead
to unjustifiable differential treatment”. It added that: “In absence of adequate testing and
modification, these instruments should not be used on women or Aboriginal offenders.”
In July 2004, Professor Cheryl Webster, University of Ottawa, and Professor Tony Doob, University
of Toronto, published an article in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice in
which they reviewed the Service’s data used to validate its initial security classification scale. After a
careful examination, they concluded “…the scale is remarkably wanting in terms of both its
predictive validity and the equity of its outcomes with respect to women generally, and Aboriginal
women in particular”.They also stated that “many women offenders are presently being assigned
to more restrictive custody levels without any empirical justification”.

25
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

In December 2004, the Corrections Research Branch of the Department of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness conducted its own review of the Service’s data.The internal report
confirmed the findings of Webster and Doob. Its authors concluded that “although there is some
evidence for its application with men, this evidence is not overly convincing. With female offenders
the evidence is much less convincing and opens the potential for systemic bias. In our opinion,
continued research on the scale with women is likely to produce only minor improvements that
may be insufficient to justify the use of the Custody Rating Scale for such a serious task as security
placement.”
The Service developed an action plan in response to the findings on the discriminatory nature of
its actuarial tools and their questionable validity. Unfortunately, the action plan only partly responds
to the many concerns raised.The Service has not relied on a women-centred perspective or
theoretical framework in the re-development of its existing tools, and has not drawn on
recognized, specialized experts on women-centred analyses.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that the Service introduce a new
unbiased initial security classification scale by December 2004, but the Service only expects to fully
implement the new tool by fiscal year 2009/10.This means that the Service will address this critical
recommendation more than six years after the Canadian Human Rights Commission found that
women and Aboriginal offenders were subject to systemic discrimination.This is clearly not a timely
response to such an important issue.
Recommendation #7:
I recommend that the Service, with the assistance of outside experts in womencentred and Aboriginal approaches, implement a responsive immediate, mediumand long-term strategy to ensure that the observed systemic discrimination of
women and Aboriginal offenders in terms of security classification and timely
conditional release cease.

Classification of Offenders Serving Life Sentences
In response to public pressures, the Service issued Policy Bulletin No. 107 on February 23, 2001.
It requires that federally sentenced offenders serving a minimum life sentence for first- or seconddegree murder be classified as maximum security for at least the first two years of federal incarceration.
The negative impact of this policy was immediate.The Service’s own Research Report R-160 states
that “before the policy change, roughly four-out-of-five admissions serving minimum-life sentences
for murder were being initially OSL (Offender Security Level) placed in medium-security”.The
report indicates that the new policy had the following effect: “With few exceptions, all minimum-life
sentenced admissions for first- or second-degree murder are being classified as maximum-security
for at least the first two years of their federal incarceration.” This sudden unnecessary, detrimental,
expensive and illegal over-classification of these offenders has also had a disproportionately
negative impact on Aboriginal offenders.

26
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

In our Annual Report 2001/02, we stated that the Service's policy was contrary to law,
unreasonable and improperly discriminatory to offender groups such as women, the elderly and
youth. We recommended that the policy be immediately rescinded.
In our Annual Report 2002/03, we again stated that the policy was contrary to law and
counterproductive.To ensure the placement in maximum-security institutions, the policy arbitrarily
applies a high point value to the Custody Rating Scale evaluation of incoming offenders serving life
sentences. We further indicated that this is contrary to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
which requires that each offender be placed at a level of security according to a wide range of
criteria.
In our latest Annual Report 2003/04, we yet again said that the policy is contrary to the Act and
has exacerbated problems of overcrowding and conflict within penitentiaries.This Office
encountered numerous examples where inmates who were clearly unsuitable for maximum
security placement have either been refused relief or have encountered excessive delays in
achieving reasonable reconsideration of their placement. Our latest Report again concluded that
the policy remains contrary to law. It continues to produce the population management problems
that arise from unnecessary placement of some inmates in higher security settings than their
circumstances require.
In its special 2003 report, the Canadian Human Rights Commission concluded that “adding a
retributive element to the carrying out of the sentence is not rationally related to the legitimate
purpose of assessing risk. It is in fact contrary to the intent of both the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.” The Commission recommended
that the Service immediately revoke its two-year policy. Numerous other stakeholders, including
the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the St. Leonard’s Society of Canada, the
Canadian Bar Association and the Church Council on Justice and Corrections have expressed
concern about this policy.
Recommendation #8:
For a fourth consecutive year, I recommend that the Service immediately repeal its
illegal policy which requires that federally-sentenced offenders serving a minimum
life sentence for first- or second-degree murder be classified as maximum security
for at least the first two years of federal incarceration. Failing a positive response
from the Service, I continue to look to the Minister’s leadership to ensure that this
illegal policy is rescinded as soon as possible.

