Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill S-230. In what follows, I will focus on the amendments regarding the duration and oversight of stays in SIUs and the proposed reduction of sentence remedy. I have submitted some extended explanations for the three points that I will make orally, as well as three appendices that I will be referring to during my remarks.

The first point that I want to make — and which you’ve already heard quite a bit on tonight during the first panel — isolation under various names continues to be overused in federal corrections. Whether we call those SIUs or we call them something else, they are still isolation. Structured Intervention Units have been implemented under a promise to abolish segregation and to create a more therapeutic space. That has not happened. The reports of Professors Doob and Sprott as well as the more recent reports of the Structured Intervention Unit Implementation Advisory Panel have shown incredible challenges in implementing the SIUs, such as the fact that, in many respects, they continue simply to be variations of the old regime of segregation and the fact that people with mental illnesses are experiencing SIUs for extensive periods of time and that racialized people are overrepresented in SIUs.

What I do want to especially draw your, attention to is the fourth Doob and Sprott report, one I had the opportunity to co-author and which I also submitted to you as Appendix A. This report shows, using Correctional Service Canada’s own data, how all of these concerns regarding SIUs — concerns you’ve already heard about — have not at all been mitigated by the independent external decision makers that were — that’s an oversight mechanism created specifically to oversee the stays in SIUs and to prevent abuses.

The second point that I want to make is that isolation, of course — a point that is very well documented, and I’m sure you have heard about this — worsens an individual’s mental and physical health. I have provided you with extended notes in which I explain this point, as well as in Appendix B, where it is also highlighted how current correctional practices regarding the use of isolation under any name, really, including SIUs, failed to meet the United Nations standards, and are likely not Charter compliant because they do present some of the same issues that the old regime that was found to be not Charter compliant presented.

The third point that I want to make is that Bill S-230 may help mitigate some of these issues in at least two ways. First of all, I think that, considering the health and legal concerns, the use of isolation rises for everyone, especially for those with mental illnesses. Considering that we clearly still use forms of isolation in Canada with very little meaningful oversight, I submit to you that strict measures to control the use of segregation under whatever name are needed.

These measures, as Bill S-230 seeks to do, should include imposing strict limits on the duration of isolation, as well as requiring a judge’s order for stays that exceed that duration. I think we’re at a point where this is the only reasonable oversight mechanism, because we have well-documented failures of any other forms of oversight, both internal and external. At this point, it’s clear that only a court presents sufficient independence and impartiality guarantees to oversee these matters.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of remedies for those who experience abuses in prison through SIUs or otherwise. As you’ve heard from Mr. Spratt, prisoners are at an increased risk of harm and of having their rights infringed. The way the SIUs have been implemented is really just an example of that. Correctional services are rarely held accountable for the harm they are inflicting. The parole system has also done little to mitigate the situation of individuals who experience harsher punishments based on how their sentence is administered. I’ve also submitted appendix C, in which I elaborate in an article I wrote a while ago on that particular issue of parole.

Allowing for a sentence reduction as a remedy is really essential to protect rights and to ensure accountability. In the 1990s, Justice Louise Arbour in her report on the Prison for Women in Kingston noted that the rule of law will not implement itself behind bars without intervention from parliament and the courts. She then proposed that courts be able to grant sentence reductions as a remedy for harms encountered, as a result of how sentences have been administered.

To be clear, this is a remedy that other countries have and have been providing for decades, including northern countries and some western European countries. However, in Canada this recommendation has not been implemented. Instead, a variety of reforms tinkering at the margins of the main issue, which in my view is the lack of accountability of correctional systems, have been taken. Yet here we are, despite all of these reforms, 30 years later, discussing the same issues. We’re discussing the overuse of isolation, lack of adequate oversight and over incarceration of people with mental illnesses. I think this bill is an opportunity to provide courts with the power to oversee the implementation of the sentences they render and to rectify the harms people encounter in prison every day. Thank you.

I’m going to invite Ms. Campbell to address us for roughly five minutes.

May I also answer that?

There is quite a bit of research, actually, both in terms of the people who enter prisons with mental illnesses in Canada and generally.

