We do a lot of work on the ground hosting workshops and bringing in productive conflict resolution tools. The evidence is clear that in incarceration systems designated for women, as Ms. Latimer noted, the realities and contexts are very different than in the men’s sector. We believe that in the existing structure, there are more than enough tools available for Correctional Service Canada to keep people safe in ways that don’t place them in such restrictive conditions. We, as a partner, are committed to continuing to bring in community experts and to support the population to have the skills required to do so without being kept in small cages.

This is a general question for each of the witnesses. Thank you for appearing before our committee.

I’d like to get your insights, in practice, on the resources that are available to conduct assessments in terms of mental health or those who are in the system. From what I understand, if it’s dealt with by staff as opposed to a professional, and if in part it is a staff member within the facility, chances are that they might not have the appropriate expertise. The systems and processes which they use are largely ticks in a box — I don’t know a better way to say that. Can you give me a bit of insight on those assessments and the resources needed to address the issue?

Certainly. I think part of the rationale, and part of the rationale for the decisions which found the administrative segregation regime to violate the Charter, had to do with how people with mental illnesses were treated when they were placed in administrative segregation. Part of what we were led to believe that Bill C-83 would do would be to be vigilant around people’s mental health as they were placed in there, and a significant amount of resources for the entire regime were dedicated to that. I believe Minister Goodale said that there was $450 million dedicated to implementing. We would expect that the appropriate quality of assessors are there to monitor and to take care of people’s mental health.

We wait with interest for the next report from the Structured Intervention Unit Implementation Advisory Panel because it will have a focus on mental health. What I believe, from my experience in talking to people who have experienced it, is that the necessary assessments are not taking place in a way which makes a difference for people.

Do you have something to offer further to that?

We see the problem as being kind of dual-ended. One, all of the people who provide therapeutic and health services within the Correctional Service of Canada are trained in a risk and securities framework. For example, with the recent influx of behavioural counsellors, incarcerated women and gender-diverse people see these individuals as a therapeutic relationship and are often shocked when the same individuals lay disciplinary charges against them. As long as there are lateral and strong relationships between health care providers and the Correctional Service of Canada, we’re going to see mental health integrated into risk frameworks, and duly, from the end of incarcerated people, we see people being afraid to say they’re not okay because historically and persistently, when an individual who is incarcerated indicates that they’re unwell, this is often responded to by reducing their access to everything in prison and then treating their suffering as risk.

I have nothing further to add. I believe Ms. Latimer and Ms. Kish covered this topic well.

Thank you, all.

No. It’s very discouraging that the response to the Charter decisions was not to respect the rights that had been shown as being violated in those decisions. So what we have now is that in structured intervention units, some attention is being paid to how these are implemented. So people are being placed in isolated confinement, and it’s called different things, whether it is the Voluntary Limited Association Range, or just a lockdown on a particular range so no one is getting out, or isolation within a particular cell or observation cells or — you name it. There are a lot of different places in the prison where you’re going to find people in their cells alone for 22 hours a day or more and without getting meaningful human contact.

With the SIU, there are rules and there is oversight. If I’m put in a cell and it’s functionally a segregation unit, is anyone tracking that? Do any of you have reliable data about how many people may be kept in those conditions in a given month or quarter?

No. I don’t think CSC is producing reliable data on that, but it would be very worthwhile to ask them how many people are being detained consistent with the UN definition of solitary confinement, which is 22 hours a day in a cell without meaningful human contact.

Maybe a quick question for each of the three of you. We know that people with mental illness are disproportionately represented in the prison population. Of the people who are being kept in SIUs or other solitary confinement type of situations, what percentage of them would you say, are suffering from a mental illness, whether that’s a psychotic condition, profound depression or suicidal ideation? What percentage would it be?

It would really be difficult to give you an assessment of that because the isolation itself will cause mental illness. There may be people who are — I was talking to one young person who was fine, and within 48 hours in an administrative segregation cell, he was suicidal. So the deterioration of well-being can be very rapid, and it’s — what the isolation does is you start to lose track of what’s real and what’s not real. The line between the unconscious and the conscious mind becomes blurry and you start seeing and hearing things that are not really there.

If you already have a mental health condition that would predispose you, it would be a lot more challenging for you. But it’s challenging for everybody.

I’d invite the others to respond, Ms. Kish first and then Ms. Mitchell, if you would like, on the question of the proportion of inmates in these circumstances who have a mental illness or mental health challenges.

I agree with Ms. Latimer. Certainly, from our experience, it is most individuals who are admitted to structured intervention units who have a diagnosed pre-existing mental health considerations. Upon admission, they become so much worse, for so many individuals. Women and gender-diverse people are in distress for so many reasons in prison and more so in restrictive and segregated conditions.

We don’t only interact with people in prison, but once they’re released, and the long-term impact of this type of treatment is really important to underscore because we see people five to ten years later in the community who really struggle to participate economically and to have relationships and who then isolate — the patterns continue post-incarceration, in really troubling ways.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you. I agree very much with Ms. Latimer and Ms. Kish on this point. The population with mental health conditions is, I would say, a very large percentage. I don’t have the exact figures, however.

Certainly, isolation can create certain mental health challenges. Even statistics becomes a bit tricky, because for lack of resources, many individuals are not necessarily getting treated and diagnosed as well, which is just one added challenge with getting precise figures on this point.

Thank you.

First two questions that I have and hope to get through — and maybe a third — are for Ms. Mitchell. How do you foresee the proposed requirement for transferring individuals with disabling mental health issues to a hospital contributing to their well-being and rehabilitation compared to being confined in a penitentiary? Is this plausible from a judicial point of view?

Yes, thank you. I will begin by saying that we have very serious mental health challenges that contribute to many people ending up in the criminal justice system who shouldn’t be there, and the prison setting is obviously not one that is most conducive to the treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals who do suffer from mental health challenges. It’s very much in the interests of public safety to be putting individuals in the environment where they’re going to be getting the support and the care that they need to further their rehabilitation and reintegration. So we very much support measures that extend alternatives to incarceration.

There are, certainly, challenges and logistical issues to sort out when it comes to facilitating this particular approach and transferring between these settings, but we are of the position that it is something that is possible and it will require some work and some consultation between the provinces, which oversee the health care systems. There is a path forward here, and given that there are benefits to be had from getting people in the appropriate setting, it is worth the effort and overcoming those particular challenges.