27
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Ministerial Response to the Correctional
Investigator’s Annual Report 2003-04
Last year, my Annual Report included four recommendations that were directed to the Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.The following four recommendations represented
issues of long-standing concern with significant implications to the offender population. I
recommended that:
1. the Minister appoint a Deputy Commissioner Aboriginals specifically responsible for Aboriginal
programming and liaison with Aboriginal communities, as a permanent voting member of all
existing Senior Management Committees, to ensure an Aboriginal perspective and presence in
Service decision-making; and, that the Minister initiate an external evaluation of the Service’s
policies, procedures and evaluation tools to ensure that existing discriminatory barriers to the
timely reintegration of Aboriginal offenders are identified and addressed.This review should be
undertaken independent of the Service, with the full support and involvement of Aboriginal
organizations, and report by March 31, 2005;
2. the Minister mandate the early publication of a "final response plan" on Madame Justice Arbour's
recommendations, followed by a consultation process involving all interested stakeholders;
3. if the Service does not repeal its policy concerning the security classification of offenders serving
life sentences, that the Minister initiate an immediate review on both the legality of the policy
and its impact on individual offenders over the preceding three years; and,
4. if the Service fails to introduce, before March 31, 2005, a safe needle exchange program based
on thorough consultation with medical and security experts, offenders, Service staff and
concerned community organizations, that the Minister direct the introduction of such a program.
I was pleased that the Minister responded in a positive and constructive manner to the above
recommendations.The Minister’s response is reproduced in Annex B.
On the issue of Aboriginal Corrections, the Minister has asked the Commissioner to further
explore the feasibility of appointing a Deputy Commissioner for Aboriginal Offenders. It is our
strong belief that this governance change is required to move the Aboriginal agenda forward, and
this is why we have recommended again in this year’s Annual Report the appointment of a Deputy
Commissioner for Aboriginal Offenders.
As well, the Service will conduct a review of Aboriginal policies, procedures and evaluation tools to
ensure that they are both culturally sensitive and do not present barriers to the safe and timely
reintegration of Aboriginal offenders. Although this is an internal review, it is a first step in
identifying discriminatory barriers to effective conditional release.

28
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

As for the final response plan to the 1996 Commission of Inquiry at the Prison for Women, we are
encouraged that the Commissioner has undertaken to provide a detailed public response to all of
the recommendations made by Madame Justice Arbour as indicated in a previous section of this
Report. Women’s Corrections over the past decade has been the focus of a number of significant
reports and recommendations. A detailed comprehensive public account of the actions taken in
response to these reports is long over due.
The Service has proposed a number of amendments to the policy requiring offenders sentenced
to life to serve the initial two years of their sentence in maximum security institutions. But, it
remains in our opinion illegal. We continue to look to the Minister’s leadership to ensure that this
policy is rescinded as soon as possible.
Finally, the Minister has indicated openness to explore the viability of introducing a needle
exchange program in Canadian penitentiaries. Such a program has the support of the public health
field.The leadership role undertaken by the Canadian Public Health Agency in advancing safe
needle exchange programs is a positive step in moving this issue forward. We are also encouraged
by the Service’s willingness to learn from other jurisdictions where such initiatives have been
successfully implemented.

Conclusion
This year’s Report is significantly different than the previous Annual Reports issued by this Office. It
was important for me to highlight the three key pillars which must guide the actions of both the
Service and my Office: a strong commitment to human rights compliance, accountability and safe
community reintegration.This Office plays a critical role by making recommendations to assist the
Service to improve all of these key areas, and we strongly believe that the net benefit of
implementing our recommendations will ultimately improve the public safety of Canadians.

Priority recommendations
We consider that the implementation of these priority recommendations would go a long way
to improving the Service’s overall performance in achieving our common goals.
Readers familiar with our past Annual Reports will also notice that this year we limited the number
of our recommendations to eight. We consider that the implementation of these priority
recommendations would go a long way to improving the Service’s overall performance in achieving
our common goals.

29
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

We are encouraged by the progress that the Service has made in some areas of concern. We are
committed to continue to foster a professional working relationship and open dialogue with our
Service colleagues. We anticipate this will contribute to progress in resolving key areas of offender
concern.
Over the course of the next year, my Office will significantly increase its citizen engagement and
information sharing activities.The Government of Canada and its criminal justice institutions
continue to be confronted with increasing public pressure demanding tougher measures, longer
sentences and more stringent conditions of custody and confinement. Sensational media reporting
of incidents involving isolated and horrifying acts of violence contributes to distorted perceptions,
and pushes the system toward adopting unproductive measures in response. Longer and tougher
sentences and harsher conditions of confinement are promoted as magical solutions to prevent
and/or deter criminal behaviour and reduce re-offending. In contrast to such perceptions, it is well
documented that social and rehabilitative initiatives are far better – and less expensive – in
achieving the goals of prevention and deterrence of crime and re-integrating offenders into society.
We would like to convey our strong support for the new Protocol on the Convention against Torture.
We encourage the Canadian Government to yet again demonstrate its leadership on the
international scene by signing and ratifying this important human rights instrument. Moving quickly
on ratification would add to Canada’s long historical tradition of promoting and defending human
rights and democratic values here and abroad.
Finally, I will take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge and thank my staff for their dedication
and professionalism in managing what, at times, is an overwhelming workload.Their commitment to
fairness in addressing offender concerns is the cornerstone to maintaining an accessible and
independent avenue of redress for inmates.Their contribution is invaluable.

