|
THE PARLIAMENTARY SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE JUSTICE
MODEL OF CORRECTIONS
The Heald judgment in McCann
and the Vantour Report should have provided a major impetus for change
in the conditions and regime of segregation. As of the end of 1976 neither
of them had had this desired effect. As I have already mentioned, major
disturbances broke out in three of Canada’s maximum-security penitentiaries
in the fall of 1976, leading to a parliamentary investigation. The report
of the Parliamentary Subcommittee on the Penitentiary System in Canada
was not specifically concerned with segregation, but sought to grapple
with what it perceived to be the underlying problems and issues in the
penitentiary system. One of those problems was ‘the fact that imprisonment
-the ultimate product of our system of criminal justice -itself epitomizes
injustice.’27 To correct this fundamental
flaw in the system, the subcommittee endorsed two principles:
Principle 11
The Rule of Law must prevail inside Canadian penitentiaries.
Principle 12
Justice for inmates is a personal right and also an essential condition
of their socialization and personal reformation. It implies both respect
for their persons and property of others and fairness in treatment. Arbitrariness
traditionally associated with prison life must be replaced by clear rules,
fair disciplinary procedures and the providing of reasons for all decisions
affecting inmates.28
The subcommittee, reporting after the decision in Martineau
(No.1) but prior to the decision in Martineau
(No.2), concluded that ‘a fundamental problem lies in the general
restraint by the courts in exercising their power to ensure that Canadian
law applies within as well as outside penitentiaries.’29
The subcommittee, while critical of the hands-off approach of the Canadian
courts, felt that ensuring that the rule of law prevailed behind prison
walls was at the outset a task requiring legislative and administrative
initiative. The subcommittee recommended that the commissioner’s directives
be consolidated into a consistent code of regulations having the force
of law for both prisoners and staff;3O that
independent chairpersons be appointed immediately in all institutions
to preside over disciplinary hearings;31
that an inmate grievance procedure be established in which prisoners had
a substantial role;32 and, specifically
in relation to administrative segregation; which the report called a ‘euphemism
for solitary confinement,’ that, in accordance with the Vantour Report,
‘there must be a Segregation Review Board and due notice in writing of
the Board’s decisions.’33 The subcommittee
noted that it had considered the question of independent chairpersons
presiding over segregation review boards, but felt that the proposals
of the Vantour Report should be tried and reconsidered after two years
of experience.34 Page 1 of 2
|
