2. Sex

a) Sexist Classification System

Section 30 of the CCRA requires that every prisoner be assigned a security classification of maximum, medium or minimum. A prisoner’s security classification determines the type of prison in which the prisoner is incarcerated. According to their security levels, prisons are operated pursuant to rules that reflect the different degrees of supervision and control imposed on prisoners. Security classification is also implicated in various other decisions, such as the granting of unescorted temporary absences and work releases.

Section 17 of the Regulations sets out the factors that must be considered in assigning a security classification to each prisoner. It focuses such inquiries on the perceived risk posed by the prisoner in three areas: risk of escape, risk to public safety upon escape and the degree of control and supervision required in the penitentiary.

The provisions of the CCRA that mandate security classification apply equally to both men and women prisoners. Two issues that arise specifically for women, however, are: should women be assigned a security classification at all; and, are the current instruments that measure risk valid for women prisoners?

The security classification of men serves a practical purpose because it is used to assign them to an appropriate prison by matching their security classification to the security level of the prison. The same practical application does not exist for woman.

Historically, federally sentenced women were imprisoned in the multi-level Prison for Women (P4W) in Kingston. All prisoners were subject to the same static security although the degree of freedom within the prison varied somewhat depending upon where women lived in the prison (ie. on the ranges in cage-style cells, or in the wings in small bedroom-style cells).

The new regional prisons for women are also multi-level, housing both minimum and medium security prisoners. The conditions of confinement for women classified as minimum and medium security prisoners are virtually the same, with only some minor differences. Both minimum and medium security women live together in the same housing units, attend programs and recreation together and have the same freedom of movement within the prison. Therefore, practically speaking, there is no appreciable difference between the two security levels and thus the need to classify women prisoners is rendered all the more questionable.

The CSC is also in the process of repatriating federally sentenced women classified as maximum security prisoners to the regional prisons. CAEFS and others have critiqued the correctional regimes to which these women will be subjected. Please refer to Appendix I for CAEFS’ initial response to this plan.

Section 17 of the Regulations provides that a prisoner’s social history must be taken into account in determining the appropriate security classification. Social history is captured in the “Dynamic Factor Analysis” which is an instrument used to assess the prisoners’ background of disadvantage. According to CSC policy, “A Dynamic Factor rating is a compilation of professional judgments derived from the identification of immediate needs and the Need Operations Impressions [i.e. degree of severity of need] on each of the seven domains.”

Submission of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS) to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for the Special Report on the Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Race and Disability Faced by Federally Sentenced Women