30
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

Annex A: Statistics

2004-2005
TABLE A: CONTACTS
CATEGORY

(1)

Annual Report

BY CATEGORY
CASE TYPE
I/R (2)

INV

Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Placement/Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15
88
103

81
284
365

96
372
468

Case Preparation
Conditional Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Post Suspension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temporary Absence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56
25
11
33
125

131
18
27
47
223

187
43
38
80
348

Cell Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Claims Against the Crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

198
36

369
57

567
93

12
16
28

19
24
43

31
40
71

Community Programs/Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conditions of Confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Death or Serious Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decisions (General) - Implementation . . . . . . . . . .

2
110
30
8
12

6
220
52
5
24

8
330
82
13
36

Medical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Religious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9
11
20

25
21
46

34
32
66

Discipline
Major Court Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Minor Court Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Minor Court Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10
6
14
30

15
7
21
43

25
13
35
73

Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4
37

12
67

16
104

File Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Access - Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66
123
189

87
75
162

153
198
351

(3)

TOTAL

Administrative Segregation

Diet

33
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

TABLE A: (Cont’d)
CONTACTS (1) BY CATEGORY
CATEGORY

CASE TYPE
I/R (2)

INV

(3)

TOTAL

Financial Matters
Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37
61
98

80
83
163

117
144
261

Food Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grievance Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Health and Safety - Worksite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ion Scan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24
113
5
3

56
265
13
5

80
378
18
8

Health Care
Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87
86
173

498
220
718

585
306
891

Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7
0
7

32
5
37

39
5
44

Methadone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Official Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operation/Decisions of the OCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Penitentiary Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
9
50
41

61
11
20
48

78
20
70
49

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quality/Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55
7
62

150
8
158

205
15
220

Release Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Request for Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Safety/Security of Offender(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Search and Seizure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Security Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sentence Administration-- Calculation . . . . . . . . . .
Staff Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temporary Absence Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30
72
70
35
69
21
183
63
34

55
--145
41
114
37
246
148
87

85
72
215
76
183
58
429
211
121

34
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

TABLE A: (Cont’d)
CONTACTS (1) BY CATEGORY
CASE TYPE

CATEGORY
I/R (2)

INV

Decision—Denials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Involuntary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86
76
47
209

187
141
116
344

273
217
163
653

Urinalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Use of Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14
13

12
51

26
64

101
43
144

213
110
323

314
153
467

Parole Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223

---

223

Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

---

70

2,784

4,952

7,696

(3)

TOTAL

Transfer

Visits
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Private Family Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Outside Terms of Reference

GRAND TOTAL
(1) See Glossary
(2) I/R: Immediate Response - see Glossary
(3) INV: Investigation - see Glossary

35
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

GLOSSARY
Contact:

Any transaction regarding an issue between the OCI and an offender
or a party acting on behalf of an offender. Contacts may be made by
telephone, facsimile, letter, and during interviews held by the OCI's
investigative staff at federal correctional facilities.

Immediate Response: A contact where the information or assistance sought by the offender
can generally be provided immediately by the OCI's investigative staff.
Investigation:

A contact where an inquiry is made to the Correctional Service and/or
documentation is reviewed/analyzed by the OCI's investigative staff
before the information or assistance sought by the offender is provided.
Investigations vary considerably in terms of their scope, complexity,
duration and resources required. While some issues may be addressed
relatively quickly, others require a comprehensive review of
documentation, numerous interviews and extensive correspondence
with the various levels of management at the Correctional Service of
Canada prior to being finalized.

36
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

TABLE B: CONTACTS BY INSTITUTION
Region/Institution
# of
contacts

# of
interviews

# of days
spent in
institution

79
77
93
--90
9
58
23
6
435

24
19
14
--10
7
22
9
--105

7
4
4
--4
2
5
2
--28

223
231
28
104
18
604

63
61
7
40
5
176

12
10
2
7
2
31

117
35
125
183
49
296
318
235
33
67
325
1,783

43
5
19
51
24
81
145
33
17
30
80
528

10
2
7
7
8
15
15
3
8
7
16
98

4
33

10
14

3
2

Women's Facilities
Edmonton Women's Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fraser Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grand Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Isabel McNeill House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joliette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regional Psychiatric Centre (Prairies) . . . . .
Regional Reception Centre (Québec) . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATLANTIC
Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dorchester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shepody Healing Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Springhill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Westmorland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Region Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ONTARIO
Bath
............................
Beaver Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Collins Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fenbrook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Frontenac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joyceville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kingston Penitentiary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Millhaven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regional Treatment Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Warkworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Region Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PACIFIC
Elbow Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ferndale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

