Vol. 147, No. 22 — October 23, 2013
Registration
SOR/2013-181 October 9, 2013
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Regulations Amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations
P.C. 2013-1069 October 9, 2013
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, pursuant to paragraphs 96(u) and (z.2) (see footnote a) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (see footnote b), makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations.
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS
1. Paragraph 75(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:
- (b) if the institutional head or director is the subject of the grievance, to the Commissioner.
2. Subsection 76(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
76. (1) The institutional head, director of the parole district or Commissioner, as the case may be, shall review a grievance to determine whether the subject-matter of the grievance falls within the jurisdiction of the Service.
3. (1) Subsection 80(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
80. (1) If an offender is not satisfied with a decision of the institutional head or director of the parole district respecting their grievance, they may appeal the decision to the Commissioner.
(2) Subsection 80(2) of the Regulations is repealed.
(3) Subsection 80(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(3) The Commissioner shall give the offender a copy of his or her decision, including the reasons for the decision, as soon as feasible after the offender submits an appeal.
4. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 80:
80.1 A senior staff member may, on the Commissioner’s behalf, make a decision in respect of a grievance submitted under paragraph 75(b) or an appeal submitted under subsection 80(1) if the staff member
- (a) holds a position equal to or higher in rank than that of assistant deputy minister; and
- (b) is designated by name or position for that purpose in a Commissioner’s Directive.
5. The heading before section 104.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Deductions and Reimbursement for Food, Accommodation, Work-related Clothing and Access to Telephone Services
6. Subsection 104.1(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(2) Deductions may be made under paragraph 78(2)(a) of the Act for the purpose of reimbursing Her Majesty in right of Canada for
- (a) the costs of food, accommodation and work-related clothing provided to the offender by the Service; and
- (b) the administrative costs associated with the access to telephone services provided to the offender by the Service.
COMING INTO FORCE
7. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)
Issue
Deductions for inmate telephone system
The Government has announced increased measures to hold inmates accountable for their actions. Amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (the Regulations) are being proposed to ensure that administrative costs associated with managing the inmate telephone system are charged to the inmate population.
Changes to offender grievance system
Amendments to the Regulations have been made in order to address delays and duplication in the grievance process through improved efficiencies. These amendments are related to the elimination of the second level of the offender grievance system and the delegation of responsibility for responding to third-level offender grievances.
Background
Deductions for inmate telephone system
On May 9, 2012, the Minister of Public Safety announced increased accountability measures to hold inmates accountable for their actions. The new measures include
- Increases to the amount inmates are charged for their room and board;
- Eliminating “incentive” pay for inmates working in prison industry facilities;
- Streamlining and standardizing the purchase of inmate goods from outside suppliers;
- Transferring accountability for all institutional canteens to inmate committees; and
- Ensuring administrative costs associated with managing the inmate telephone system are charged to the inmate population.
The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has a responsibility to encourage inmates to maintain and develop family and community ties. Written correspondence and telephone communication are two ways that inmates can accomplish this goal. To that end, all federal penitentiaries across Canada are equipped with an inmate telephone system. The system is secure and allows CSC to monitor and intercept communications when necessary.
The system consists of telephones and networked personal computer workstations used by authorized CSC personnel to handle security management issues and telephone call activity. CSC does not own any of the equipment and does not absorb any of the costs associated with the telephone services. The system is designed so that the telecommunications provider provides the hardware components, management software and the telephone service. Fees for local and long distance calls are charged to the inmate through a card-based system that allows the telecommunications provider and CSC to track the individual inmate’s calls and affiliated charges/costs. All costs associated with debit local and long distance calls are paid for by inmates. All costs associated with collect calls, both local and long distance, are paid for by the party whom the inmate called.
The cost to CSC of administering the telephone system is $1.6M annually and this entails a number of administrative tasks that CSC staff must complete in order for inmates to use the telephone system.
A description of these tasks is included below:
CSC personnel must set up a telephone account profile for each inmate in the telephone system database. This allows CSC to issue a phone card to the inmate that will allow him/her to access the inmate telephone system and pay for debit phone calls that they may make. In order for an inmate to call family or friends, a “call allow list” must also be established. Inmates are required to submit, in writing, the following information for each person they wish to call: name, address, phone number, and relationship to the inmate. CSC then conducts an assessment on each name to ensure there are no security concerns that would prohibit an inmate from communicating with the person. For example, inmates are not permitted to call victims or ex-inmates. The “call allow list” must also be updated regularly by staff so that names can be deleted and added as required. The maximum number of people on a call list is 40. The telephone system will only connect the call if the number is on the inmate’s pre-authorized “call allow list” or is one of a maximum of 35 common access numbers (e.g. the Correctional Investigator, some members of Parliament, local support agencies such as the John Howard Society or the Elizabeth Fry Society, information privacy commissioners).
