The report for that year also found the enactment of the CCRA
had done little to improve the effectiveness of the grievance process:
The grievance process, despite years of internal
review and past commitments, displays, at the national level, little if
any evidence of effective management of the system or management commitment
to the system. Grievance responses continue to be delayed well beyond
the timeframes of the policy, and the thoroughness and objectivity of
the reviews undertaken in many instances is wanting. The automated reporting
system has yet to come on line and as such, the process continues without
the capacity to provide relevant information on its own operations or
management with ongoing information capable of identifying inconsistencies
concerning the interpretation and application of the Service's policies.
The Corrections and Conditional
Release Act requires of the Service the establishment of a "procedure
for fairly and expeditiously resolving offender grievances." The current
procedure does not meet this requirement. The process is anything but
expeditious, with offender grievances taking up to six months to work
their way through the process. The current process as well cannot be seen
as directed towards fair resolution, it is rather an adversarial, win-lose
exercise played out on a very uneven playing field with the offender having
limited input at the higher levels of the procedure . . .
In conclusion on this matter, I return to my comments
of 1989, that improvement in the effectiveness and credibility of this
process will only happen when the senior management of the Service accepts
responsibility for the operation of procedure. ( Annual
Report 1993-94 at 23)
The 1994-95 annual report detailed the continuing "excessive delay,
defensiveness and non-commitment" of the Service, especially at the National
Headquarters level, and concluded with this observation:
The Service's responses over the course of this reporting
year are consistent with their past performances. The responses have avoided
the substance of the issues at question including a failure to address
the specific observations and recommendations contained in last year's
Annual Report. The responses are defensive, display little if any appreciation
for the history or significance of the issues at question and provide
at best a further string of endless promises of future action, with no
indication as to expected results or how the results of these proposed
actions will be measured or analyzed. ( Annual
Report of the Correctional Investigator, 1994-95 [Ottawa: Supply
and Services Canada, 1995] at 57) Page 3 of 3
|