TABLE B: CONTACTS BY INSTITUTION
Region/Institution
# of
contacts

# of
interviews

# of days
spent in
institution

Kent
............................
Matsqui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pacific & RTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
William Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Region Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

367
84
217
252
145
60
1,162

122
21
86
97
59
24
433

15
9
13
15
9
3
69

PRAIRIE
Bowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Drumheller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Edmonton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grande Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pê Sâkâstêw Centre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regional Psychiatric Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Riverbend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rockwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Saskatchewan Penitentiary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stan Daniels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stony Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Region Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

247
204
260
77
7
116
6
24
353
3
419
1,716

85
96
70
3
2
40
7
7
112
1
135
558

14
12
16
1
2
8
2
2
26
1
13
97

QUEBEC
Archambault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cowansville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Donnacona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Drummond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Federal Training Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
La Macaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leclerc
............................
Montée St-François . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Port Cartier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regional Reception Centre/SHU Québec .
Ste-Anne des Plaines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Region Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

218
189
241
271
117
109
147
33
330
191
24
1,920

86
120
87
36
28
65
32
24
115
81
12
686

8
16
16
6
5
11
11
4
11
13
2
103

GRAND TOTAL

7,617

2,486

427

38
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

TABLE C: COMPLAINTS AND INMATE POPULATION - BY REGION

Total number
of contacts (*)

Inmate
Population (**)

Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Québec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prairies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

672
2,026
1,885
1,825
1,240

1,354
3,353
3,368
3,143
2,010

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7,648

13,428

Region

(*)

Excludes 48 contacts from provincial institutions.

(**) As of March 2005, according to the Correctional Service of Canada's Corporate
Reporting System.

39
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

TABLE D: DISPOSITION OF CONTACTS BY CASE TYPE
CASE TYPE

Disposition

Immediate Response

Information given

1,777

Referral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

816

Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

191

Total
Investigation

# of
complaints

2,784
Information given. . . . . . . . . .

1,468

Not supported . . . . . . . . . . .

360

Pending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110

Referral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,225

Resolution facilitated . . . . . . .

1,530

Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

229

Total

4,952

GRAND TOTAL

7,696

40
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

TABLE E: AREAS OF CONCERN MOST FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED BY
OFFENDERS
TOTAL OFFENDER POPULATION
Health Care

891

Transfer
Cell Effects
Visits and Private Family Visits
Administrative Segregation
Staff Responsiveness
Grievance Procedure
File Information (Access, Correction and Disclosure)
Case Preparation
Conditions of Confinement

653
567
467
468
429
378
351
348
330

ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS
Transfer
Administrative Segregation
Visits and Private Family Visits
Health Care
Cell Effects
Staff Responsiveness
Case Preparation
File Information (Access, Correction and Disclosure)
Programs/Services
Conditions of Confinement

100
83
73
71
67
55
54
53
46
37

WOMEN OFFENDERS
Health Care
File Information (Access, Correction and Disclosure)
Telephone
Offender Security
Programs/Services
Visits and Private Family Visits

45
26
25
25
24
23

Transfer

23

Temporary Absence - Decision
Staff Responsiveness
Security Classification

22
22
22

41
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

Annex B: Ministerial Response to
the CI Annual Report 2003-04

2004-2005

Annual Report

45
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

46
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

47
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

Annex C: Summary of
Recommendations

2004-2005

Annual Report

Recommendation #1:
(a) I recommend that the Service secure and commit adequate funding for the
timely implementation of its entire mental health strategy.
(b) I recommend that the Service take immediate steps to sensitize and train all
front-line staff to appropriately identify disruptive mental health behaviour and
respond accordingly.

Recommendation #2:
I recommend that in May of 2006 the Minister appoint an Expert Committee to
publicly report on the progress detailed in the Service’s response on the advancement
of human rights, fairness and equity issues since Madame Justice Arbour’s report of
1996 – the Committee’s report to be provided to the Minister by October 2006.

Recommendation #3:
(a) I recommend that the Service modify its governance structure and immediately
appoint a Deputy Commissioner for Aboriginal Offenders with the authority to
implement the Service’s Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections.
(b) I recommend that the Service publicly release quarterly reports on the
implementation of its Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections, along with the
quarterly performance reports on Aboriginal issues currently being developed
by the Service.

Recommendation #4:
(a) I recommend that the Service take immediate steps to overhaul its operations
and policies in the area of inmate grievances to ensure fair and expeditious
resolution of offenders’ complaints and grievances.The review should include a
specific focus on addressing harassment and staff misconduct grievances.
(b) I recommend that an external consultant be retained to assist the Service’s
review of its operations and policy to ensure fair and expeditious resolution of
offenders’ complaints and grievances, and to improve its use of evidence-based
strategies to ensure consistency in addressing areas of offender concern.

Recommendation #5:
I recommend that the Service immediately develop a responsive action plan to
implement the recommendations of the Correctional Service of Canada/National
Parole Board/Office of the Correctional Investigator Joint Review Report on
Factors Causing Delays in NPB Reviews in collaboration with the Parole Board and
the Office.The action plan should include a strong audit and evaluation component.