Staff must also meet individually with inmates to collect necessary financial forms that allow the transfer of inmate funds from their bank account to their telephone account in order to pay for their phone calls. Staff must record these transactions in the inmate’s phone account. Staff must also ensure that sufficient funds are loaded onto the inmate’s phone card so that they will be able to use the card to make phone calls. For security reasons, phone calls cannot be completed if the inmate does not have sufficient funds in their telephone account.
Changes to offender grievance system
CSC is mandated through legislation and regulation to provide a fair grievance system for all offenders. When the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (theAct)wasintroduced in 1992, it included the requirement for a grievance system in the legislation; however, CSC had already had a grievance system in place well before then.
Section 90 of the Act mandates CSC to fairly and quickly resolve offender grievances on matters that are under the responsibility of the Commissioner of Corrections. Section 91 of the Act outlines that every offender will have complete access to the grievance system without any negative consequences. Sections 74 to 82 of the Regulations provide additional detail on how the system works.
CSC’s grievance system is also detailed in CSC’s internal policy, Commissioner’s Directive 081, Offender Complaints and Grievances (the Directive) and the associated Guidelines. This policy outlines the responsibilities and procedures, as well as the timelines for responding to grievances.
CSC’s offender complaints and grievance system ensures that offenders’ problems, concerns and expectations are brought to the attention of managers across the Service by providing them with grievance-based information on trends and issues.
The system also promotes resolving issues at the lowest possible level. This means that CSC staff work with the offender to try to resolve the problem when and where it occurs. If a solution cannot be found, the offender has the right to bring the problem to the attention of higher levels of management. As a result, this system provides offenders with a way to question policy or decisions. Through the grievance system, if CSC discovers that a law or policy has not been followed, then the Service can put into place “corrective action.” In other words, if the grievance is founded, then a remedy, as appropriate, is provided. For example, if an offender has grieved that the information in his/her file is incorrect, the remedy or corrective action could be that the parole officer makes corrections to the offender’s file.
Under the current system, there are four internal decisionmaking stages. The offender submits his/her complaint/grievance at each stage of the process and receives a response. He/she can then choose to continue to the next level or withdraw:
- Complaint: is submitted by the offender at the institution or district parole office and responded to by the supervisor of the staff member whose actions or decisions are called into question,
- First-level grievance (institution/district parole office): is submitted to the Institutional Head/District Director for response,
- Second-level grievance (Regional Headquarters): is submitted to the Regional Deputy Commissioner for response, and
- Third-level grievance (National Headquarters): is submitted to the Commissioner for response.
At the first-level grievance, there are also two additional options available (although they are used infrequently) which provide advice to the institutional head:
- the Inmate Grievance Committee, where one has been established, consists of an equal number of offenders and staff members and a non-voting chairperson (who may be an offender or a staff member); and
- an outside review board made up of members of the community (a minimum of two).
Through the Directive, complaints and grievances are also categorized into three types, each of which has a different timeframe for providing a response to the offender:
- Urgent complaints or grievances are those that would result in irreparable adverse consequences to the offender if not immediately resolved (at some identified juncture in less than 15 days). An example of an urgent complaint/grievance would be the denial of a temporary absence to visit a terminally ill relative.
- High priority complaints and grievances concern matters that have a direct effect on the life, liberty or security of the person or that relate to an offender’s access to the complaint and grievance process. Examples include decisions about the following: penitentiary placement (the institution where an offender is placed when they are first admitted to the federal system); placing an inmate in segregation; involuntary transfers; use of force; strip searches; harassment; visits; urgent health services or treatment; religious or spiritual programs; or the offender grievance system itself. These complaints/grievances must be answered within 15 days at each of the complaint, first and second levels. At the third level, the timeframe is 60 days.
- Routine priority complaints generally concern all other types of grievances and are answered within 25 days at each of the complaint, first and second levels and within 80 days at the third level. Examples include personal or institutional amenities; personal effects; food and diets; inmate canteen; conditions of the institution; health services; decisions about offender program participation and programs themselves; inmate pay decisions; recreational activities; case preparation activities.
At any time, an offender may approach the Correctional Investigator (who is an ombudsman, not an adjudicator) who can recommend a resolution to CSC. Offenders always have the possibility to seek a judicial review in the Federal Court and, in cases of discrimination, to file a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The courts and the various commissions may ask that the offender exhaust all levels of CSC’s internal grievance system prior to these outside bodies conducting a review. These external options represent a considerable number of avenues of complaint and grievance for offenders.
At the third level, the Commissioner of CSC is accountable for grievance responses. This responsibility is also exercised by the Senior Deputy Commissioner [as per subsection 24(4) of the Interpretation Act]. The Senior Deputy Commissioner reports directly to the Commissioner.
