Question Period Note: Structured Intervention Units

Two independent researchers published an op-ed claiming that Structured Intervention Units are just administrative segregation with a different name.

• Structured Intervention Units are part of a historic transformation of the federal correctional system that are fundamentally different from the previous model.
• Structured Intervention Units are meant as a temporary measure to help inmates adopt more positive behaviours that keep the institution, as a whole, safe and secure.
• An inmate’s transfer to a Structured Intervention Unit is not a form of punishment. It occurs when the inmate’s presence in a mainstream population jeopardizes the safety of the inmate or anyone else, the security of the penitentiary, or the conduct of a lawful investigation.
• An inmate in a Structured Intervention Unit is visited daily by staff, including their parole officer, health care professionals, correctional officers, primary workers, Elders and Chaplains as well as other inmates and visitors.
• The Service continues to work hard to help inmates take advantage of the opportunities for time out of cell and meaningfully engage in diverse activities and programs, and support their safe return to a mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.
• The legislation recognizes that there are situations when an inmate may be held in their cell for longer, for example, if they refuse to leave. This is their right.
• As of May 31, 2021, there have been close to 1,500 reviews by Independent External Decision Makers. In 81% of these cases, it was determined that the Service took all reasonable steps to provide the opportunities and encourage the inmate to use the opportunities.
• Independent External Decision Makers contribute to the effective functioning of the system by monitoring and reviewing inmate cases on an ongoing basis, and by providing recommendations and decisions to the Service. Their decisions are binding.

Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) allow inmates to be separated from the mainstream inmate population—providing the opportunity to maintain their access to rehabilitative programming and interventions. Inmates in an SIU:

• Receive interventions and programming specific to the reasons that led to the transfer;
• have an opportunity to be outside of their cell for at least four hours a day, with additional time for a shower;
• have an opportunity to interact with others for at least two hours a day; and
• receive daily visits from healthcare professionals who may recommend for health reasons that the inmate’s conditions of confinement be altered or that they not remain in the unit.

SIUs are for inmates who cannot be managed safely within a mainstream inmate population. An inmate could be transferred to an SIU if they are a threat to any person or the security of the institution, their safety is in jeopardy or their placement in the mainstream population would interfere with an investigation, and there is no reasonable alternative.

Inmates in SIUs are provided with opportunities to participate in structured interventions, hobbies, leisure and physical activities, as well as research-based programming to address their specific risks and needs, with the goal of facilitating their reintegration into a mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. It is expected that SIUs will enhance correctional outcomes, as well as assist in reducing the rate of institutional violent incidents, resulting in a safer environment for staff, offenders and visitors.

Visits, engagement with partner agencies, Elders, cultural and spiritual leaders and opportunities for inmate interaction are available in providing opportunities for meaningful human contact. When visits are restricted due to measures related to reducing the spread of COVID-19, alternatives are available, such as video visitation.

As of June 14, 2021, there are 194 inmates in an SIU across Canada. This represents approximately 1.5% of the inmate population.

Independent External Decision Makers
Independent External Decision Makers (IEDM) provide oversight related to an inmate’s conditions, frequency, and duration of confinement in an SIU and review cases.
As of May 31, 2021, there have been over 1,400 reviews by IEDMs. Often this happens because an inmate refuses the opportunities that are offered to them daily. In 81% of these cases, the IEDM has concluded that CSC has taken all reasonable steps to provide the opportunities and encourage the inmate to use the opportunities. In the remaining 19%, the IEDMs have made recommendations to CSC. Once the decision from an IEDM is received, CSC has 7 days to act upon it. This external oversight contributes to the continued enhancement and shaping of SIUs.
Legal Challenges

On June 24, 2019, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) upheld the lower court’s declaration that the administrative segregation provisions of the CCRA violates s. 7 of the Charter as it authorizes prolonged, indefinite administrative segregation and does not require external review starting at the fifth working day. The BCCA made a declaration: (1) that CSC breached its statutory obligations to ensure that inmates in administrative segregation have a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel, and (2) that inmates can be represented by counsel at segregation review hearings. It disagreed with the finding of the lower court that the impugned provisions violate s. 15 of the Charter in respect of Indigenous or mentally ill and/or disabled inmates. It declared CSC had breached statutory obligations to give meaningful consideration to the health care needs of mentally ill and/or disabled inmates before placing or confirming the placement of them in administrative segregation.

Canada appealed both decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada, but later discontinued those appeals. In addition, there are three ongoing class actions seeking damages in relation to the use of administrative segregation, Brazeau, Gallone, and Reddock, and one proposed class action, Joe (Colton).

None