51
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Recommendation #6:
(a) I recommend that the Service immediately adopt the independent adjudication
model for administrative segregation proposed by the Department of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
(b) I further recommend that the Service conduct a comprehensive review on the
rights, entitlements, access to programs, level of association and applicable
procedural safeguards for all of its sub-populations that are not considered to be
the general inmate population or administrative segregation.The review should
be completed by March 31, 2006, and specific recommendations should be made
to ensure legal compliance with due process/fairness requirements and the
application of less restrictive alternatives.

Recommendation #7:
I recommend that the Service, with the assistance of outside experts in womencentred and Aboriginal approaches, implement a responsive immediate, mediumand long-term strategy to ensure that the observed systemic discrimination of
women and Aboriginal offenders in terms of security classification and timely
conditional release cease.

Recommendation #8:
For a fourth consecutive year, I recommend that the Service immediately repeal its
illegal policy which requires that federally-sentenced offenders serving a minimum
life sentence for first- or second-degree murder be classified as maximum security
for at least the first two years of federal incarceration. Failing a positive response
from the Service, I continue to look to the Minister’s leadership to ensure that this
illegal policy is rescinded as soon as possible.

52
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

Response from the Correctional Service of Canada to the
32nd Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator

2004-2005

2004-2005

Annual Report

INTRODUCTION
CSC pursues its public safety mandate within a framework of human rights. Recently, we
introduced the “Can I? May I? Should I?” model, that requires staff to test every decision from
operational, statutory, and values-based perspectives. Over the last several years, CSC has
significantly enhanced its capacity to account to Canadians on its performance with regard to
human rights and safe reintegration of offenders by developing more sophisticated data collection,
analysis, and reporting tools. CSC appreciates the important role of the Correctional Investigator
(CI) in conducting investigations into the problems of offenders related to its decisions and actions.
There are ongoing interactions between correctional investigators and wardens on operational
issues. Regional Deputy Commissioners (RDCs) meet with CI representatives several times a year
to discuss specific concerns in each region and to ensure follow-up. In the case of systemic issues
identified, CSC works with the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) and other
stakeholders to resolve them. Recent examples of such collaborative efforts include: universal
access by offenders to computers, use of ion scanners and approvals of compassionate Escorted
Temporary Absences (ETAs). Often we implement agreed actions. In some cases, solutions are not
readily apparent to either the CI or CSC given the complexity of challenges in the correctional
environment.This can result in delays in performance improvement. Where we disagree with the
statement of the problem or the proposed solution, we continue to seek clarification and explore
ways to resolve underlying issues.
In the past several years, CSC has undertaken a number of initiatives to better address the needs
and risks of our current offender population.They range from the development and
implementation of programs and interventions more specifically targeted to Aboriginal, women,
and higher risk offenders, to more creative approaches to security and community outreach.
Results continue to improve in spite of a more complex offender population profile. In fiscal year
2004-2005, there was a 26% decrease (from 70 to 52) in major violent incidents compared to the
previous year, the highest annual decrease in the past six (6) years. Moreover, major disturbances
went down 87%, from eight (8) to one (1).There were nine (9) suicides, which is below the
preceding five (5) year period’s annual average of 11.4.There was one (1) major assault on staff
compared to none (0) in the previous year. But, overall, in the last five (5) years, the average
number of major incidents per 1000 inmates (flow-through population) in fact decreased from 4.8
to 3.0. At the same time, violent re-offending rates, for offenders under supervision, have remained
stable for the past two (2) years at less than 2%. CSC continues to be vigilant in its efforts to
prevent and address every incident.
The following is CSC’s response to the Correctional Investigator’s Annual Report for 2004-2005. A
response is provided to each recommendation. Annexes provide clarification and further details on
information provided in the Correctional Investigator’s Annual Report.

55
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Recommendation #1:
(a) I recommend that the Service secure and commit adequate funding for the
timely implementation of its entire mental health strategy.
Agree
The Government of Canada has set aside $29.5M over 5 years to fund the Community Mental
Health component of the Strategy.The funds will be used to address discharge planning up to two
years in advance of release, ambulatory care services, specialized mental health staff working out of
Parole Offices to provide support to offenders with mental disorders in Community Correctional
Centres (CCCs) and Community Residential Facilities (CRFs), annual mental health training for staff
of the Parole Offices, CCCs and CRFs, and contracts for specialized services to address the needs
of offenders with mental disorders in the community.
The funds required for full implementation of the remaining three components of the Strategy are
significant. CSC will participate in an inter-departmental response to Senator Michael Kirby’s final
report and recommendations on mental health in Canada, under the leadership of Health Canada.
We are hopeful that such initiatives will lead to opportunities for additional funding.The CI’s
support in securing the funds necessary to fully implement its Mental Health Strategy is
appreciated.
(b) I recommend that the Service take immediate steps to sensitize and train all
front-line staff to appropriately identify disruptive mental health behaviour and
respond accordingly.
Agree
As noted above, some of the funds approved for the Community Mental Health Strategy will be
used for annual mental health training for staff of the Parole Offices, CCCs and CRFs.This training
will be focused on the practical skills that staff require to understand, support and effectively
intervene with offenders with mental disorders living in the community.
A training module on the recognition of and appropriate response to the behaviours of offenders
with mental health disorders will be developed by Health Services in consultation with Learning
and Development for all new recruits by October 31, 2006.This module will also be used to train
all staff who have regular contact with offenders.
These training initiatives will supplement the Dialectic Behavioural Therapy (DBT) and Psycho-social
Rehabilitation (PSR) mental health interventions already in place.