Offenders submit between 28 000 and 30 000 complaints and grievances every year. One of CSC’s main challenges is responding to grievances in a timely fashion and respecting its own policy timeframes. When CSC is unable to do so, frustration of both offenders and stakeholders increases.
Objective
Deductions for inmate telephone system
The amendments allow CSC to ensure that these administrative costs are charged to the inmate population. By paying for these costs, inmates will assume responsibility for some of the expenses related to their incarceration, thus making them more accountable for their actions. These amendments are consistent with the Government’s recent changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (the Act) and the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which emphasize increasing inmate accountability.
Changes to offender grievance system
The objectives of these amendments are to
- improve the efficiency and timeliness of the grievance system; and
- improve financial efficiencies for CSC.
Description
Deductions for inmate telephone system
These regulatory amendments involve adding telephone deductions to the list of allowable deductions that can be made from an inmate’s pay.
The Act permits CSC to pay offenders for the purpose of encouraging them to participate in correctional programs or inmate employment. Inmate participation in work/program activities is identified in their Correctional Plan, which is the roadmap developed when they are admitted to CSC and outlines what they must do to work towards their reintegration into society. Paying a wage to inmates is an important part of the rehabilitation process and encourages inmates to assume responsibility for their expenses. The Act also allows the Commissioner of CSC to apply deductions to the offender income, not exceeding 30% of their gross pay, for the purpose of reimbursing the Crown for the costs of food and accommodation and the costs of work-related clothing provided to the offender by the Service.
This regulatory amendment will allow CSC to make an additional deduction from an inmate’s pay for the purpose of paying for the administrative costs associated with the inmate telephone system. The amount of this deduction will be applied to all inmates equally and will be specified in Commissioner’s Directive 860, Inmate’s Money. In order to achieve a savings of $1.6 million, CSC will deduct 8% of an inmate’s gross pay every two weeks in order to pay for the administration of the inmate telephone system.
There are six pay levels:
- Level 1 = $1.00 per day to a maximum of $10.00 every two weeks;
- Level 2 = $2.50 per day to a maximum of $25.00 every two weeks;
- Level 3 = $5.25 per day to a maximum of $52.50 every two weeks;
- Level 4 = $5.80 per day to a maximum of $58.00 every two weeks;
- Level 5 = $6.35 per day to a maximum of $63.50 every two weeks; and
- Level 6 = $6.90 per day to a maximum of $69.00 every two weeks.
Paragraph 96(z.2) of the Act authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing deductions that may be applied to income that inmates receive from CSC for participation in work and/or correctional programs. This section of the Act authorizes regulations to be made that would allow a deduction from an inmate’s pay to recoup the cost of the administration of the inmate telephone system. The amount of the deduction is not specified in the regulation; rather, it is set by the Commissioner of CSC and outlined in Commissioner’s Directive (CD) 860, Inmate’s Money.
Changes to offender grievance system
The regulatory amendments involve
- the elimination of the second level of the grievance system; and
- adding an explicit authority to delegate the Commissioner’s responsibility over third-level grievances to other senior managers within CSC.
Efficiencies will be achieved through streamlining the offender grievance system by eliminating the second level of the grievance system and by increasing the number of senior managers responsible for responding to offender grievances.
“One-for-One” Rule
The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply to these amendments, as there is no change in administrative costs to business.
Small business lens
The small business lens does not apply to these amendments as there are no costs on small business.
Consultation
Deductions for inmate telephone system
Stakeholders identified for this regulatory amendment are federally incarcerated inmates. Section 74 of the Act, which deals with inmate input on decisions, requires that inmates be given an opportunity to contribute to decisions of the CSC. Therefore, inmates were consulted on the issue of deductions for the inmate telephone system.
During the months of June and July 2012, wardens were asked to meet with the inmate committees of all institutions with respect to the deduction for the inmate telephone system. Inmates were informed that the deduction for the telephone system would apply to all inmates and that it would represent a cost of 8% of their pay level.
A summary of the inmate committees’ comments are reported below:
- Overall adverse reaction to these deductions;
- This additional cost will greatly hinder the ability to communicate with their children, families and community supports and ultimately have a negative impact on their reintegration;
- The deduction could contribute to a negative institutional climate;
- Phone contact with children/family/friends is a pro-social activity and deemed beneficial and necessary for successful reintegration; therefore, inmates expressed frustration with this extra expense and the fact that it would impact their reintegration efforts; and
- More details were requested on how this initiative will be implemented and managed.
In order to alleviate inmate concerns regarding the management of deductions for the inmate telephone system, CSC will commit to providing detailed information to inmates prior to and during the implementation of this initiative.
