Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies

ANNUAL REPORT 1997-1998

Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA)

November 2, 1997, marked the 5th anniversary of the proclamation of the CCRA. The legislation includes a provision that it be reviewed after five years. Accordingly, in March of 1997, the Solicitor General has commenced national and regional consultations on the Act and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are scheduled to review the Act in the autumn of 1998.

Overall, the legislation is not the problem, the lack of implementation of components of the Act is the real problem. As such CAEFS has encouraged the Solicitor General to ensure that life is breathed into the progressive provisions. For instance, CAEFS would like to see particular emphasis on the implementation of s.77, which provides the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) with the duty to consult with and involve “appropriate” women's and other groups. Although the CCRA stops short of naming CAEFS, the clear implication is that CAEFS, the only national women’s group whose mandate includes women in prison, should be very directly involved in the development of policies and programs for federally sentenced women.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada is another obvious group given their role on the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, the development of the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge and the Prison for Women in Kingston. Aboriginal women are vastly over-represented in the prison population and are disproportionately classified as maximum security prisoners. There are other groups who might also be consulted, but no others share the same sort of focus on women in prison, some of whom were also women's groups who were involved in the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women.

CAEFS is also urging the Minister to ensure the full implementation of sections 80 through 84, those sections dealing with Aboriginal prisoners. Section 80 mandates CSC to similarly involve non-governmental Aboriginal groups. Sections 81 & 84 provide CSC with the authority to contract directly with Aboriginal communities to provide services for Aboriginal prisoners (eg. parole supervision, treatment centres, other community release and corrections options).

CAEFS would also like to see an exclusionary provision to accompany s. 30 of the CCRA. This section requires that each prisoner be assigned a security classification of minimum, medium or maximum. Pursuant to the discussion above regarding classification, CAEFS would like women and Aboriginal prisoners specifically excluded from the application of s. 30.

Currently, there are only six halfway houses for federally sentenced women across Canada (one in Quebec (Montreal); four in Ontario (Ottawa, Kingston, Brampton and Toronto); one in BC (New Westminister)). There are none in the Prairie or the Atlantic provinces. Women are currently placed in men's houses in those regions. The Deputy Commissioner for Women is preparing a community release strategy for federally sentenced women. CAEFS would like to see the implementation of the community release provisions for federally sentenced women regardless of their geographic location. As such, we would like a recommendation that CSC fund the community-based design, development and implementation of residential, employment and community, familial and personal support options designed specifically with and for women.

Women also need to have other services developed or current options adapted for women. For example, temporary absences are permitted for up to 60 days for work releases. Women's work in the home, especially care for children et al. should qualify for such releases.

CAEFS would also like to see Madam Justice Arbour's recommendation for increased access to the Courts for prisoners, as well as increased judicial scrutiny of CSC. CAEFS recognizes the clear need for prisoners to have access to remedial relief, such as reduced sentence for prisoners whose sentences are effectively altered by corrections. Too often, correctional practices belie the reality that judges do not sentence people to prison intending that they be kept in isolation or other forms of segregation for extended periods of time. Nor is it envisioned that prisoners will be subjected to the sort of punitive treatment revealed by the P4W Inquiry. Prison is the punishment, not the medium for more of it. CAEFS also supports Madam Justice Arbour’s recommendation that there be legal sanctions or penalties imposed upon staff who interfere with the judicially sanctioned sentence by imposing harsher conditions, violating prisoners' legal rights, et cetera.

CAEFS will address these and other systemic issues in our brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.