56
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

WOMEN OFFENDERS
Recommendation #2:
I recommend that in May of 2006 the Minister appoint an Expert Committee to
publicly report on the progress detailed in the Service’s response on the advancement
of human rights, fairness and equity issues since Madame Justice Arbour’s report of
1996 – the Committee’s report to be provided to the Minister by October 2006.
CSC agrees that an expert committee will review and comment on the ten (10)-year status
report on women's corrections prepared by CSC.
Between April 2003 and January 2004, three reports were issued on federal corrections for
women, by independent agencies: the Auditor General, the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.The reports noted progress made to date.
As well, CSC received favourable feedback on steps it is taking to address recommendations,
particularly from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Committee against Torture
(CAT).This Committee is under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner on
Human Rights. Madame Arbour currently holds that position.
In September 2005, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Prisons for England and Wales will be assessing the
overall health of operations at Nova and Grand Valley prisons for women over a two-week period.
The Service is preparing a ten (10)-year status report on women’s corrections, which will provide a
detailed response to all of the recommendations in the Arbour Report as well as other relevant reports.
Annex A clarifies and provides further details on results for women offenders presented by the
Correctional Investigator in his Annual Report.

ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS
Recommendation #3:
(a) I recommend that the Service modify its governance structure and immediately
appoint a Deputy Commissioner for Aboriginal Offenders with the authority to
implement the Service’s Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections.
To be determined
A review of CSC’s governance structure is underway.The decision on whether to appoint a
Deputy Commissioner for Aboriginal Offenders will be made within that context. In the interim,
the Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC) champions Aboriginal issues at the Executive Committee
and with external partners.

57
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

CSC, in consultation with Aboriginal communities and Elders, has been focussing on the
development and implementation of approaches to corrections that work for First Nations, Inuit
and Métis offenders. Results are showing improvement despite Aboriginal Offenders’ initial higher
risk/needs ratings due mainly to the number and severity of previous offences.
Annex B highlights some of these results.
(b) I recommend that the Service publicly release quarterly reports on the
implementation of its Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections, along with the
quarterly performance reports on Aboriginal issues currently being developed
by the Service.
Agree
Starting in the fall of 2005, quarterly reports will be produced.

INMATE GRIEVANCES, ALLEGATIONS OF
HARASSMENT, AND STAFF MISCONDUCT
Recommendation #4:
(a) I recommend that the Service take immediate steps to overhaul its operations
and policies in the area of inmate grievances to ensure fair and expeditious
resolution of offenders’ complaints and grievances.The review should include a
specific focus on addressing harassment and staff misconduct grievances.
Agree – already begun.
CSC is currently conducting a national review of the Offender Redress Process which will be
completed by February 2006.The review addresses the efficacy of the current processes, as well as
resource requirements and reporting structures.
The policy and processes of harassment and staff misconduct grievances are being strengthened.
As well, monitoring and reporting processes were assessed and new tools have been developed to
help ensure compliance with law and policy.The action plan addresses accreditation and training of
harassment investigators, as well as the differentiation between staff performance and harassment
for coding purposes.This will improve our capacity to accurately respond to and report on
harassment grievances.

58
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

(b) I recommend that an external consultant be retained to assist the Service’s
review of its operations and policy to ensure fair and expeditious resolution of
offenders’ complaints and grievances, and to improve its use of evidence-based
strategies to ensure consistency in addressing areas of offender concern.
Agree to review operations and policy concerning offender complaints and grievance system.
Rates of timeliness nationally have remained fairly steady in the last three (3) fiscal years at around
78%.This year it has slightly decreased (- 2%) from last year. At the third level, timeliness continues
to be a serious challenge and must be addressed.The review will address these issues.
The focus over the last two (2) years has been on improving the quality of responses and followup as well as identification of systemic issues and suggested corrective measures.The Senior
Deputy Commissioner, as the delegated signatory, has reviewed all third level grievances and has
followed-up on issues of management accountability and policy interpretation.The average number
of grievances upheld has risen from 13% from 2001 to 2003, to 24% in the past two (2) fiscal
years. As a result of these efforts, we are starting to see evidence of improved policy application by
the field and a greater commitment to a culture of human rights.