Changes to offender grievance system
In 2010, CSC engaged an external consultant, Mr. David Mullan, to review the offender grievance system. Mr. Mullan is a retired professor of administrative law from Queen’s University and a recognized expert in his field.
During his review, Mr. Mullan visited 28 institutions across the country as well as the five Regional Headquarters. Among other objectives, he reviewed the current CSC grievance process in consultation with key stakeholders, including inmate committees, the Correctional Investigator, CSC staff, and key non-governmental Organizations such as the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. He also compared CSC’s system against others around the world.
His report, entitled Report of External Review of Correctional Service of Canada Offender Complaints and Grievance Process, was provided to CSC’s Executive Committee in July 2010. One of Mr. Mullan’s recommendations was to eliminate the second level of the grievance system.
In conducting his review, Mr. Mullan held interviews with of a number of inmate committee members at various institutions, as well as with inmate grievance clerks, an institutional employment position. Both groups indicated that there was at least one stage too many in the process. Further, the Correctional Investigator expressed support for Mr. Mullan’s recommendation to eliminate the second level of the grievance system when providing testimony to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs regarding Bill C-293 on December 12, 2012.
For example, in relation to inmates serving shorter sentences or who find themselves close to release, the time that it could take for a complaint/grievance to reach the final level of the process can act as a disincentive to the inmate even presenting their complaint/grievance. In many routine matters, even for those inmates who remain in custody, by the time these matters are dealt with at the third level, the original reason or motivation for launching the grievance in the first place has been overtaken by other events or is no longer of significance.
Rationale
Deductions for inmate telephone system
Ensuring offenders remain accountable for their actions is a priority of the Government. These amendments will encourage accountability by making inmates responsible for part of the costs related to their incarceration.
CSC can only be granted the authority to make deductions from an inmate’s pay through an amendment to the Regulations. A non-legislative, non-regulatory measure would not achieve the objective of ensuring that inmates pay for the cost of the inmate telephone system.
Changes to offender grievance system
The grievance analysts at the second level (Regional Headquarters) and the third level (National Headquarters) perform virtually the same tasks and this results in some duplication of services. As well, only 50% of grievances are resolved annually at the regional level. Considering that the remaining cases reached the national level, it is considered a reasonable approach to eliminate the second level of the grievance process.
Analysts at CSC’s National Headquarters have access to a database that encompasses a larger sample of cases, as well as extensive systems and decision-making processes which lead to greater productivity and efficiencies, both in the operations of the system and financially. The change to eliminate the second level will improve the consistency of the decisions across the Service and make for a system that responds in a more timely fashion.
Amendments to the Regulations expressly allowing the Commissioner to delegate the responsibility for responding to third-level grievances to various senior executives at National Headquarters (i.e. Assistant Commissioners or equivalents) will increase the number of senior managers who respond to grievances. This will, in turn, improve national oversight of operational decisions, ensure greater accountability of the decision-making at the national level as well as increase efficiency by providing faster responses to offenders.
Implementation, enforcement and service standards
Deductions for inmate telephone system
Implementation will be supported by CD 860 — Inmate’s Money, which will be amended to reflect the fact that deductions for the telephone system will be an authorized deduction. In-house communication material will be distributed to inmates and inmate committees as well as regional correctional officials and wardens in order to advise them of this deduction. Any necessary staff training would be provided at local operational sites, consistent with on-going professional development efforts.
Changes to offender grievance system
Implementation will be supported by CD 081 — Offender Complaints and Grievances and relevant Guidelines which will be amended and promulgated to reflect the elimination of the second level. During the amendment of this Directive, CSC will consult with staff, CSC partners, and offenders (the latter as per section 74 of the Act). The Directive will also be posted on CSC’s Internet site to allow public access to the policy. It is expected that during the implementation stages of this initiative, increased workloads will be created at the national level. Therefore, there may be a need to reorganize at the national level in order to support the new process.
As described above, the offender complaint and grievance process supports CSC in monitoring compliance with all its policies, including the grievance policy itself. CSC also monitors compliance through a regular audit plan and the Management Control Framework (MCF) initiative. The MCF initiative is part of CSC’s suite of internal control tools, designed to provide assurance to senior managers and to stakeholders that the Service complies within the parameters of its policies.
Contacts
Luisa Mirabelli
Portfolio Manager
Strategic Policy
Correctional Service of Canada
340 Laurier Avenue W
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P9
Telephone: 613-992-9271
Email: Luisa.Mirabelli@csc-scc.gc.ca
Lisa Watson
Director
Strategic Policy
Correctional Service of Canada
340 Laurier Avenue W
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P9
Telephone: 613-943-5299
Email: Lisa.E.Watson@csc-scc.gc.ca
- Footnote a
S.C. 1995, c. 42, s. 25(4) - Footnote b
S.C. 1992, c. 20 - Footnote 1
SOR/92-620