SO SAY THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE LIVING IT.  SO SAY ADVOCATE/AGITATORS FOCUSED ON ACCOUNTABILITY.

When the federal government passed Bill C-83 in 2019 eliminating “administrative segregation” (solitary confinement) and replaced it with Structured Intervention Units (SIUs), our federal government didn’t do this to right a wrong.  It did this to comply with court rulings that found the established policy to be “draconian” and “cruel and unusual.”  And the settlement of the class action lawsuit brought on behalf of inmates who spent time in solitary confinement is costing taxpayers about $28 million.

The purpose of the SIUs, in the language used for public consumption, is to house inmates who can’t be managed safely in the mainstream population and who would have previously been locked in solitary confinement cells for up to 24 hours every day.  The thrust of the SIU is to provide a more humane and rehabilitative environment with a minimum of four hours daily outside cells, including two hours of meaningful human interaction.

SIUs are intended and expected to provide interventions, programs and healthcare to fit the specific needs of inmates.  The purpose is not only to return inmates to their regular units quickly, but to determine and address the causes of disruptive conduct and improve their prospects upon release from prison.

The legislation did more.  The SIUs would be subject to independent oversight to ensure compliance with C-83 provisions.  Independent External Decision Makers (IEDMs), lawyers, professors, researchers, all professionals with backgrounds and experience in relevant and related areas from criminal justice to human rights to mental health were appointed by the Minister of Public Safety to operate at arms-length from Correctional Service of Canada.

We can only speculate on why the framers of this bill and the parties that vetted the lengthy paragraphs that are a prerequisite to any legislation did not pause at the word “external” when coupled with “oversight.”  Correctional Service of Canada bridles at even the mention of outsiders looking over its shoulders, and it usually couches objections in patronizing arguments for relief.  Perhaps some savvy civil servant was making a play at reform?

But then too, C-83 did CSC a favour as well, and it’s more than probable that those same framers and the vetting process simply missed the obvious blunder.  C-83 was understandably restricted to the issue of close confinement and did not include references to inmates housed in minimum, medium and maximum level general populations.  How the SIUs might impact CSC’s policies and practices overall did not seem to be considered.

Correctional Service of Canada does not like citizen observers ‘interfering’ with its operations, not even those charged to do just that.  A key example is Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger’s frustrations with CSC’s national headquarters as he routinely presses for collaborative solutions to his investigations and recommendations.

CSC policies comply with the law, even as its practices are frequently questioned.  The spirit of the law is not usually a consideration but broad interpretations that support a CSC agenda are encouraged.  For instance, there are institutions where inmates in ‘population’ can be locked in their cells for 20 hours a day, weekdays in particular.  Given the four hours a day out of cells, CSC can argue it’s in compliance even without offering the SIU services.

‘Population’ is the new segregation.

)()(

As a by-the-way, are SIUs working as they should?

Look back at February 9^th’s “Why OPCAT” to review the second half beginning with “Let’s look at one example of OPCAT’s potential.”  The government has not reacted to the 12 reports it ordered from the Structured Intervention Units Implementation Advisory Panel, a body it established to monitor the progress of the new policy, 12 reports that could kindly be described as ‘negative.’  It hasn’t even complied with its own legislation that a comprehensive review of the SIU program “must be undertaken.”

There’s more.  In October last year, the Senate Committee on Human Right condemned the government’s refusal to stop the use of prison solitary confinement despite what it calls the scathing reviews from the federal government’s own advisory panel.  The Senate quoted from the panel’s July 2024 report which came to the same conclusions as it had in all previous observations.  Namely, “SIUs are not addressing the problems they were designed to address……and there were no meaningful or consistent improvements in operations over four years.”

The Senate committee has called for a meaningful federal response to the abusive and discriminatory CSC practices it identified over five years of study in the Senate’s own report, the June 2021 Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons.  The rules of the Senate allow the Senate to request “a complete and detailed response” from the government to reports adopted by the Senate.  According to the rules, the government must respond within 150 days or explain why it can’t.

After some hemming and hawing from the government front benches, silence.  Nothing.

Quoting the Senate committee: “The government’s inadequate response and the relevant ministers’ unwillingness to defend it shows that the government is unconcerned with public safety, indifferent to the routine violations of human rights in Canada’s penitentiaries, and contemptuous of the parliamentarians and witnesses who contributed to this study.”

This isn’t about politics.  It’s about the advice the government is getting from senior civil servants…..

……don’t open that closet door!  We can’t cover for you if you do.