CASE PREPARATION AND ACCESS TO PROGRAMS
Recommendation #5:
I recommend that the Service immediately develop a responsive action plan to
implement the recommendations of the Correctional Service of Canada/National
Parole Board/Office of the Correctional Investigator Joint Review Report on
Factors Causing Delays in NPB Reviews in collaboration with the Parole Board and
the Office.The action plan should include a strong audit and evaluation component.
Agree
Although the initial working group has been disbanded, CSC has enlarged the scope of this
initiative and set robust re-entry for each offender as a priority for the executive cadre.The
purpose of this initiative is to try to ensure that every offender has employment, housing, and a
support system on release to the community.
Accountability mechanisms have already been enhanced through the Corporate Reporting System,
a Management Control Framework, and an appropriate evaluation framework to monitor the
implementation of the recommendations and results.
The CI and CSC have agreed to quarterly meetings to monitor results and processes in this, and
other areas.

59
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Recommendation #6:
(a) I recommend that the Service immediately adopt the independent adjudication
model for administrative segregation proposed by the Department of Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Under consideration
The Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate (CCJD) of the Department of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC), responsible for legislative policy, completed a review on
the need for independent adjudication in 2004, and recommended its implementation. CSC
requested some time to seek operational alternatives to better address concerns with regard to
procedural fairness and overuse of segregation before determining an appropriate model for
oversight. CSC will work with the CCJD to generate alternate models while continuing to focus
attention on the operational concerns, and will present an Action Plan by December 1, 2005.
CSC is committed to restricting confinement only when an offender poses a risk to safety and
security or when he or she is at risk in the general population. CSC is accountable for the
consequences of its decisions on segregation placements, releases and conditions, given its mandate
to maintain a safe, secure and humane environment for staff, offenders and the public. Our staff ’s
specialized correctional knowledge and expertise and understanding of individual cases and
institutional realities, positions them well to make decisions on the potential of an individual
offender to successfully reintegrate into the general population.
CSC’s current focus is on prevention of the types of behaviour that would result in admission to
segregation. We are currently designing and implementing integrated correctional intervention
strategies targeted to groups of individuals having similar profiles. Such strategies include formal
programs, scheduled use of time, and appropriate security measures.The objective of each strategy
is to help ensure progressive offender rehabilitation and ultimately safe reintegration.
(b) I further recommend that the Service conduct a comprehensive review on the
rights, entitlements, access to programs, level of association and applicable
procedural safeguards for all of its sub-populations that are not considered to be
the general inmate population or administrative segregation.The review should
be completed by March 31, 2006, and specific recommendations should be made
to ensure legal compliance with due process/fairness requirements and the
application of less restrictive alternatives.

60
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Agree
CSC will undertake a review of current approaches to population management to be completed
by the end of the fiscal year.The purpose of the review is to ensure that existing units are in
compliance with law and policy. More specifically, the review will address:
a. the number and purpose of units that exist;
b. whether placement is voluntary or involuntary;
c. the link between offenders’ Correctional Plans and offender placement;
d. conditions of confinement;
e. the daily routine of the units;
f. availability of programs; and
g. average length of stay.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENDERS
Offender Security Classification
Recommendation #7:
I recommend that the Service, with the assistance of outside experts in womencentered and Aboriginal approaches, implement a responsive immediate, mediumand long-term strategy to ensure that the observed systemic discrimination of
women and Aboriginal offenders in terms of security classification and timely
conditional release cease.
Agree
The lack of specific instrumentation for women and Aboriginal offenders requires the Service to
develop and test new processes. CSC believes that classification systems should be appropriate for
men and women offenders as well as Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders and that validation
studies should be specific to these groups of offenders. Consequently, the Service has sought
external expertise to improve the design and development of security classification devices for
women (including Aboriginal women) to enhance public, staff and offender safety. With respect to
Aboriginal men, we are reviewing the applicability of existing tools.

61
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Classification of Offenders serving Life Sentences (2-year rule)
Recommendation #8:
For a fourth consecutive year, I recommend that the Service immediately repeal its
illegal policy which requires that federally-sentenced offenders serving a minimum
life sentence for first- or second-degree murder be classified as maximum security
for at least the first two years of federal incarceration. Failing a positive response
from the Service, I continue to look to the Minister’s leadership to ensure that this
illegal policy is rescinded as soon as possible.
Disagree
Given the gravity of the crime committed and the length of sentence imposed, the needs and risks
of offenders serving sentences for first or second degree murder are particularly complex.
Therefore the presumption for initial placement for such offenders is maximum security, unless it is
determined that the individual characteristics of the offender or the risk posed is manageable at a
medium-security institution.The maximum timeframe for re-assessment of security level is two (2)
years, allowing for observation and assessment of the offenders’ behaviour and needs. Significant
changes to situations result in immediate reviews. Outcomes continue to be monitored. No change
in approach is anticipated at this time.
CSC has recently expanded its programs to more specifically address the needs of this population.

