Thank you all for your testimony and for your work. I’ve been a poverty law lawyer, not a criminal lawyer, so I’m learning quite a bit. I understand about the intersectionality of issues and the social determinants of health, but I didn’t really understand. You know, you could read statistics, but going into a prison is when you actually learn.

To your point, Ms. Campbell, when I went into Grand Valley Institution, I actually spoke to a correctional officer — correctional personnel. She said she had been off on mental health leave and was just returning. It just felt like it was the fragile-looking guarding the even more fragile. It just felt like there was so much fragility. It just felt horrible and unsafe for everyone. It’s a tough gig, and it’s tough every which way.

Mr. Spratt, you said that judges are aghast at how their sentences have been interpreted in practice. I wonder if that has been translated into support for this or how we could use that to support this bill. That would be my question for you.

Professor Iftene, you have published extensively. It’s impressive. In your opening statement, you referenced one report. If there is one report that we could look at to support this bill, which one would it be? I didn’t see it, so could you address that?

We’ll start with Mr. Spratt.

It’s always hard to get judges to publicly comment on things like this, but I think we can take some guidance from some of the judicial commentary about the state of our institutions. Quite often, we hear judicial commentary about the state of our provincial institutions because that’s where many of the accused people are before they come before the judges. We’ve seen a trend over the last number of years about judges increasingly speaking out about conditions that people are housed in. I think there is an increasing recognition that jails and people in custody is an admission of the failure of society and of taking care of each other.

The first time I noticed this was a decision from — I think it was — 2019. I think it was Justice Schreck from Toronto commenting on the Toronto South Detention Centre, which is a provincial reformatory but suffers from many of the same problems that this bill seeks to address. I’ve never seen a judge speak more frankly about conditions in custody — about soiled and bloodied linens, inadequate food, access and the deliberate political choice. It’s a secret to many, but not to people in power, about what’s happening. To hear a judge talk about the deliberate political indifference to those conditions was shocking. We’re seeing that more often.

One of the benefits we have here is that this committee is not indifferent. There’s a bill before this committee that could make a difference and will require change that will be hard to implement. But if fixing jails, prisons and conditions had been easy, it would have been done already. Just because it’s hard and may require reflection and change isn’t an impediment. We’re seeing more of that commentary in judicial decisions going forward. I think you can take some keys from that.

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.

Thank you. We’re going to have to forego Senator Klyne’s and Senator Cotter’s second-round questions to ensure Senator Pate, as the sponsor, gets to do cleanup.

I don’t know about that, but I do want to pick up on the point that Senator Simons raised about the definition. Because Bill C-83 amended the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to remove segregation, the definition that we have put back in, which was actually a definition we looked at when we were looking at the amendments — the CCRA back with the Senate amendments to Bill C-83 — was to actually require the structured intervention unit definition to include what segregation used to be. So in fact, the ghost cells and hidden cells would be covered, because it’s the condition of confinement and not necessarily the name that’s attached that defines something now. Under this bill, it would define it, then, as a structured intervention unit.

If you see some ways to improve that, I would be happy, but the only other option that we saw through the law clerk was to go back to the old definition. That would be a whole other series of amendments, so we chose to redefine that.

In addition to the issues you’ve raised, Ms. Campbell, about access, since the SIUs have been put in place, there have also been ongoing changes to the phone system. You said, “find a phone.” When people are locked in their cells, there is no phone in their cells. Am I correct? Yes. In addition, there’s usually a card that people have that has to have all approved numbers on it. So in addition to the issue of whether you know a name and a number, it first has to be prior approved. With this provision, there could be — in the general access numbers that people have access to in prison, there’s supposed to be a Legal Aid number. So I’m very interested in your proposal. If you have suggested wording, Mr. Spratt, about how to do that, it would be welcome.

Finally, because we know that the funding that was approved for outside-contracted beds has not actually been utilized for those purposes, I would be interested, Ms. Campbell, on other ideas you have about funding and how it could be reallocated, as well as any other examples of times when there have been attempts to impose accountability. I can speak of deputy commissioners for women, for instance. If you have other examples that would benefit us, that would be useful.

Would it be possible to invite you to communicate those thoughts in writing, if you have any? We’re running right up against the time when we need to wrap things up. Would that be acceptable?

Yes.

We appreciate it.

Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our meeting. I’m constantly effusive about the quality of our witnesses, and the help they provide to the committee. In that sense, I’m extending the collective feeling of the committee in expressing appreciation for the contributions you have provided today to the work we’re doing. Thank you very much, Mr. Spratt, Professor Iftene and Ms. Campbell.

We will continue deliberations with respect to this bill, but we have other business tomorrow in relation to a different bill; we will be doing clause-by-clause consideration of it.

(The committee adjourned.)