In Canada right now, in the work that I have done, I’ve done work with people over 50, so around 40% of those over 50 in Canadian federal penitentiaries have a diagnosed mental illness — at least a diagnosed mental illness. In terms of women, generally, around 80% have a diagnosed mental illness, so it’s a very high percentage for women.

I’m not sure about the percentage of men, but I think the last numbers that I saw were around 30%. Again, here we’re talking about diagnoses, which, of course, many of the people that enter prisons do not have access to a diagnosis before they enter the prison, so these numbers are probably underreported.

First, we know that a lot of people entering prisons have very high percentages of mental illness, higher than the general population that’s not in prison.

Second, there is a lot of research documenting how the prison environment itself — isolation aside, segregation aside — actually worsens mental illnesses. There have been studies, even in Canada, that are showing that people exiting prisons tend to have higher rates of suicide, higher rates of addiction and generally higher mental health needs.

Third, I submitted to you in my extended comments some of the research that is showing that isolation actually worsens anybody’s mental illness. Even if you don’t have a diagnosed mental illness, negative health consequences will appear as early as 48 hours. After 15 days, they will become permanent, and there’s really nothing that can be done. It’s quite dramatic, and that is for people who don’t have mental health illnesses.

For people with mental health illnesses, there is a lot of research, including United Nations research, showing that all of these negative consequences start a lot earlier than the 48 hours and a lot earlier than the 15 days. There is quite a bit of research out there, some of it I have submitted to you, but, certainly, there is more that should worry us in terms of using isolation of any kind in response to mental health illness and in response to unwanted behaviour.

At this moment, isolation is used to control anything that is unwanted behaviour, even if sometimes it can be because of actual pre-existing health problems.

One thing that the bill does is actually remove the idea that isolation is, or can be a solution for any kind of behavioural problem, including those caused by mental illness. I think the important thing it does by putting a hard limit on the ability to use isolation is that it flags, the fact that mental illness needs other forums to be addressed. There is a need for treatment, likely treatment that’s not going to be in prison.

At the moment, isolation is being used and has been used for decades as the one-stop response to anything that is seen as unwanted behaviour including health issues. I think that is extremely important. There have been a lot of attempts over time to limit these disciplinary or punitive responses, and they have failed. I think it is time to make it very clear that you have 48 hours to find an actual solution to the problem.

Yes, it’s going to be challenging because, of course, the bill does not and cannot provide, at this moment, are all the other alternatives that will need to be in place. As Ms. Campbell said, there will be a reallocation of resources. There will be a lot of need to rethink the things that have been done, but I think it is that very important step toward saying that you can’t use isolation as a solution. Isolation is not a solution; it’s just a momentary point in time when you get that 48 hours to think of what it is that’s best for the person in that situation.

As some of the data that I’ve worked with from CSC suggests, we’re looking at people staying in isolation for 120 days. That’s a long-term solution for managing unwanted behaviour. That can no longer be the case and shouldn’t have been the case.

I think the one you’re mentioning is the one that I submitted to you as appendix A. It’s a report called Do Independent External Decision Makers Ensure that “An Inmate’s Confinement in a Structured Intervention Unit Is to End as Soon as Possible”?

The reason I directed you toward that is because one of the big issues we’ve heard tonight comes down to the way that Correctional Service Canada finds ways and loopholes, and does not actually often abide by the legislation; they find ways of abusing a lot of the powers they have. That comes down to a lack of accountability and transparency. That’s what the provision regarding judicial oversight, both in SIUs and as a remedy, will help with.

I think this report is very clear. It’s using data from the CSC’s first year of running these structured intervention unit. It shows that when the Bill C-83 was passed, creating the structured intervention units, their big claim — what gives legitimacy to this — is the fact that there is this external, independent decision-making structure in place that will ensure accountability and prevent abuses.

Unfortunately, using the data that CSC has, it’s shown that it actually has not made a difference in terms of the abuses people have suffered. That really drives home the idea that just because it’s external or called independent, it is not actually going to be enough to ensure the accountability and transparency that we’re looking for, so we might need to look further. And the only next step is a court.