62
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

CURRENT STATUS OF ISSUES RAISED RELATING TO WOMEN OFFENDERS IN THE
CI’S 2004/05 ANNUAL REPORT–Annex A
ISSUE

UPDATE/RESULT

Over-classification of
Women

• 5% initially classified at the maximum-security level;
• 44% and 51% initially classified at the medium and minimum
levels, respectively.

Gender Responsive Tools

• Proposals for development of Initial Classification Tool
received in June, 2005, with completion of tool anticipated
in 2008.
• Security Reclassification Scale for Women Offenders
(SRSW) implemented on June 1, 2005:
- recommends more placement of women at
minimum security, and fewer at medium and
maximum security;
- significantly more predictive of institutional
misconduct than the structured clinical assessment;
- valid for Aboriginal women.

Segregation
(from 2003-04 to 2004-05)

Voluntary
- significant decrease in admission, from 40 to 26;
- significant decrease in number of women that
spend 10 days or less, from 39 to 20;
- slight increase in the number of women that spend
between 11 to 31 days, from 1 to 6

Involuntary
- slight reduction in admissions, from 258 to 249;
- slight decrease in the number of women who
spend 30 days or less, from 239 to 233;
- slight decrease in the number of women who
spend between 31 and 275 days, from 19 to 16.
• Introduced pilot of biannual reviews of cases of 30 consecutive
or 60 cumulative days in a year spent in segregation to identify
preventive strategies and best practices;
• Opening of the women’s unit at Institut Philippe Pinel de
Montréal (IPPM) in May 2004 has assisted in alleviating the
long-term segregation situation.

63
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

2004-2005

Annual Report

Re-offending Rates

• 2003-04: the revocation rate for women offenders was
0.56% (3 out of 534) for violent re-offending, and 4.68%
(25 out of 534) for non-violent re-offending;
• 2004-05: the revocation rate for women offenders was 0.39%
(2 out of 519) for violent re-offending and 4.43%
(23 out of 519) for non-violent re-offending.

Access to GenderSpecific Programs

• Programs specific to women, based on advances in knowledge
about women offenders, now include, among others:
- Women Offender Substance Abuse Program;
- Survivors of Abuse and Trauma;
- Circles of Change;
- Spirit of a Warrior (two programs specifically developed
for Aboriginal women);
- Mother-Child program;
- Peer Support program;
- Pawsitive Directions;
- Mentoring programs;
- Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) (offered in Structured
Living Environments and Secure Units) ; and
- Psycho-social Rehabilitation (PSR) (offered in Secure Units)
• Some programs have been modified to allow for continuous entry;
• CSC is closely monitoring waiting lists.

Meaningful Employment
and Employability
Programming

• Employment and Employability Skills Program was developed in
conjunction with the Conference Board of Canada and piloted
at two institutions.
- training will be provided to trainers in the fall of 2005;

- program will be offered at all sites in 2005/06.
• In 2004-2005, 8% increase in the number of women assigned
employment from previous FY, from 487 to 525 women.

Training in WomenCentred Approaches

64
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

• The Women Centred Training Program is mandatory for all
staff working with women and is part of the National Training
Standards:
- sensitizes staff to issues of sexism, racism, disability, sexual
orientation, physical and or sexual abuse, self-injurious and
suicidal behaviour, addictions, mental health issues and
Aboriginal traditions and spirituality with a focus on women;
• Refresher training will be implemented in 2007.

2004-2005

Annual Report

HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTS FOR ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS
– Annex B
ISSUE

UPDATE/RESULT

Statutory Release

• Remains true that Aboriginal offenders are more likely
than non-Aboriginal offenders to be in the community
on statutory release (48% vs. 34%) than on full parole
(34% vs. 52%).

Over the last five (5) years, despite initial higher risk/needs ratings, CSC has managed to :

Community Supervision

• Maintain the proportion of Aboriginal offenders in the
community at approximately 32%.

Day Parole

• Increase the Day Parole grant rate for Aboriginal
offenders by 7.5%.

Re-incarceration Rate
(new offence)

• Decrease the percent of Aboriginal offenders revoked
with a new offence by 28.4% (from 243 to 174).

Support in Aboriginal
Communities

• Increase involvement of and support from Aboriginal
Communities, in offender release plans;
• Marked improvement in management and use of
Healing Lodges:
- Willow Cree Healing Lodge at full capacity one year
after opening;
- Ochichakosipi Healing Lodge nearing full capacity.

Recruitment and
Representation

• CSC is second only to the Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs in terms of recruitment and representation
in the federal public service.
• As of March 31, 2005, 951 (6.6%) of 14,338 employees were
identified as Aboriginal. It should be noted that the
Workforce Availability Estimate of Aboriginals Canada-wide,
is 4.7%, based on 2001 Census and 2001 Participation and
Limitation Survey (PALS).
- These 951 employees are distributed across
functions and regions, given the distribution of
Aboriginal offenders

65
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR