Cat. No.: PS104-20/2023E-PDF

ISSN: 978-0-660-49732-7

Table of Contents

• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• Part 1
• Part 2
  • Unfulfilled Promises : Investigation of Healing Lodges in Canada’s Federal Correctional System
  • A Straight and Narrow Road : An Investigation into CSC’s Pathways Initiatives
  • An Investigation of the Role and Impact of Elders in Federal Corrections
• Concluding Message
• ANNEX A: Summary of Recommendations

Acknowledgements

Source: CSC’s CRS-M Institutional Counts – Institutional Population Compared to Rated Capacity .

Source: CSC’s National Indigenous Plan (2022).

Lengthy Transfer Times to Healing Lodges

Another notable reason for the vacancies, particularly at the community-run Healing Lodges, is the amount of time it takes, not only to cascade down to minimum-security, but also to literally transfer to a Healing Lodge. The following was shared by one staff member at a Section 81 lodge: “I would love it if we were full. We have an extensive waitlist, and yet, we’ve never been full. Many of the guys get stat release before they even get to us.” At some of the community-run lodges, we heard that it often takes three to four months between when a Healing Lodge sends an applicant a letter of approval, to when the actual transfer is scheduled to take place by CSC. By that point, usually late in an individual’s sentence, many will be released directly from prison when they could have benefited from the better environment and community reintegration process of the Healing Lodge. Other than citing possible bureaucratic delays on CSC’s end, none of the individuals interviewed could offer any insights or reasons for such problems with providing more timely transfers.

In addition to the delays in getting individuals from prison to the Healing Lodges, we also heard that CSC-run lodges in practice appear to get priority for residents over community-run lodges, which is corroborated by the fact that CSC-run lodges have consistently higher occupancy rates and more transfers. We were told by some residents and staff that, as part of the earn-your-way approach to accessing the Healing Lodges, an unwritten prerequisite to getting to a community-run Healing Lodge is first a stay at a CSC-run lodge. Many of the residents we spoke with said they “had to” go to CSC-run lodge before getting to a Section 81. This has presented a problem for the community-run lodges, in that it reduces the number of residents coming their way. As one staff told us, “I think they just want to keep their numbers – they are holding on tight to their guys, they just don’t want to give them up to us” . Many Healing Lodge residents told us that the path for them was to cascade to medium, then minimum, then transfer to a CSC-run lodge, and finally a Section 81. This graduated approach and unwritten rule that the CSC-run lodges get priority, is serving to disadvantage community-run lodges in many ways and is unnecessarily lengthening the time it takes for residents to get to the community. Furthermore, these practices send a more fundamental message, and illustrate some entrenched thinking, for why CSC has created and maintained this “two-tiered” Healing Lodge system, with some run by community and some run by the state.

3. Straying from the Vision – The Fundamental Problem of the “two-tier” Healing Lodge system

The time has come to return to the Sacred Laws. The healing of Aboriginal People has begun and must continue. The way back to restored dignity is with our unique humanity. The door to authentic development and healing is unlocked from within. An opportunity exists through the Vision of the Healing Lodge… Through the teachings of the Elders’ Circle, Sacred Laws of Women will be rekindled to provide a spiritual base for life’s challenges. This responsibility to federally sentenced women and the Seven Generations to come will be an overall objective of the Healing Lodge. 
– Excerpt from the Healing Lodge Vision

The lack of progress on growing the Healing Lodge model can be seen not only in the few new lodges and agreements that have been established in the last decade, but also in the creation, and seeming permanence, of a “two-tier” system. It is possibly the clearest example of how CSC has failed to deliver on its responsibilities under Section 81 of the CCRA, and how it has quietly reneged on its commitments to Indigenous communities by retaining control and authority over the majority of individuals occupying Healing Lodge beds.

When Okimaw Ohci opened nearly thirty years ago, CSC’s commitment was to retain authority as merely a transitory step, and that ownership and operation would eventually be handed over to the local community, as intended under the original vision for the Healing Lodges. This transition never came to pass. With the recent 25-year renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding between CSC and the Nekaneet First Nation in July 2021, a transition of Okimaw Ohci to community, in the short or even long term, seems unlikely. The three additional Healing Lodges operated by CSC that opened in the decade that followed – one of which was converted from an existing men’s prison – appear to have suffered a similar outcome, with no indication of plans or intentions to designate them under Section 81 and transfer local control to the community.

What has paradoxically resulted are state-run Healing Lodges, a concept inherently antithetical to the original vision, and which by policy and practice, has rendered them more closely resembling mainstream minimum and medium security prisons, in contrast to what was expected of a Healing Lodge run by community. These “institutions”, as CSC refers to them on its website, operate under the same policies as other prisons, with little in the way of formalized flexibility to operate differently. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted this fundamental reality. As we heard through our interviews, when access to community, programs, and ceremony were restricted early on in the pandemic, CSC-run lodges were by all accounts largely operating as minimum-security prisons. This is not to denigrate the important work and good intentions of many of the individuals working in these Healing Lodges and there is indeed variation in how CSC-run lodges operate. On the contrary, CSC’s decisions to privilege its own power and control has put limits on these lodges to more freely exercise as the decolonized places they were intended to be, where Indigenous governance, self-determination, and community were to be the prevailing ethos – not mainstream corrections with a twist. What has resulted are two classes of Healing Lodges. We have well-funded state-run lodges with the resources that favour their ability to flourish, but whose success is limited by the very fact that they are state-run and not as responsive to the unique needs of Indigenous residents. Alternatively, we have community-run lodges whose fundamental promise has been limited by the practices of relegation imposed on them by the Service.

The solution to the two-tier system however does not lie in the creation of a new policy suite granting more flexibility within the existing model of state-run lodges. Rather, CSC must go back to the original intent and philosophy of the Healing Lodges to see how far they have strayed off course. As long as the Service continues to operate state-run lodges, it will continue to engage in an age-old colonial game of carceral clawback – perpetuating itself and its own authority, and making tweaks to the system in an effort to neutralize external criticisms and demands. True reconciliation in the correctional system will only come from making-good on old promises and taking earnest steps towards Indigenous sovereignty and decolonization of the Healing Lodges.

According to budget allocation data provided by CSC, in 2023-24, CSC’s spending on Section 81 Healing Lodges accounts for only 34% of their total spending on Healing Lodges. Furthermore, for the six community-run Healing Lodges, they are spending half of what they spend on the four CSC-run lodges. Put differently, CSC is currently spending approximately two times more on CSC-run lodges compared to those that are run by community. When examined at the level of costs per-person, CSC is still spending on average approximately 40% less – approximately $100K less per person – per resident who is serving their sentence at a community-run Healing Lodge compared to a resident at a CSC-run lodge. In other words, as was the case in 2013, CSC is continuing to pay just under 62 cents on the dollar to Section 81 Healing Lodges compared to what they spend on residents at state-run lodges. ²⁷ Through an examination of overall funding alone, it is clear that CSC has not only continued to privilege the funding of its own CSC-run lodges, it has widened the gap that already existed ten years ago. Furthermore, as our Office heard through our interviews, the Service has kept communities in the dark regarding what sources of funding are available and how to secure such funding. As one individual told us:

“CSC is not telling Healing Lodges what money is available. No one knows what money is there. There is a lot of money in Health Care and Indigenous Corrections…money goes unspent. Where is it going? And they want us to take [Indigenous people] with complex needs, but we need more money, we need to be able to pay for higher-skilled staff to deal with them, and CSC tells no one about what money is available. Why?”

The chronic under-funding of community-run lodges, particularly in comparison to state-run lodges, exemplifies how CSC has in effect pitted these lodges against each other and waged a quiet war of attrition that has set Section 81 lodges up for struggle.

Unsurprisingly, the consequences of such discrepancies in funding have an impact on all aspects of how Healing Lodges operate. Based on the various site visits and interviews conducted in recent years, our Office has noted significant differences between CSC and community-run lodges, including, but not limited to the following:

• aging infrastructure of facilities;
• ability to recruit, train, and retain staff;
• disparities in staff wages for equivalent jobs;
• funding for the daily basics, such as bedding and hygiene products;
• funding to run programs, activities, or ceremony;
• ability to transport residents to community programs and services; and,
• ability to support individuals with complex mental and physical health needs.

The disparity in funding for staff salaries and training was by far the most commonly cited concern raised when discussing the financial burdens placed on community-run lodges. Some of these sites shared that their staff can make as little as half the salary of what a correctional officer earns at a comparable CSC institution. “We get paid like a person in retail”, one staff member told us, sharing that she works three jobs to make ends meet. Another staff member at a Section 81 lodge shared that the she earns $30,000 less a year than what she would be making doing the same job for CSC.

One of the major consequences of not offering competitive wages is that it creates challenges both for the initial recruitment, as well as the retention of staff, after they have learned the ropes. As one individual told us, “The starting wage is a huge deterrent. Staff come here for the right reasons, but you can’t live off their wages”. Staff turnover, and specifically losing staff to CSC facilities who can pay a significantly higher wage, has been a long-standing challenge at the community sites, one that creates a sense of instability amongst staff and residents alike. One staff member told us that the first question she received from a resident upon starting her job was, “Are you going to stay long enough to learn our names?”

It is an expensive responsibility for communities to run a Healing Lodge, the costs of which are a significant disincentive to enter into an agreement, particularly when CSC is not adequately compensating them to take on such a responsibility. For decades now, community-run lodges have been forced to stretch the value of a dollar beyond what should be reasonably expected and asked of them, seemingly capitalizing on their dedication, good will, or “calling” to do this work. As one staff member put it, “It’s not money; it’s the residents that keep me here. Love is what keeps me here.”

5. Community-run Healing Lodges are a Worthwhile Investment

On the surface of it, the trajectory of last thirty years with respect to Healing Lodges in Canada’s correctional system does not look to be a resounding success story. And in retrospect, the move by CSC to abandon their push for new agreements, refocus funds away from Healing Lodges toward prison-based initiatives (at one point, even arguing against the Healing Lodge model), was an early sign that the light was dimming on hopes for their expansion. Nevertheless, CSC’s failure to invest in Healing Lodges is not evidence that Healing Lodges are not indeed worthy of investment.

Many of CSC’s own studies have demonstrated the promise of Healing Lodges as an effective community alternative to corrections. For example, a recent study conducted by CSC’s research branch on the impacts of Healing Lodges on reintegration and community outcomes were positive. They found that, compared to a matched sample of individuals at mainstream prisons, Healing Lodge residents were more likely to complete correctional and other programs, and participate in more Escorted and Unescorted Temporary Absences as well as work releases. When comparing CSC-run to Section 81 resident outcomes, over the course of their sentence, residents from community-run lodges showed greater improvements in most need areas (e.g., family/marital issues, substance use, and community functioning). While there were no significant differences in the rates of suspensions or revocations, those released from a community-run Healing Lodge spent more successful time in the community prior to their first suspension or revocation, compared to individuals released from CSC-run lodges. ²⁸

The success and benefits of Healing Lodges, however, does not simply rest in counting the number of new agreements or looking at returns to CSC custody following release. The Service has a long-standing habit of measuring the success of its initiatives by using existing, available data and performance indicators that can be easily extracted from its own internal data warehouse system. While these measures can be informative, they have inherent limits and biases, particularly when it comes to capturing progress on healing, in a culturally-informed way, no less. Instead, a look what takes place inside these lodges and what it means for the lives of the residents, staff, and community, tells a more compelling story of why they are not simply a better alternative to prisons, but a more humane model worthy of greater investment. Everything from the physical environment, staff mentality and culture, quality of programs, and access to community, during our visits and interviews, both residents and staff from community-run Healing Lodges shared with us some of the key elements that have the greatest impact on their lives and demonstrate their significant value.

Environment & Staff

First, the Healing Lodge environment – both in the physical sense as well as the atmosphere or feel – was cited as among the most powerful features of the Healing Lodge. From the reduced emphasis on security and separation, to the manner and even dress of staff, community lodges make very intentional and genuine efforts to set a tone for a place that is indeed different from a prison. We observed staff and residents interacting with each other in communal spaces, at times exchanging jokes, in a manner and style that showed above all else a prevailing sense of warmth, mutual respect, and dignity. Furthermore, we heard and observed how staff make a point of trying to ease the power imbalance, instead sending the message that staff and residents are to be perceived and treated as being on a more equal footing. As one staff member told us, “When you treat them like a number, they get completely swallowed up by that. Taking them out and treating them like humans, it’s giving them back their identity”. One resident reflected on his experience at the Healing Lodge compared to his previous institution, “They provided me a space where I could be me – and I didn’t have to heal fast”.

Indeed, the rapport between staff and residents was among the most compelling differences between prisons, CSC-run lodges, and the community-run Healing Lodges. One resident at a community-run lodge who had recently been transferred from a CSC-run lodge shared with us, “They have more productive staff here – they go out of their way, sometimes pay out of their own pockets, to show you they care”. At Buffalo Sage Wellness House, one of the Section 81 Healing Lodges for women, one staff member summed it up as, “This work is really about relationships and building rapport with staff and each other. There is a lot of mutual respect and the women feel very safe.”

In addition to the physical space and disposition of staff, the availability of cultural supports – specifically the support provided by Elders – and access to more consistent ceremony, were highlighted as some of the greatest strengths of these lodges. “The culture and the Elders – that’s what saved me”, one resident told us. Far and away the benefit that was raised the most was the importance of the role of Elders in providing guidance to residents, teaching them about their culture, helping them gain insights into their own lives, introducing them to ceremony – the first time in their lives, for some – in a place and space that is more consistent with healing. As one former Healing Lodge resident shared with us:

“Healing Lodges are the best way to go – they need to get away from that prison subculture. They have low self-confidence; young guys are influenced by others, because they have no identity. A group of Elders – real traditional people who know the culture – should be asked to teach the people…but you have to give it away from the prison system.”

Availability of Better Programs

In spite of the difficulties with funding, the availability, flexibility, and types of programs and activities available to the residents was also raised as a significant benefit. For example, programs like Spirit of a Warrior and In Search of Your Warrior , among other programs that were abandoned by CSC in 2010 seemingly in favour of a new Integrated Correctional Program Model, continue to run at some of the community-run lodges. Many of the residents and staff expressed their frustration that the men and women in the mainstream institutions can no longer benefit from these programs. One staff member summed up her views on the suite of ‘Indigenous correctional programs’, that currently run in CSC prisons as follows:

“The content pays lip service to pan-Indigenous concepts, glosses over them quickly, checks a box that they covered Indigenous teachings in some way, and you move on. It doesn’t delve deeply enough to have an impact.”

While a fulsome review and comparison of CSC’s correctional programming is outside the scope of the current investigation, the residents were unequivocal in their condemnation of the quality of the current suite of “Indigenous” correctional programs. Furthermore, those who had been in the correctional system long enough to have experienced the different approaches to programming expressed gratitude and relief that the community-run Healing Lodges recognize their value and still offer the older Indigenous-specific programs to their residents. In comparing the old to the new program model, one resident shared, “It’s harder, but this is where the real healing happens”.

Access to Community

Other benefits of the community-run lodges raised during our interviews included the significant role and involvement of community. For the residents, we heard that positive community engagement – everything from formal volunteering activities to help give back, to simply taking walks and being in community – has helped them progressively find a place and a role in community, in a way that is simply not available to those serving their sentence in a prison. As one staff member put it, “It gives them the opportunity to actually work on themselves. They leave here with a sense of belonging”. The benefits also translate to members of the community, not only as opportunities for employment at the lodges, but it also affords them the opportunity to uniquely participate in the process of reintegration and community-building.

Taken together, while there is ample empirical and anecdotal evidence to suggest community-run Healing Lodges are working , despite being under-resourced and insufficiently supported, there is a more compelling reason to invest: because Indigenous peoples have said so. They present a promising yet under-utilized model that has been available to corrections for decades now, and one that could have a significant impact on over-representation. While over-representation is not solely the consequence of the correctional system itself, it is crystal clear that the various initiatives, strategic plans, and frameworks developed by corrections to “address” this long-standing issue have done essentially nothing to affect the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples.

Furthermore, while they have helped chart the course of history, record human experience, and serve as instruments to hold us accountable, we do not need more commissions, studies, reports, or calls-to-action on Indigenous corrections to know that solutions will not result from dressing the existing correctional system with the outward trappings of culture . We need concrete actions and measureable results. To guide these actions, Corrections needs to go back to the original vision of the community-run Healing Lodges and deliver on its unfulfilled promises. It is not only in the best interest of those in the correctional system, it is also an opportunity for corrections to demonstrate real leadership among the various Canadian institutions who have struggled, foot-dragged, or outright ignored the blueprints drawn for them by Indigenous peoples of the past and present.

Conclusion and Recommendations

“You always told me it takes time. It has taken my father’s time, my mother’s time, my uncle’s time, my brothers’ and my sisters’ time, my nieces’ and my nephews’ time.How much time do you want for your ‘progress’?” 
– James Baldwin

One of the most troubling findings of this investigation is that, since this Office conducted the Spirit Matters investigation, not much has changed, for the better, for the Healing Lodges and those who could benefit from them. Many of the gaps that existed ten years ago remain today and in some cases have seemingly widened. The proportion of the Indigenous peoples behind bars has increased by 11% in the decade since the original Spirit Matters report, with Indigenous peoples now accounting for nearly one-third of the federal prison population, and for Indigenous women, who now represent approximately half of all women behind bars. Only 2% of all Indigenous individuals currently serving their sentence at a community-run Healing Lodge is a figure far lower than what the drafters of the Healing Lodge Vision or Section 81 of the CCRA would have expected. Thirty years later, what can be learned from this is that the status quo has not, and will not, work to reverse this trend.

The overall stagnation, and reversals in the development of Healing Lodges in particular is demonstrative of a system that has chosen to not capitalize on the mechanisms, resources, and advice it has been given to change the trajectory of Indigenous over-incarceration. This has been in large-part a consequence of keeping Indigenous peoples and communities at the periphery of decision-making. To add insult to injury, it has sent the same message that colonial institutions have been sending to generations of Indigenous peoples: continue to wait for our progress. While the system continues to fiddle with the dial, how much longer should Indigenous communities have to wait while their relatives, neighbours, and loved ones continue to languish behind bars? As the Ombuds for federal corrections, my powers are limited to making recommendations and raising the voices of those who often feel voiceless. But I concede that yet another report will do little to bring people home. It is hoped, however, that an exercise in looking backwards to assess what promises and recommendations remain un-kept and unfulfilled can inform the concrete actions that need to take place now in order to achieve real change.

To close with words that ring as true today as they did when they were written in March 1992, the following is excerpted from the report of The Healing Lodge Planning Committee and Elders Circle:

At a time when our country’s leaders are attempting to find new ways to work together, and to chart a different course for Canada, we see our commitment to partnership on the Healing Lodge as a small, clear example of that same effort. If we succeed, the impact will be significant. Aboriginal women in prison are among the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised people in Canada. To improve their situation is to better our country.

Further to the findings of the investigation into Healing Lodges, I recommend that the Minister of Public Safety direct CSC to:

3. Fund an external, Indigenous-led national engagement initiative to create capacity, interest, and innovation among Indigenous communities and organizations (urban and rural) to enter into Section 81 and 84 agreements for the care, custody, and supervision of Indigenous Peoples under federal sentence.
4. Develop and publicly report on clear actions, timelines, measureable targets and deliverables to:

1. more effectively engage Indigenous communities and organizations to establish more Section 81 agreements, particularly in areas where there are noted gaps (e.g., Ontario and Atlantic region, for Indigenous women, and individuals from northern locations; urban settings);
2. establish section 81 agreements in urban and rural areas; and,
3. transfer control and ownership of existing CSC-run Healing Lodges to the local community, or an Indigenous group or organization, under Section 81 of the CCRA within three years.

5. Work with the Section 81 Healing Lodges to identify the main causes of vacancy rates and identify actions that will be taken to increase and maintain higher occupancy rates, with specific attention to:

1. Developing new and rigorously validated security classification tools for Indigenous peoples, from the ground up, that reduce their over-representation in medium and maximum security, consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Ewert, 2018;
2. Reviewing and modifying the policies and practices for Security Threat Group (gangs) flags with a view to facilitating the removal of these flags, where appropriate;
3. Developing and implementing a gang-disaffiliation and exit strategy that is run by Indigenous community-based individuals and/or organizations;
4. Increasing the availability of trauma-informed care at women’s and men’s facilities and the ability for incarcerated Indigenous persons to receive proper mental health diagnoses and treatment; and,
5. Increasing the number of Indigenous persons who cascade to lower security levels (e.g., accepting medium security populations) and expediting transfers to Healing Lodges, particularly Section 81s.

6. Co-develop, with communities and organizations, a new funding model for Section 81 agreements and significantly increase funding to Section 81 Healing Lodges to better support their specific needs and to address the existing disparities with state-run lodges, in order to achieve resourcing parity.

Adding to overall complexity, each Pathways initiative is adapted to the needs and capacity of the site and security level. There are, however, certain standard criteria that inform the selection of candidates, progress reviews, and assessments to determine readiness for lower-security transfers:

• Engagement with Elders/Spiritual Advisors;
• Abstinence from illicit substance use;
• No violence;
• No institutional charges;
• Commitment and engagement with their Healing Plan/Correctional Plan;
• Program participation;
• Respectful behavior to staff and other offenders;
• Consistent participation in ceremonies, circles, and counseling; and,
• Connection to community and a plan for the future.

As documented here, though compliance with and application of these criteria vary from site-to-site, it is clear that Pathways participation is not for everyone and excludes most. The bar seems to be set so high in fact that only the most compliant, engaged, and committed candidates are admitted. Accordingly, given the small number of beds dedicated to Pathways, its overall impact on addressing, much less reducing, over-representation is negligible.

The original Spirit Matters investigation did not examine the Pathways Initiative in any detail. In its 2014-2015 Annual Report, the Office reported that positive outcomes attributed to Pathways ⁴² are likely due to the unique profile of the participants themselves and “those who succeed in Pathways would benefit from earlier supervised community release.” In a similar vein, the Office’s 2017-18 Annual Report made a few passing references to Pathways, suggesting that:

Just as there are several pathways into prison for Indigenous people – poverty, family violence, addiction, intergenerational trauma and abuse … – so too must there be more than one way out. … To expect a person of Indigenous ancestry to follow an Aboriginal healing path or cultural traditions when imprisoned is one thing, but to make that a determinant for release is quite another. … The approach to Pathways … seems somewhat parochial, if not patronizing.

Pathways has expanded and received considerable external and internal resourcing for more than 20 years. However, there has been very little external scrutiny on how it operates, who it serves, or even whether it works. As a correctional intervention within CSC’s continuum of care for Indigenous persons, Pathways has not been independently validated or externally evaluated.

Current Investigation

The objectives of this investigation are threefold:

1. Review Pathways policy, procedures, and practice, focusing on eligibility criteria, objectives, and outcomes.
2. Examine the day-to-day operation of Pathways Units/Ranges, primarily at men’s medium-security institutions.
3. Document the lived-experiences of Pathways staff and participants in their own words.

Before we launch into this report, we wish to acknowledge all the individuals who continue to strive to make Pathways work. Despite the many barriers and challenges they face, the Pathways staff, Elders, and Helpers persevere to support incarcerated Indigenous individuals. We also extend our gratitude to the many Indigenous individuals serving federal sentences who met with our Office in good faith, to share their stories and experiences with the hopes that their voices might make a difference. In writing this report, we are mindful of the responsibility entrusted to us to share their lived experiences.

In addition to a review of CSC documentation pertaining to Pathways, semi-structured, in-person interviews were conducted with incarcerated individuals and staff at eight institutions with a total of 124 individuals.

Note: Totals counts for Indigenous in-custody include Pathways Participants and Healing Lodge residents

Another way of framing the issue is in the language of rights and privileges. Should a pathway to healing and reclamation only be available to a subset of Indigenous peoples in-custody, those who earn their way and prove themselves eligible for this privilege ? On the other hand, is healing and reclamation a right entitled to Indigenous peoples under federal sentence? In practice, it appears that Pathways – and the road to healing and betterment it promises – is offered as some kind of perk or privilege . Some of the interviewees we spoke with insisted that this is a detrimental approach.

“We are told that the [healing unit] is a privilege, but to me it’s my right as a Métis, Indigenous person … Every Indigenous person should automatically qualify for healing by virtue of the fact that they’re Indigenous. Pathways is weaponized to allow and deny a person’s healing … they’re using Pathways to reward and punish us in the guise of healing and betterment.” 
– Pathways participant

By creating a system wherein a handful of individuals who commit to a traditional lifestyle can accelerate access to release options, while the vast majority are never offered or excluded from such a choice and continue to linger in prison, CSC may be perpetuating conditions of disadvantage and discrimination that lead to the over-retention of Indigenous prisoners. Failing to engage with or effectively disqualifying the majority of Indigenous peoples leads to further entrenchment in gangs, drugs and violence behind bars. CSC should continue to identify promising candidates for accelerated reintegration options, but also needs to cast a much wider net and offer the benefits of Pathways to all federally incarcerated Indigenous people, including the 90% who are currently not participating.

Pathways is not for Everyone

“Not everyone wants to live in Indigenous culture and we can’t shove it down their throats. By saying to Indigenous inmates that they need to do this and think like that, etc. it’s like we are recreating residential schools in reverse order.” 
– Pathways staff

Although some welcome the opportunity to engage in a traditional healing path and others view Pathways as a safe and attractive alternative to general population, the vast majority of Indigenous individuals under federal custody are not involved with CSC’s Indigenous Continuum of Care. In considering the question of what may be holding back eligible candidates, we learned that for some, the behavioural expectations are truly daunting. As one participant put it, “If you don’t really identify with the culture, it can be a lot.”

There are also those who have no interest in the “Red Path” or have no intention of disaffiliating from gangs. The requirement to refrain from using drugs or to avoid involvement with gangs can be perceived as too high of a threshold. As such, some Indigenous individuals are of the mind that they will inevitably breach if released with conditions, and frame their sentence as “ Life , on the installment plan.” We heard that some (especially younger) Indigenous individuals have resigned themselves to an inevitable return to custody.

“Some guys find it easier to go out and breach, come back and then go out at [Warrant Expiry Date] with no conditions.” 
– Pathways participant

“Guys that have an upcoming release date are less likely to participate in Pathways. They don’t want to half-ass the program because they respect it and don’t want to pretend to be living a life they won’t continue on the streets. Staying sober is too difficult of a threshold. They know themselves.” 
– Pathways participant

Individuals who subscribe to this worldview can often be found among individuals identified as Solids outside of special living units like Pathways. For these individuals, participating in Pathways can been seen as a sign of weakness. As one long-time incarcerated individual explained:

“On a regular range you don’t talk to COs [Correctional Officers] or Elders, you don’t take advantage of support systems. Everyone does solid straight time. Just do their time and nothing else, and gain a reputation of being ‘solid’ … There’s a stigma among young guys or other gang guys about Pathways as being for bitches, weak people, and when you’re on a ‘solid’ or [Gang] unit you don’t want to be seen as weak, but as powerful as you can appear.” 
– Pathways participant

Finally, many incarcerated Indigenous individuals may prefer better access to higher education and meaningful vocational opportunities rather than following a traditional path to healing.

What Benefit is Pathways to “Lifers”?

Indigenous individuals account for slightly more than one-quarter of those in-custody with a life and/or indeterminate sentences. ⁵⁴ In practice, individuals with life and/or indeterminate sentences (henceforth, Lifers ) in federal custody are not expected to participate in correctional programs that aim to accelerate cascading to lower security levels and community reintegration. This expectation is even entrenched in the correctional culture as Lifers have a harder time getting access to programs and other correctional activities earlier in their sentence. In light of this, initiatives like Pathways that facilitate cascading and prepare individuals for community release within a narrow window of time are generally not deemed suitable for Lifers – unless they are close to parole eligibility or a review for minimum reclassification. As one Pathways staff put it:

“A Lifer who just came to medium should not be on Pathways for six years – not appropriate to do this program for years at a time. The six-month review is redundant for Lifers. When I do reviews for these guys [Lifers] I hardly change anything, unless they’ve completed programs. They are not getting reclassified.”

Unsurprisingly, Lifers experience different outcomes as Pathways participants compared to (often younger) individuals with determinate sentences. ⁵⁵ Ideal participants are described by CSC as those, “who would stay no longer than one year prior to movement to lower security” (GL 702-1). As one interviewee put it, “Long term guys and DOs [dangerous offenders] are often looked over, while the young guys, intake guys, or short sentence guys are moved quickly.” Another participant shared his experience as follows:

“Been here at the medium for two years, and in Pathways for six months. As a lifer, we get bumped and it takes longer to cascade. Getting assessments is hard, like for psych assessments to cascade. Unless there’s a parole date coming up, you’re getting bumped.”

However, despite poorer outcomes and fewer incentives, during interviews we found that Indigenous Lifers – whether due to older age or a greater affinity to culture and spirituality – were often more intrinsically motivated to pursue a traditional healing path. Yet, by design, the Pathways admission process is more restrictive for Lifers. As per CSC’s GL 702-1 ⁵⁶ :

Lifers or other offenders who do not have the potential to transfer to lower security or be conditionally released within three years may be admitted to Pathways where appropriate. The available bed space for Lifers should not normally exceed 20% of available bed space.

Making matters worse, motivated Lifers who demonstrate progress along their healing plan, who are engaged, and on “good behaviour” are still being passed over for transfers to lower security placements. Instead of cutting Lifers off at the three-year mark, CSC could recognize their engagement with more meaningful rewards (e.g., ETAs, lower security transfers, and transfers to Healing Lodges).

Using Pathways Units to Relieve Population Pressures

During interviews, we learned that institutional staff do not always respect the admission and placement criteria for Pathways. When empty cells are available on the Pathways unit, they may be used just like any other cell. Overflow issues at some institutions are relieved by placing non-Pathways (often non-Indigenous) individuals into beds reserved for Pathways. In these situations, the priority appears to be “filling beds” rather than identifying eligible participants for Pathways. When we presented this problem to senior operations staff at the same institution, they offered this explanation:

“There are difficult offenders who are put on the range because we have nowhere else in the institution to put them. They are Indigenous, but they do not meet the criteria for Pathways. It’s an alternative place to put the guys when nothing else works. These individuals are given priority over offenders who might be on a wait list already. Sometimes it has worked and the guys have fit in. Sometimes it doesn’t.”

At another institution, a senior Pathways staff member talked about how inmates are “dumped on the unit … to relieve population pressures.” As of December 2022, twelve of the individuals residing on the medium-security Pathways unit (funded for 40 beds) were found not to be participants in the intervention. Though this situation has improved, the non-Pathways individuals are not easily removed. The staff member complained, “I have to swap them with someone else, and that person might not always be a good fit.” Another staff member described the situation as follows:

“If bed space opens, someone is dumped in there. … Everyone is mixed, which contaminates Pathways. But we also have [legitimate] requests for Pathways through letters and applications, so we have to maneuver to get them in the program when the bed opens up.”

Warehousing of non-Pathways inmates and difficulties with moving non-Pathways individuals off the unit has resulted in a bottleneck. As one participant put it, “There are other guys out there who want to be on Pathways, but can’t participate because there’s no room.”

With already low participant numbers, the fact that Pathway beds are being used to warehouse non-Pathways individuals puts the integrity of the initiative into question. It also demonstrates how institutional initiatives aimed at supporting Indigenous individuals are vulnerable to obtrusion by operational staff.

3. Mistreatment at the Hands of Operational Staff

“The [Pathways] participants are not treated as healing Indigenous women by CSC staff. They are always inmates. There should be an effort to change the narrative. The word ‘inmate’ equates to colonization.” 
– Elder

By far, the most common complaint we heard from Pathways participants and staff at all institutions pertained to the cultural insensitivity and disrespect of some correctional officers. Although a minority, the presence of culturally insensitive correctional officers is highly disruptive to the stability of Pathways.

“There’s racism with the guards. They just assume that we get everything, that we’re special. [GUARD] always calls me ‘chief’ and thinks that because I’m ‘Native’ that I’m getting everything, and I don’t deserve it. In regards to the bathroom renos [sic], they say we don’t need the place renovated and painted. They think we’re acting entitled. I would say that eight out of ten guards have this attitude.” 
– Pathways participant

During interviews, we learned that some operational staff – in particular, officers involuntarily ⁵⁷ assigned to Pathways units – show a lack of understanding and willingness to learn about Indigenous culture, history, and the trauma carried by Indigenous individuals. These attitudes are also reflected in how they treated Pathways staff and Elders. Some operations staff also make disparaging or derogatory remarks about the Pathways Initiative demonstrating insensitive, discriminatory, and ill-informed views:

“Officers are our biggest challenge; sometimes they don’t understand or lack cultural sensitivity.” 
– Pathways staff

Many interviewees spoke about how some officers would express disgust with the smell of smudging or would prevent Elders from accessing Pathways when they did not have the discretion to do so.

“Guards come in with attitudes, like when we’re smudging they complain about smell and these situations challenge our cultural healing. Many view it as racism. When we complain about their attitudes we get charged for verbal assaults.” 
– Pathways participant

“CX staff are so disrespectful, we need staff who care about us. They were holding their noses when they walk by us doing smudges.” 
– Pathways participant

At one institution, in response to ceremonial smudging that was occurring on the unit, correctional officers raised a complaint under section 127.1 (1) of Canada’s Labour Code citing concerns with “second hand smoke.” ⁵⁸ The Elders, ILOs, and participants are now required to smudge outside. When asked why officers are not more carefully selected, the Correctional Manager (CM) responsible for this Pathways unit offered:

“No CX [correctional officer] wants to work here because working with Indigenous inmates is hard. You know, they play the race card, and I get it, they’re triggered by uniformed officers in positions of authority, so it’s hard for CX’s to work here.”

Although CSC has repeatedly made commitments to provide “cultural competency” training to its staff, our investigation into the Pathways initiative suggests that there is ample room for improvement. This would include the recruitment, retention, and promotion of more front-line and management staff with shared lived experiences.

4. Case Management and Reporting

Inflexible and Often Redundant Reporting Requirements

In its 2016 audit of CSC operations titled, Preparing Indigenous Offenders for Release , the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) issued the following recommendation:

CSC should ensure that Indigenous offenders are assessed for a possible reduction in their security level following a significant event – such as the successful completion of a correctional program – to support their reintegration.

In response, CSC said that it would “ensure that each offender’s initial correctional plan clearly outlines the significant events … that will require a reassessment of an offender’s security level…” Two years later in January 2018 (see Policy Bulletin 586); CSC added the following to sections 8 and 9 of Commissioner’s Directive (CD) 710-6 – Review of Inmate Security Classification :

8. For Aboriginal inmates, a Security Classification Review … will be completed within thirty days of an inmate’s successful completion of a main program (based on the final Program Report date) for inmates classified at maximum or medium security level. 
9. For Aboriginal inmates participating in Pre-Pathways interventions/Pathways units, a Security Classification Review … will be initiated at least every six months and completed within thirty days of the Pathways Progress Review Meeting. 
Note: Text bolded by our office.

Senior Pathways staff shared that because of the OAG report and recommendation, there has been increased demand for regular reporting, tracking, and reviews – including the six-month Offender Security Classification (OSL) review. Pathways staff across all sites expressed frustration with the inflexible and often redundant six-month OSL reviews.

“Good case management requires spending time with inmates to do meaningful interventions, talking about trauma, but my time is wasted with these reviews. I’d like to know what good comes from these.”

“That’s a lot considering that [Parole Officers] already have to complete OSLs after program completion. There is no leeway in the deadline if, for example, the inmate is one month away from program completion. It would make more sense to be able to wait for that to happen.”

With limited resources, large caseloads, multiple corporate reporting requirements, and the operational realities of working in a prison, staff reported feeling pulled away from their important case management responsibilities. One staff member said, “Reporting every six-months with limited staff takes away from important interactions we should be having.” Another senior staff member spoke about the arbitrariness of timeframes written into policy, “Timeframes should be more flexible. Healing is a lifelong journey – it doesn’t happen in a specific period of time.”

Staff do not object to the principle that regular OSL reviews are required for Pathways participants. The concern with the six-month review has to do with its utility in cases where change cannot be demonstrated over a six-month period, or when the six-month review occurs before a correctional program concludes. One senior Pathways staff member explained the situation as follows:

“[OSL] reviews are occurring both post-program and following six-months of engagement in Pathways.It is unfortunate that we often come across situations where a six-month Pathways review is required, then 30 to 40 days later a correctional program concludes.This has resulted in [Case Management Teams] completing two separate Correctional Plan updates and [Assessment for Decisions] regarding the OSL in order to ensure compliance with timeframes and reporting …

There are numerous examples of directions to ‘track and report’ areas of concern, including conducting quarterly reviews of site OSL override stats, developing and maintaining a Section 81 and Day Parole spreadsheet, and to increase Work Releases and ETAs for Indigenous offenders by 25% over the 2019-20 fiscal year. These reporting requirements, again, appear to fixate on reporting and corporate monitoring, and not necessarily developing and implementing meaningful strategies to positively impact the successful reintegration of Indigenous offenders.”

Healing Path does not Map onto Corporate Reporting Requirements

Within CSC, ⁵⁹ Pathways is considered an Elder-driven intensive healing initiative, “based on the Indigenous Medicine Wheel, also known as the four Directions Medicine Wheel.” The Medicine Wheel at the centre of CSC’s Indigenous Continuum of Care aims to illustrate the holistic nature of this model by linking individuals to their history, culture, and spirituality. The Healing Path described by the Continuum of Care is available to individuals “who show genuine motivation and commitment” to make progress along four quadrants of change: emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual.

Corrections Continuum of Care

It is recognized that Pathways participants generally receive more support from their case management team than non-Pathways individuals do. Pathways assigned staff are expected to write more reports and to make more recommendations to ensure that Pathways participants make rapid progress as per the initiative’s guidelines.

However, virtually all the staff we interviewed reported that the progress made on Healing Plans does not easily map onto CSC’s assessment and classification tools. For example, changes to dynamic factors that occur through ceremony, cultural activities, and one-to-one counselling or any equivalencies to core-programs that are addressed in Pathways are not adequately captured in casework records. As one Indigenous Pathways staff member explained:

“The culture helps the men and our People. It’s a struggle to put it on paper in a way that persuades the decision makers, parole officers, and PBC that these guys are making some ‘progress.’ It’s hard to capture and document ‘change’ along a healing path in a Western way. At the end of the day, we [Indigenous Peoples] are in a system, and we have to learn to work in the system imposed on us. I want to show how dynamic factors link to progress made in Pathways.”

Another senior Pathways staff member shared the following:

“Translating Indigenous results and the progress of Indigenous interventions via spreadsheet tracking and corporate monitoring tools, is problematic. Recently, at a Pathways Progress Review Board, [the Elder] commented that entering the Sweat Lodge, in itself, is progress and will result in change.He opined that this change cannot be measured by CSC standards, tools and scales, as the change is slow, internal and deeply personal.From what I have learned in working with the Indigenous staff and partners here … , CSC’s constant attempts to measure progress via spreadsheets and rigid review timeframes do not align with the principles of Indigenous spirituality and tradition.”

Progress Made along the Healing Path does not inform Reintegration Planning

Staff and participants both agreed that Pathways (at least, in theory) offered more support to Indigenous individuals than what was offered in the general population. Some markers of success are supposed to include quicker cascading to lower levels of security, more Healing Lodge placements, increased temporary absences, securing early parole, and community reintegration with an adequate support structure. With resources in place and the initiative running as intended, interviewees believed it would be possible to achieve these outcomes. However, these outcomes are not necessarily fulfilled. As one Pathways participant put it:

“Since I’ve been here, I’ve only seen a handful of guys cascade down. One of the Elders said the goal of this program was to get everyone down, but the guys I’ve seen go to minimum are one’s who were already minimum. Since I’ve been here, none of that’s been happening.”

Participants explained that although they are committed to their healing path, case management staff appeared fixated on assessing and managing risk. Interviewees shared that there is a lack of understanding among some decision makers around Indigenous Social History (ISH) assessments, which are often misused to reinforce negative perceptions of risk. ⁶⁰ As one Pathways staff member put it:

“There remains a divide between progress in Pathways and risk assessment by the CMT [Case Management Team]. Often there is a view that the CMT does not weigh the inmate’s progress in context of their ISH [Indigenous Social History] and solely focuses on an analysis of risk.”

One participant we spoke with described how correctional assessments are used against Indigenous individuals and the systemic racism experienced by Indigenous peoples throughout their lives:

“Your paperwork is always more negative than a White offenders. They talk about the indigenous social history, and all of this stuff gets written down about poor family support and living on the rez – and they are supposed to take that into account for sentencing and stuff, but how do they take that into account? Do they use that to uplift you? Most of the time they write it down, but they don’t seem like they read it or anything. Of course growing up in that environment, you are way more likely to have criminal stuff when you are young; stuff no White kid would get hassled about because it’s kids stuff. We get it on our records and then you’re eighteen with a bunch of charges, and right off the start you’re getting more time for the same offence because you have the history. It should be a focus on a pro-social history, not just writing stuff down.”

In fact, in its 2016 report, the OAG reported, “offender casework files did not document the impact of the interventions provided to offenders or the extent to which the interventions contributed to the offenders’ successful reintegration into the community.” The report goes on to say:

… we found that the assessments prepared for conditional release by parole officers contained no documentation of the benefits of an offender’s participation in culturally specific correctional interventions, such as Pathways Initiatives or Healing Lodges.

At some institutions, we also observed a disconnect between Pathways and case management staff. Specifically, Pathways staff are not consulted in relation to correctional planning and case management decisions (as mentioned before, the sole focus appears to be security and risk management). Elders and staff can engage and provide teachings, but it is not clear how these interventions are considered in correctional planning and case management decisions. Some interviewees reported that participants deemed “engaged” will obtain good feedback from the ILO and Elder, but Parole Officers continue to assess them as high or even increased risk . As a result, they are not supported for Escorted Temporary Absences ⁶¹ (ETAs), security reclassification, transfers to Healing Lodges, etc. ⁶²

“I don’t think the ILOs are getting a say into who’s getting ETAs … If ILOs were making the decisions, there might be more ETAS for more guys.” 
– Pathways participant

Despite the fact that the vast majority of Healing Lodge placements reportedly occur directly from Pathways ⁶³ and one-third of Healing Lodge beds are empty, many participants we spoke to had been in Pathways for over a year and have not yet received support for security reclassification. It is not clear to them what they must do in order to cascade. Some are considering leaving the initiative, stating that Pathways is merely a façade to show how CSC is delivering on its National Indigenous Plan. As one senior staff member put it:

“There is a national push for results and to collect data on inmates who successfully complete Pathways, to have more inmates go through Pathways and successfully complete the program. However, the integration of CMT into this plan can be challenging when their focus is solely risk analysis. The goal should be to reduce incarceration time and support progress through sentence planning …. This is often not the case.”

Unreasonable Timeframes

Policy requires that participants complete the Pathways Initiative within a given timeframe. As per GL 702-1 ⁶⁴ , section 15 (o):

Ideally, a participant in Pathways would stay no longer than one year prior to movement to lower security (with the exception of lifers who may require a longer intervention).

Many staff expressed frustration with the timeframes built into the Pathways model. One senior staff member explained, “It’s too fast to expect change in most inmates, sometimes they take steps backwards before they make progress.” Others described the timeframes built around what is essentially a healing path as “unrealistic” and “insensitive.” Virtually all interviewees agreed that the timeframe set out in the guidelines are too rigid and do not allow the time required to address trauma, or even to begin the healing journey. This is another example of CSC imposing its own timelines and targets on a process that requires flexibility, understanding, and patience.

5. Lack of Continuity and Support in the Community

“Following the spiritual path inside is not that difficult. Once outside, the pressures are different.” 
– Community Stakeholder

“You can teach us whatever you want in Pathways, but when we need you most is on the streets.” 
– Pathways participant

In CSC’s own words, the Indigenous Continuum of Care “ends with establishment of community supports to sustain progress beyond the end of the sentence and prevent re-offending.” However, in interviews with staff and incarcerated individuals we learned that support mostly ends upon release. As one staff member put it, “the Indigenous continuum of care should be continuous until warrant – we support them for years, but then when released they’re on their own.”

“Guys need to know that people are there for them when they’re out. When guys get out sometimes, they’re forgotten about. We’re expected to function up here [gestures ‘high’ with hands], but they can’t do that. Everything is handed to us here, and that’s not how it will be in the community.” 
– Pathways participant

One interviewee spoke about institutionalization and the trouble with becoming habituated to receiving supports in Pathways. He explained how difficult it would be to find the same supports in the community, and then went on to speak about his anxiety when contemplating reintegration:

“I don’t think there’s a good model in place to ensure continuity into community release and support. … It’s hard to get over the nervousness and anxiety before going to community. Especially in getting a job with the criminal justice system hanging over my head. I’m really worried. … Living in a minimum security prison is easier than going into the community.”

Despite the above apprehensions around release and reintegration, there was a pattern of thought among both participants and staff that the “offender” is ultimately responsible for their own success. Indeed, CSC’s correctional model presumes that “reforming individuals” should mitigate recidivism.

“We had one guy go out and come back, but that’s because he didn’t take advantage of his supports. He had the Elder’s cell number. Elders clearly tell us that they are available to us in the community. They give us a cell number. They will take you to ceremony and support you, but you have to reach out – it’s on you.” 
– Pathways staff

“If a person is serious about their healing journey, then they take these tools with them. The ILOs and Elders will help set up the supports in the community, but its up to the IM to prioritize and commit to this, engage with it.” 
– Pathways staff

Conclusion and Recommendations

Our investigation yielded the following findings into CSC’s Pathways Initiative, as it currently operates:

1. Compliance with corporate guidelines has proven difficult at most sites; Elders are rarely leading the initiative, which has an impact on the quality and provision of cultural and spiritual services;
2. Pathways participants across all sites have experienced regular mistreatment by some operations staff involuntarily assigned to the initiative;
3. CSC systematically deprioritizes or outright ignores Indigenous ways of being and knowing, and often cannot translate progress on healing plans into case management reports and results; and,
4. Participants experience significant disruptions in the continuity, quality, and intensity of services upon release to the community.

On their own, these findings could be addressed by tweaking parts of the existing system through, for example, enhanced training, more compliance, expanded case management criteria, increased community supports, etc. However, our Office has a more fundamental concern that goes beyond enhancements to the existing Pathways Initiative. Namely, the threshold for entrance into Pathways is so unreasonably high, that it screens out the vast majority of the Indigenous population. Less than 10% of incarcerated Indigenous individuals benefit from Pathways; therefore, the vast majority of the Indigenous population simply does not qualify to participate and their needs are largely neglected.

In April 2023, CSC shared an updated Pathways National Handbook with our office for review. In this document, it states that Pathways participants should “demonstrate success in the following areas”:

• Increased reduction in security;
• Increased transfers to a minimum or healing lodge;
• Increased program completion;
• Higher levels of education upgrading prior to reaching full parole eligibility;
• Increased discretionary release (day or full parole) upon 1st release;
• Increased Section 84 releases; and,
• Increased ETA/UTAs for Community Engagement and Personal Development purposes.

It is our view that the “Success Indicators” listed above are practically guaranteed given the high threshold for entrance into Pathways. Arguably, individuals who are assessed as likely to meet these outcomes within six to twelve month of admittance into Pathways should be fast-tracked to Healing Lodges, or released into the community.

Simply put, the cohort currently eligible for Pathways could likely be managed at lower-security institutions or non-custodial placements. The Pathways Initiative is quite literally a penitentiary-based Healing Lodge, and many of the staff and Elders we spoke with believed they could achieve even better outcomes outside prison walls.

“If we had our own location, like a Healing Lodge, that was protected from the drugs and violence, where high need and risk inmates can be managed in an environment protected from triggers, temptations, provocations, that would be ideal.” 
– Pathways staff

Institutional initiatives targeting Indigenous individuals should focus more on improving outcomes for those who fail to meet the high threshold for entrance into Pathways. Federal corrections needs more and wider pathways out of prison.

An Investigation of the Role and Impact of Elders in Federal Corrections

Voices of Elders

“After having spent years decolonizing myself, I was hesitant to work for this very colonial institution.”

“Our people who work in CSC need to be taken care of. Some of us carry the trauma of the guys, and they can’t carry that. They get sick.”

“I’m here to teach the inmates about life really, where life originates through all our medicines and our ceremonies and our prayers and taking responsibility, as [a] father or community member. We’re trying to get them back into our society, to the ceremonies … to try to help them out to make changes in their life.”

“They told us [this] place is supposed to be Elder-run. But man, it sure isn’t Elder-run. I think it’s Corrections run.”

“I’m a quiet First Nations man. We learned to be quiet from residential schools.”

“You guys (CSC) use case records to judge and know the men, that’s not how we know them and work with them … CSC is dealing with them as bad criminals, but we’re offering them medicines … Guys will tell me that CSC didn’t help me, the Elders helped me.”

Introduction and Context

In the original Spirit Matters (2012) report, released more than a decade ago, the Office made the following observations concerning the role and impact of Elders (Spiritual Advisors) working under contract in federal correctional institutions:

Elders are at the centre of any healing process, be it through ceremony, teaching or counselling. They are an invaluable resource … Unless and until Elders are able to focus their work on addressing the healing needs of offenders, have manageable caseloads and are properly compensated, [Correctional Service of Canada’s] Continuum of Care Model will not meet its full potential of successfully reintegrating Aboriginal offenders into their communities. (p. 31-32).

At that time, as the Office noted, Elders faced significant barriers, including workload, operational and contractual limitations, challenges that impeded their ability to provide their unique services within the Correctional Service. The report, released in Parliament, called on the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to “set realistic standards of service, caseloads and payments for Elder services,” and for CSC to report on progress made in achieving those standards.

In updating our original Spirit Matters report, throughout 2022-23 the Office planned and conducted a series of engagements and investigative interviews with Elders. We were looking to document what they had to say about their current relationship with CSC. To assist us, the Office contracted with Archipel Research and Consulting agency. ⁶⁵ A total of 55 Elders/Spiritual Advisors and Elder Assistants were interviewed in the course of this investigation, which also included a series of sharing circles and one-on-one interviews conducted by the contracting agency. A number of staff members and participants in Elder-led initiatives were also interviewed. Finally, a review of corporate CSC documentation – Commissioner’s Directives and Guidelines; internal reports, audits and evaluations; terms of reference and statements of work; minutes of relevant Regional and National committee meetings ⁶⁶ – complemented the insights and perspectives shared by participants.

National in scope, the aim of this investigation was to capture, collect and synthesize the views, experiences and advice of Indigenous Elders working within Canada’s federal correctional system. In updating Spirit Matters , we purposefully sought to solicit Elder voice and experience recognizing that they are in closest and most frequent contact with the Indigenous populations they guide, instruct and counsel, inside and outside prison. Elders know their ‘relatives’ best and they are intrinsically motivated to serve and advocate their welfare. As such, Elder views and insights are indispensable in forging stronger relationships between CSC and Indigenous peoples and communities in the spirit and direction of reconciliation.

The findings emerging from this investigation provide important context from which to illustrate a subset of long-standing “Elder Vulnerability” issues within federal corrections. ⁶⁷ Personal and first-hand accounts also lend practical insight into CSC’s management and oversight of contracted Elder services. ⁶⁸ Throughout this investigation, the Office was able to identify several unresolved issues in the relationship between CSC and Elders – workload and working conditions; contractual issues; treatment, respect and recognition; pay and compensation; self-care, wellness, safety and support. Resolution of these issues is essential in creating a space of trust and confidence where an Elder-driven approach to Indigenous Corrections could truly take root and flourish. Addressing these issues would truly benefit the care and custody of Indigenous incarcerated people.

The Office thanks Elders for their participation and generously sharing their perspectives and experiences. What follows is a thematic and interpretive summary of what we heard in several engagements with Elders from across the country. Four core themes emerged from these engagements, each pointing the way forward to a better appreciation of the invaluable, but often over-looked, role and impact of Elder work within CSC.

1. Role and Management of Elder Services within CSC
2. Workload and Working Conditions of Elders
3. Respect and Recognition of Elders
4. Elder Vulnerability Issues

The concluding section of this investigation includes a discussion, summary of concerns and practical recommendations to support the work of Elders within CSC, and in turn support Indigenous peoples under federal sentence.

1. Role and Management of Elder Services within CSC

By bringing Elders into programming for Indigenous offenders, CSC is affirming the critical role Elders play in Indigenous communities as leaders for future generations. In First Nations, Inuit, and Métis cultures, Elders are revered as Knowledge Keepers, wisdom holders, cultural and spiritual leaders. Elders have historically been advisors to their communities and have provided support and guidance to their peers and the younger generations. ⁶⁹ Elders utilize Indigenous approaches to wellness, which understand the interdependence between the individual’s wellness and larger social contexts including family, community, nature, and the Creator. In turn, Elders are highly respected and supported by their communities, receiving care and help in facilitating ceremonies.

CSC’s policy and governance framework for Elder Services seems to respect these understandings, for example, acknowledging that only an Indigenous community can define who is, in fact, an Elder. Elders are responsible for preparing, coordinating, and conducting traditional ceremonies and some cultural activities in federal prisons. Depending on what Nation they come from and what honours they carry, Elders might be involved in leading sweat lodges, morning prayers, memorials, language teaching, Grandfather teachings, Pipe ceremonies, dances, baths, Longhouse ceremonies, Blanket ceremonies, drumming circles, and others. Today, there are approximately 130 Elders/Spiritual Advisors contracted to provide spiritual, ceremonial, counseling and programmatic services at CSC facilities across the country.

CSC Elders can be assigned to programs, such as Pathways, or work in designated areas of the institution, such as Structured Intervention Units, the Secure Units at women’s regional facilities and general population ranges in mainstream institutions. Elders also work in CSC run Healing Lodges. While not every incarcerated Indigenous person will seek to work with an Elder, with approximately 4,200 Indigenous peoples in federal custody these numbers translate into an overall ratio of approximately 30 Indigenous prisoners for every one Elder, a ratio that does not meet needs or demand.

With respect to policy, CSC does not have a specific Commissioner’s Directive (CD) dedicated solely to the provision of Elder Services, though CD 702 ( Indigenous Offenders ), its associated Guidelines and numerous other policy instruments set out expectations for Elders, including their involvement in Indigenous initiatives and interventions. Contractually, Elders are expected to participate in CSC case management, and, upon request, provide CSC with advice and guidance on regional or national issues affecting Indigenous peoples under federal sentence.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides that: (i) Elders are afforded the same status as other religious leaders, including Chaplains; (ii) Elder services are to be made available to all Indigenous persons under CSC care and custody and; (iii) CSC is to seek advice from Elders when providing correctional services to an Indigenous inmate. Reflecting the contractual nature of the relationship, CSC is to provide Elders (and their Helpers) with the appropriate supports, resources, confidential facilities (indoor and outdoor sacred spaces), authority and training (orientation) to conduct their activities. Considered together, a combination of law, policy and contractual expectations set out the governance framework for CSC’s engagement with Elders.

As documented here, there is reason to be concerned that CSC is not meeting these obligations as completely or as intentionally as designed. In fact, as will become clear, there are any number of deficiencies in CSC’s relationship with Elders. As a recent (August 2022) internal audit of the Management of Elder Services found:

1. There is limited oversight of the delivery and management of Elder Services within CSC.
2. There is no strategic plan outlining resourcing, funding or requirements for Elder Services at the site level.
3. Beyond Elder Reviews, other Elder Services such as ceremonies, counseling and advice to CSC management are not measured or reported upon.
4. The resource indicator that allocates funding for Elder positions within CSC has not been updated since its initial creation in 2006.
5. Elders are too few in number and are spread too thin to serve the growing population and needs of Indigenous persons under federal custody.
6. CSC’s processes to identify, select and hire Elders is insufficient.

Most astonishingly, what the audit essentially reveals is that CSC is unable to provide any reasonable assurance that it is properly and consistently providing Elder services from one site to another. It is also not clear who is responsible or accountable for ensuring Elders provide services as per their contractual expectations. On these findings alone, there is every reason to believe that the provision of Elder Services within CSC is under-funded, under-valued, under-reported and under-appreciated.

2. Workload and Working Conditions of Elders

Throughout this investigation, Elders repeatedly raised concerns about the hiring, employment and compensation structure within CSC. With respect to the latter, Elders explained that the structure of contract work means that they do not get sick days, vacation pay, pension, or health benefits:

“When you’re a contract, you don’t get sick days, you don’t get pension, you don’t get vacation. Basically, you got to figure it out on your own. At the end of the day, here we are, we don’t have anything, we don’t have a pension. It kind of keeps us in a poverty state of mind. Because we’re not benefiting from our job. We’re not in the long run. I mean, we’re helping people, yes. But, you know, on a financial level, it doesn’t work very well.”

In addition to inadequate compensation, Elders noted that a major shortcoming of the hiring process was lack of job security.

“There’s no job security, that’s one of my biggest fears. I don’t feel secure here at all, when it comes to the employment here. Every two years, we sign a contract and if they’re going to get rid of you, they just don’t sign your contract. That’s how they do it and everybody had that fear, all the Elders that that worked here in [this] region.”

Due to a lack of job security, many Elders felt that their employment with CSC was precarious, especially if they were to voice concerns or speak up against CSC practices or staff.

“We don’t have any job security as Elders in the institution. I remember when I first started here, I was really afraid of being walked out. Because I’ve heard so many of my other Elders being walked out of the institution, really without cause. I know a few Elders that have experienced that, getting walked out. That’s one thing that as Elders, we need that protection from the institution. […] There should be a system if an Elder [i]s going to get walked out there should be an appeal process. There is no appeal process whatsoever.”

For many Elders, the risk of being fired, or “walked off the job,” kept them from speaking up against unfair labour practices or inappropriate workplace behaviour. Some shared stories of retaliation from CSC staff when they spoke out. One Elder who participated in this project was told that their contract was not going to be renewed, after criticizing CSC programming:

“You know [t]hat cancel culture is prevalent these days and when someone speaks out against an organization they are cancelled. And they informed me that my contract come March 31, will not be renewed. So, I said, ‘Well, if it’s in the best interest of the offenders to get rid of me, then so be it.’ But I think that’s a huge mistake.”

Understandably, participants felt that the lack of job security was detrimental to their health and wellbeing. As one Elder related, “I really I have massive issues, but I don’t want to file a complaint. I don’t want to rock the boat. I know how fragile my income is and I really need this job.” Others felt that the lack of an appeal process for Elders who were let go was decidedly unfair.

Many Elders felt that the contract system was designed to benefit their employer, not them. They explained that they are subject to the same rules and oversight as CSC employees, but did not have access to the same benefits, entitlements and pensions like CSC employees. At the same time, some interviewees acknowledged that they prefer the flexibility of the contract system. Still others refused to dichotomize the matter so long as their independence and autonomy were protected. However, when queried, the majority of participating Elders were clear that they wanted to be given the option to work as permanent employees so that they could access advantages and protections like increased pay, job stability, sick days, health benefits, and pensions. Currently, there is no choice offered in the matter.

Several Elders compared their treatment and position within CSC to that of chaplains. They noted that many of their spiritual advisor counterparts have a union and therefore receive better pay and have access to other employment benefits like a pension. Effective April 2023, depending on years of experience, the current range of pay for an Elder/Spiritual Advisor in CSC is $72.6K to $83.8K. Contracts do not exceed 1,717.5 hours per year. It is not clear how, or if, this pay scale recognizes honours and competencies conferred by Indigenous communities to perform certain spiritual and cultural ceremonies.

The suggestion was that Indigenous Elders were not being treated with the same respect accorded to other religious leaders or Spiritual Advisors, as guaranteed in law:

“I want to know [if] the chaplains get a better package than we do. Because that is discrimination. They have a union, and their union negotiates. They have sick time, they have vacation time, and the union negotiates the contract.”

Relatedly, many participants rightfully noted that they were paid significantly less than most other CSC staff, despite providing what even their employer considers an invaluable and irreplaceable service. For example, the top annual pay rate for Chaplains in the federal government ranges from $82,223 to $89,892. Moreover, several Elders pointed out that their work was full-time, but they were designated (or regarded) as casual or part-time contractors by regional administrators.

On the point of hiring and selection, Elders wanted to see a process that was consistent, clear and faster, suggesting that the current process is anything but efficient or transparent. As one Elder related:

“… (W)e have so many good Elders out there, really good Elders. However, they’re not working in the institutions because of the process of abuse that the Elders go through in this system.”

A number of respondents noted that the various pressures on Elders and conflicting expectations result in high turnover rates, even at seemingly well-functioning and well-resourced facilities. Internal audit findings conclude that Elders found the regional contracting process to be lengthy and onerous, and felt uncertainty about their job security given the yearly contracting schedule. As one staff member indicated, “It’s hard for Elders to work here. To fill positions. Sometimes when an Elder applies, it takes months to get cleared.” It is not uncommon that qualified candidates end up taking other jobs. Other obstacles in Elder selection and recruitment include unwillingness to work for CSC, reluctance to leave their home community, inadequate pay and the uncertainty of job security. These are far from insurmountable barriers, and the point remains that CSC has to do a much better job in supporting, valuing, attracting and retaining Elders.

In addition to issues with employment precarity and inadequate compensation, numerous Elders raised concerns about their capacity to meet the demands and expectations placed on them. Several Elders saw bureaucracy within CSC as a major impediment, noting that too much of their time is consumed by administrative duties to the detriment of their primary responsibilities:

“Over time, the amount of paperwork that has been allocated to us is starting to take us away from the ceremonial aspects. And worse, for myself, I write Elder reviews, and I’m really involved in all with the POs [parole officers] and everything like that. It seems like that was starting to take up more and more time, and less and less time for ceremonies and individuals. What I was originally intended to do got off track.”

“(H)ere it’s paperwork, paperwork, paperwork.”

“The Elders come in do a sweat. The Elders work really really really hard at a sweat, and he’s expected now to finish the sweat and then go to the office and write all these reports to keep CSC happy. ‘How many were in the sweat?’ ‘How many problems?’ Why can’t the Elder just go home and relax, come back the next day with their mind clear and write that?”

Elders felt that their ability to provide quality care is compromised by the burden of administrative tasks that have been added to their workload. Many felt that CSC could offer better supports to Elders facing unnecessary mission-creep, higher or more demanding workloads.

Virtually all the Elders we spoke to expressed gratitude for their oscapio (helpers), Elder’s Assistants, and Indigenous Liaison Officers (ILOs). Elder’s Assistants provide support by leading smudges and helping to facilitate cultural activities. The ILOs provide critical support to the Elders by conducting one-to-one sessions with residents, responding to the ongoing needs, and handling administrative tasks that would otherwise fall on the shoulders of Elders. Their responsibilities can also include bringing resident concerns to management, preparing memos for sweat lodges, coordinating sharing circles, helping with feasts, assisting in Elder Reviews. An interviewee at one site said that Pathways “runs best when there is a good working relationship between the Elder and ILO.” However, as we also heard from Elders, ILOs are not being properly compensated for their value either. As an entry-level position with a challenging workload, the turnover among Indigenous staffing is high. We learned that many of them seek promotions in CSC’s programs sector.

Elders routinely brought up how a lack of access to dedicated program, ceremonial and confidential spaces impede their ability to provide ceremony, gatherings and one-on-one counseling. This applied equally to their Office accommodations (or lack thereof) and spiritual spaces, both inside and on the grounds of federal institutions. Some Elders described the situation as a “constant battle” for appropriate, dedicated and confidential space to deliver services, as reflected in the following observations:

“[My institution] doesn’t have ceremonial grounds. Like they do but it’s not fenced in like at other institutions. There isn’t like designated place to change in the winter like whereas in a lot of the other institutions.”

“Of course, the room that’s not usable is the one that was set aside for Elder services.”

“Chaplains have their own dedicated space but Elders don’t.”

“I’m sharing an office with the ILO that was just hired. That’s not always the best situation for [inmates] to come in and do a one to one.”

“The space for our offenders to do their programs, when I first got here was absolutely disgusting. It was filled with brown recluse spiders, and some of our men got bitten. And it had ticks, it had pigeon feces, and I shouted to the mountain top as hard as I could to get them to come in and to clean. To at least have our environment that they were expecting us to do our programming in to be as healthy as it possibly could be.”

“The Indigenous programs are being delivered in a room that were infested with mosquitoes, flies, they have no air conditioning, they have locked windows. They have no windows that open properly. You have to find a stick or something to open them and keep them propped open. […] So there’s no real spot for the Indigenous people to have their ceremonies, to have their Elders come and do traditional cultural teachings with them.”

“Why am I sitting in a little shed with the roof half falling in and the doors an inch short of the bottom so the birds and the mice are coming in?”

A number of Elders noted how lack of prioritized access to spiritual and ceremonial spaces hinders their ability to provide care to their relations. In one institution, the space provided for Elders to do sweat lodges does not have running water available nearby, which can be a major challenge for Elders and presents potential health and safety concerns as well. The lack of dedicated space for Elders to undertake their work and to adequately support Indigenous inmates adds to Elders’ workloads, as they often must improvise to hold their activities.

With respect to Elder involvement and participation in case management conferences and representation at decision-making tables, the experience of Elders was decidedly mixed. Elders generally related stories of having to work very hard for their seat and voice at decision-making tables. At some institutions, Elder involvement is embedded in the case management model and some reported regular and direct access to management, including attendance at morning management meetings or participation in Warden’s Intervention Boards. Others shared that their input and participation is sought or solicited only when convenient or useful to staff. Overall communications and trust were most often described as lacking, with pushback being a commonly reported experience. A number of Elders spoke of meetings with staff that were routinely canceled.

One Elder recounted the not uncommon experience of being pulled into endless report writing, which takes away from primary duties:

“Indigenous social history and intergenerational trauma are the big things that are being trained to staff. Everything that’s written has to be linked to those. So all the staff are being trained about it. But in that training, they always say, ask the Elder for their input, ask the Elders to comment, ask the Elder for..., so then you get pulled into all the report writing or the programs. So that’s what happens, when they want to write something, it has to have the Elder input. So, we’re not really spending time with inmates as much.”

On the general points about administrative duties and report writing, Elders shared various stories. Working within oral traditions, some Elders are not particularly adept at report writing or computer literate. Navigating CSC’s bureaucracy, working within its rigid corporate structure or even learning the specialized language of corrections poses significant challenges, particularly in the absence or deficiency of any orientation training prior to stepping foot in a correctional setting.

Indeed, when it comes to influence, Elder views and voices are in constant danger of not being heard or listened to in a system that relies on written records, hierarchy and structure. On a substantive level, concerns were raised about how progress reports and Elder Reviews are used (or not) in CSC or Parole Board decision-making. Some spoke of the frustration of cultural perspectives being neglected, ignored or dismissed by case managers. One Elder spoke about the importance of Elder-assisted parole hearings, saying that “it’s important that I can sit with relatives when they appear before the PBC (Parole Board Canada). I can draw attention to their successes and progress – otherwise, it is missed.”

More general concerns were expressed about Elder progress reviews being forced into Western models and methods. Participation in a healing circle may not seem that big of a deal or worthy of a notation in casework records, but for an Indigenous person incarcerated at a maximum-security institution it could be a transformational moment. A person following an Indigenous healing path may not translate very well into checking off a program completion box or meeting some far removed or illusory parole eligibility date. There is not much room in an Assessment for Decision record to translate what a “clean body, clean spirit and clean mind” means for reintegration potential/readiness. CSC has yet to find a way to effectively bridge these experiences and worldviews, even though Elders walk these two paths every day.

Many Elders commented on Western-based concepts that infuse Indigenous programming where the focus is on behaviour rather than healing. Others noted a tendency within CSC to use Indigenous participation in cultural or spiritual activities as a means to evaluate engagement or progress in the Correctional Plan. Some referred to the widespread but erroneous assumption within CSC that all Indigenous individuals will want to follow some variation of the so-called “Red Road.” As one Elder described in some detail:

“In 2017, they were really pushing culture and spirituality. Based on what I was seeing and what’s going on there with staff and offenders the push for culture and spirituality is kind of forced on them. They’re saying ‘You need to get back to your culture, you need to get back to your spirituality, and then you’ll be healed.’ It’s an approach that I think is questionable. I told management too that culture [and] language are good, but [they] need more than that to succeed in today’s society. And I’ve heard inmates tell me that they’re kind of forced to get into their culture and spirituality, although they don’t really want to. They have to sign up for this, sign up for that. And if they’re not signing up and engaging with the culture, then I think they get written up. Even with the parole board, the hearings that I’ve been in they always ask ‘What’s going on with your culture and your spirituality?’ If an inmate is not engaging in that it’s somewhat of a negative towards their granting over their day parole or full parole.”

Needless to say, choosing not to access traditional cultural and spiritual supports (or follow a “Healing Path”) should not be used against an Indigenous offender insofar as sentence administration decisions are concerned. The same expectation would never be condoned in a non-Indigenous, Christian, or Caucasian context.

Most Elders noted a need for more Indigenous-centric programs, including teaching of Indigenous languages, Indigenous health and well-being interventions, such as Spirit of Your Warrior, Mending of Broken Hearts, Mothers of Tradition, WellBriety. Similarly, Elders spoke of the need to offer a more extensive range of traditional activities, such as country foods, seasonal and traditional feasts, land-based harvesting and gathering activities and other group outings. Nearly all advocated for more Indigenous staffing at all levels.

3. Respect and Recognition of Elders

The roles of Elders are multifaceted and complex and the workload is demanding and heavy. From crisis management to cultural education to individual counselling, report writing and mentoring, Elders fulfill many needs within CSC. Yet many of the Elders we interviewed indicated that there was little or no formal orientation training, mentoring or direction provided to them. A number of Elders could not recall whether anyone within CSC provided orientation to their contractual expectations, safety and security considerations or relevant policies prior to assuming their position. One Elder recounted her experience of literally wandering the grounds of the penitentiary for a few days before she stumbled into a unit that required her assistance.

While the impact of Elders on inmates’ lives is the focus of their work, their influence transcends this boundary, positively impacting on the lives of their relatives. We heard many positive stories from Indigenous inmates we interviewed about their experience of working with Elders. As one resident put it, with the help of an Elder, “We dig deep and work on stuff.” Interviewees often drew parallels between the work of Elders and mental health professionals. Residents told us about how the Elders approached the work of healing:

“They help us with our feelings, our psychology. They’re spiritual counsellors, but their training is from their experience with culture, community, ceremony, and traditions. They can help us overcome our fears and deal with our emotions, to go deep down (to) address our issues.”

“Elders never push us to say nothing. They’re just listening, no criticism, nothing. Just let me know they were there for me.”

“In jail, your spirit is all broken. Your spirit is constantly drawn to submission. Seeing an Elder always pulls me up. The Elder is like in boxing the guy who puts cream on your face and help you continue the fight until you win eventually.”

It bears noting that the impact of Elders extends beyond the walls of institutions and even the length of an inmate’s stay there. Many Elders reported that they offer ongoing support upon release to those in their circle of care.

“We have our own sweat, but we don’t open it up just to everybody. It’s more of a family-based sweat because it’s at our home. What happens is mainly with the lifers, when they get out, then I give them our number, they can call us when they need someone to talk to, or just to check in and say, ‘Hey, I’m doing [this, or] I got a job or, you know, I’m doing this, I’m doing that.’ So, I created some links with the inmates that have been released or [are] in [a] healing lodge or halfway house.”

Elders’ work has a positive impact within and outside CSC institutions, for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff. As one Elder shared: “I’ve been fortunate that I’ve spent quite a number of years working in CSC. You know, some of the positive things that I’ve seen, I think that we as Elders have a positive impact on the guys that we work with.” Elders directly support CSC’s mission to “change lives.”

Across CSC, however, there is fundamental lack of understanding of Indigenous cultures, ceremony and the role of Elders within institutions. Lack of understanding has resounding consequences, often manifested in discriminatory, derogatory or disrespectful treatment. Many Elders shared that they had experienced resistance to their teachings and interventions within CSC. They shared experiences about cultural insensitivity and pushback that they have received from staff. Elders traced these attitudes to a lack of understanding about the issues that face Indigenous peoples and the broader Indigenous community. It is challenging to know if resistance to Elders lessons, teachings, and activities are due to a lack of understanding or awareness on part of CSC staff or broader racist and discriminatory attitudes in society. In any case, the following examples of disrespectful encounters were shared:

“We don’t have a great relationship with our security in the secure unit. I’ve been here several years. This is just not my experience. “

“This (disrespect) is an ongoing consistent problem that I’ve seen for the past seven years, general attitude towards our women, [and] general attitude towards our involvement with our women down here.”

“We get complaints from the rest of the institution about the smell of smudge. It just leaves a really uncomfortable feeling around [here]. Consistent year after your complaints about our medicines.”

“My experience is that it’s good to get a thick skin. Gotta have a thick skin in here with all of the politics that takes place.”

“The way I look at it, I think the First Nations are at the bottom of the pit when it comes to the Correctional Service, because we’ve got no protection, no union protection or anything.”

“Elders are treated like children or infants. Same with Indigenous inmates.”

Most Elders had stories to relate about how they have tried to combat apathy and insensitivity through education, awareness and cultural competency sessions:

“I’ve tried to engage with management on the need for more awareness and education on Aboriginal history and issues of today, but I’ve always got a negative response. I wanted to create that kind of a program […] where there was a lot of activities that created awareness of education on who we are today. But they’ve always said no, we want none of that. They haven’t given me a reason. But I did offer those, those services. In the end, I guess it’s really not my role based on my contract and how it’s written as far as creating awareness and education on Indigenous issues. But I think it would be a really good idea to move forward with staff and management on understanding who we are.”

Others reported more positive and successful experiences:

“Last week, I did a sweat lodge ceremony for the staff of [Institution name]. The warden and 10 other participants came. They’re all new to our ways, they don’t know nothing about it. The warden got the ball rolling three months ago about having a sweat lodge ceremony for the staff just to introduce them to the types of work we do. So, I took it upon myself to run a sweat lodge ceremony for them last Friday… It started from nine o’clock in the morning until four in the afternoon, I had them for a full day. I was basically educating them on our ways. [The] results were very positive. Now when I come to work, I am hearing from other guards that the ceremony that one has went to has had a positive impact on them, and now they’re all wanting to come. So, you know, that makes me happy to see, to hear that they want to learn, like even the staff here at [institution name] do want to learn our ways and what we do, and how we help our men in these institutions. They’re starting to understand it. It gives me hope. I’m working with the warden who’s in full support of what I do, [that] makes a huge difference. He sets the tone [and] everybody else follows.”

“This one correctional officer said, ‘now, I’m going to treat these guys differently.’ You know, in a unit, that was so good to hear. Each one of us, whether you’re an Elder, or parole officer, or [a] bar for bar, each one of us are in this extraordinary position to make a difference in someone’s life. Each one of us has that opportunity every day.”

Elders indicated that staff participation and interest in learning Indigenous ways is dependent on the receptivity and unity of non-Indigenous staff, and the support of senior management, especially the Warden. The value of engaging and educating staff makes a huge difference, as one participant explained: “before I enter any institution, I should be doing a teaching inside the big case conference, where I can actually explain to the guards and the staff what I’m doing there and what my intentions are.”

Despite the diversity of Indigenous traditions and ceremonies, Elders spoke of a pervasive pan-Indigeneity within CSC. Indeed, one would be forgiven for assuming that federal corrections endorses many cultural practices, teachings and ceremonies that are largely Cree-inspired. Although Elders acknowledge a certain universality to their Teachings, there are also clear distinctions from one nation to another, and from coast-to-coast-to coast. As one participant put it: “Some Elders are from the Prairies and do Sweats and Pipe ceremonies, but us Coast Salish will have other ceremonies, like our baths.” Another Elder opined: “Lots of Pan-Indianism at CSC. They want us to take shortcuts to conduct ceremonies in a CSC setting and it doesn’t work.” Still another Elder lamented that, “Their management system hasn’t got room to record if this young person is status, non-status, Métis, or Inuit. They make everyone First Nations because they don’t know what First Nations means.”

This conflation of cultural difference has important consequences, as one Inuit interviewee related:

“In the very beginning, when I started work there, the management and so on, I think [they] assumed that we [Inuit] were to the same as First Nations with all the ceremonies, the sweat, lodging, and the smudging and the pipe ceremonies. A couple of weeks into my role, they were asking me what’s going on? You’re not holding any ceremonies or anything like that. I said, you know what? We’re not all the same! Don’t ever make that assumption. I’m going to create some awareness and education on who we are as Inuit because in our culture there are no such thing as ceremonies like the First Nations have.”

Non-nuanced understandings of Indigenous ways of knowing and being are compounded by institutional rules and protocols that can seriously distort or disrupt traditional practices or teachings. Several experiences were shared about how CSC staff impose themselves or enforce rules that interfere with ceremonies:

“I find sometimes the security got involved in some of our ceremonies, and now they’re imposing on our sweats [...] And what I found over time is that our ceremonies are starting to be changed, it’s in a certain room based on the security [for example]. [...] Then they’re imposing all the rules, and we have to follow these rules. So, I’m thinking, man, this is really changing a lot of things in our ceremonies and we aren’t supposed to change anything, how we do our sweats, we’re not supposed to change any ceremonies [by] adding or taking away. And I find this is a real problem.”

Outside interference can be particularly challenging when the enforcement of CSC security policies force the Elders to make compromises in the delivery of their services. “I have only been here 5 years, I see changes where non-Indigenous people are trying to tell us how to do our ceremonies, there are not enough people above us who know how to do these things.” Several Elders recounted the need to get “permissions” to conduct ceremony: “We have to get security approval for larger ceremonies and then water them down, so now I just do smaller ceremonies.” Another Elder spoke about the need to do ceremonies “when we need to do ceremonies, not when it’s convenient for operations.” With some humour, one interviewee spoke about the importance of preserving the integrity and authenticity of the Teachings:

“I try to make sure that I’m sharing good Teachings, not ones from Grandfather Google. We need to maintain the integrity of our teachings and ceremonies; otherwise, we’ll go the way of the Wendat people. Our ceremonies will be watered down. CSC needs to give us the room to maintain the integrity of the ceremonies.”

At the higher security levels, Elders spoke of population movement and association restrictions that hinder access to the living units and their ability to provide and conduct interventions. On this point, Elders serving in maximum-security general population ranges provided examples where their presence alone has a calming effect. They pointed to instances of being called in to defuse situations before they can get out of hand. There was a sense among a few Elders that they were being used by security staff who seem to have little regard for their work beyond crisis management and de-escalation of tensions.

Several Elders related stories about tobacco, which is considered contraband inside federal institutions. They spoke of controls put on their medicines and ceremonial supplies, including the requirement to “witness” the distribution or use of medicines on an as-needed basis. In some institutions, Elder access to traditional medicines, such as tobacco, is restricted, locked up or prohibited outright. Several Elders shared stories of having cultural or ceremonial items confiscated by security staff and not having them returned. A few noted a lack of safe places to store sacred and ceremonial items like drums, pipes and medicines. The controls on access to traditional items can sometimes border on the side of ridiculousness, such as the rationing of smudge kits or the counting out of matches on a weekly basis.

In a number of cases, Elders spoke of the need to be adaptive and creative to get around the myriad of rules when conducting ceremony: “Sometimes we have to make little changes because we’re not allowed to have tobacco here so we can’t make those tobacco offerings into the fire. We can’t use tobacco at the sweat lodge ceremony. So, we use sage instead of tobacco.” When confronted with staff grievances about smudging, one Elder was particularly blunt about the reality faced by his relations: “When staff complain about the smell of smudge then maybe they should move because our relatives cannot.”

There is a wider and far more important point to be noted here. First and foremost, access to and participation in Indigenous culture and spirituality is not a program, privilege or just another intervention, as some within CSC would have it. These are rights. Medicines for spiritual practice, including use and offerings of tobacco, should not be denied, if these are felt to be required for ceremony. Access to Elders or Indigenous spirituality cannot be cancelled, withdrawn or removed at the discretion of correctional authorities. Elders outside CSC are revered, honoured, respected and trusted, as per their status in the community. They need the space and autonomy to do their work within a system that understands, embraces and accommodates spiritual and ceremonial practices consistent with their role and status.

4. Elder Vulnerability

Though Indigenous Elders are not defined by age, it is undeniable that the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, spiritual and cultural competence are accumulated through lifetime experience. The fact of the matter is that many of the Elders serving in CSC are older or even elderly individuals, often retired and often reaching well beyond pensionable age. This very fact alone suggests the need for better, more comprehensive and compassionate levels of support from their employer.

Many Elders expressed that the nature of their work created an environment where they often felt isolated and unsupported by their employer:

“Sometimes it’s pretty lonely. I think just having this [conversation] today, it means a lot to me to be able to hear the others and know what they’re experiencing.”

“I think I’m doing a great job; I try my best. I cry. I have rough days, when most people would be in a foetal position after a day with me. After what I listen to and what these other Elders listen to.”

“We need to be supported. We need Indigenous-led staff, we have to stop hiring just people that are interested in our culture. It’s good to have allies, but we really need Indigenous led.”

Many Elders expressed need for Elders to gather more often, in a confidential and safe setting, to share and to take care of one another:

“We don’t have enough face-to-face meetings, or conferences with the other Elders, we need, I feel it’s really important because the work that we do is very specialized. We don’t really have team building opportunities to really to get to know each other and interact. To understand we’re not alone in the work that we’re trying to do.”

“Elders need to collectively get together to support each other. Here, we come together, but at other institutions it wasn’t so. We need more sharing and gathering between Elders at Regional and National levels.”

“Us Elders need to be able to take time off to get together, medicine each other, eat together, support each other.”

“It would be good to meet with other Elders across the country to understand what Elders are doing and to tell CSC what we need.”

“Elder gatherings once a year at least would be great. I’m just a young guy and could learn a lot from the others who have more knowledge.”

A few Elders noted that the only gatherings seem to happen when there is conflict or discord amongst them. ⁷⁰ Elders also felt that there needed to be better training, specifically around trauma. Many of the issues that Elders work to address with inmates are troubling and can deeply impact them as fellow Indigenous people. The point was often made by Elders that they have to carry the trauma that is brought to them and there is a cost to their own well-being:

“Some of the barriers I see is we need more training in trauma. More training in mental health issues. Mental health issues are staggering here at [Institutions]. And I don’t have the tools to help them. I’m dealing with depression, anxiety, and being institutionalized. Those are some of the barriers I face.”

Proper training in dealing with trauma, both in helping inmates address their trauma and how to prevent harm to themselves, would be an impactful way to support Elders working for CSC.

The combined effect of Elder vulnerability issues raised in this investigation – lack of supports, mismanagement, inadequate compensation, disrespect, heavy workloads – leaves many Elders feeling stressed, exhausted, isolated and burned out.

“What’s the incentive for me to even work for. Everybody quits. Every Elder I know. I know so many Elders across Canada and even my own father for 14 years on and off. He said this is the worst job in Canada. We should have the parking spot next to the warden, but instead we’re the subcontractor in the back, treated like scab workers with nothing to secure us.”

“We get burned out if we don’t work with each other. If we need to take a day, a mental health day, why can’t we do that without getting docked pay? […] Why can’t we just take that afternoon and talk to another Elder?”

One final concern raised by participating Elders that requires some reflection on part of CSC is the issue of Indigenous self-identification. ⁷¹ Non-Indigenous people claiming to be Indigenous is a phenomenon that has grown in Canada recently, and there are limited institutional guides on how to verify Indigeneity. The lack of controls in this area results in additional workload for Elders who must attend to individuals who have a tenuous connection to Indigenous heritage. The practice of non-Indigenous persons identifying as Indigenous to access supports earmarked for Indigenous inmates takes away necessary supports for actual Indigenous inmates and impedes the ability of Elders to offer full support to them.

Navigating this issue, with little or no direction from within CSC, adds to the challenge and stress of Elder workloads, as the comments below illustrate:

“The second biggest problem we have is the self-identification issue when inmates are coming into the institution, they’re clicking the Métis box. It’s so disheartening. […] I’m trying to build a group and everybody’s fighting. The French self identifies are fighting with the real Cree guys that are not real. I’m just saying there’s massive issues with self-identification.”

“Everybody tells me their problems but half of these people don’t even have an Indigenous social history. Half these people are just saying they’re Indigenous because they want the free buffalo burger once a month.”

“By the time they get to me, they should already be Indigenous. I shouldn’t be teaching these people how to be an Indian.”

“We’ve been working inside for 20 years, what has changed is the influx of self-identified inmates. They’re not really native but they’re saying they have roots from a long, long time ago. And they come into the group, but they don’t have that same link to communities. They create some challenges for the group.”

“They [CSC] just ask them ‘are you Indigenous’ and they [inmate] just say ‘I don’t know, well maybe my great-great grandmother was. So, they decide they’re Indigenous. […} These kids that come in here grew up white, they didn’t know they were Indigenous growing up. But they were told if they say they’re Indigenous, they’ll get special privileges.”

One Elder noted that their contract only mentioned that they would be providing services to Indigenous men, but some people in their institution expected them to work with all the population. In some cases, non-Indigenous prisoners were so frustrated they could not access support intended for Indigenous persons that they resorted to yelling at the Elder and accusing them of racism. Further, some Elders noted that they would be happy to provide services to the wider incarcerated population, provided that it is done in a good way and does not take away from the services they provide to Indigenous inmates:

“I’m willing to come in and see you and meet with you and find out if you’re following our path or our Indigenous ways. If you are, then I would like to have you come participate in a sweat lodge ceremony with us.”

“I try to be open-minded and not impose one way. Teach the teachings by example, respect, kindness, open-mindedness. You don’t have to say anything. You just lead by example with how you carry yourself and treat people, and they learn.”

Conclusion and Recommendations

The findings of this investigation are not entirely new or even ground-breaking, although the engagements and methods by which the views of Elders were collected is. In giving voice to Elders and relating their experiences, participants in this investigation raised some fundamental concerns and unfulfilled commitments:

1. Lack of understanding of the roles and contributions of Elders within CSC.
2. Lack of a consistent and national approach to engaging Elders.
3. Lack of Elder representation within CSC’s decision-making structures.
4. Inadequate recognition, compensation and support of Elders at all levels.

It is not clear that any of these systemic issues will be resolved through yet another review of the Elder contracting model or clarification of the resourcing indicators for Elder services, though CSC seems stubbornly intent on doing more of the same. No amount of effort to ensure proper support and management of Elder services within CSC will be successful in the absence of deciding how and where oversight, valuation and monitoring of these activities fit within the agency. Put more directly, if Elders are not given a seat at the table, if their Nations are not represented or welcomed as equal partners at CSC’s senior decision-making tables, if correctional expenditures continue to be detached from Indigenous representation rates, then there is every chance that Indigenous initiatives within CSC will never be Indigenous-led, much less Indigenous-driven.

Elders have wisdom and knowledge to share, but CSC must be much more willing to accept and integrate these gifts and put Elder’s vast experience of Indigenous ways of knowing and being to better use. CSC has integrated Elders into its Indigenous Corrections plan and framework, but it is nowhere near realizing an Indigenous First approach. Indigenous corrections combines Western-style knowledge with Indigenous perspectives. Elders are the bridge between these two worldviews and the most important resource for Indigenous inmates. They were hired to provide spiritual and cultural support to Indigenous men and women under federal sentence. The integrity of their teachings and practices should be honoured and respected. CSC has a duty to give Elders a safe space to conduct their work, free from harassment, discrimination and disrespect.

CSC rightfully acknowledges that it needs Elders to meet the needs of Indigenous peoples in custody. However, a key finding of this investigation is that it does not seem to know where or how Elder interventions fit within its overall corporate and reporting structures. Elders who agreed to participate in this investigation often spoke of their confusion and uncertainty about who they report to, who supervises and oversees them, or how their contributions are integrated within CSC. At all levels within the organization, there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of Elders. As Elders themselves related, there is very little consistency in how CSC engages in their work, how it selects, hires and retains their services or how the agency recognizes or supports their work. Sadly, this widespread maladministration and mismanagement leaves many Elders feeling extremely vulnerable, isolated, marginalized, excluded, unsupported, disrespected and burned out.

Within CSC, Elder services are often referred to as “additive,” as if in small doses Elder interventions contribute to some bigger or more complete whole. Perhaps a better way to look at it is to view Elder services as substantive, having an independent and meaningful value on their own, not to be subordinate to or seen only in relation to CSC interventions. As it stands, there is little room within CSC’s world to treat Elders as complementary and equal partners in “changing lives.” This must change.

While CSC often publicly acknowledges the importance of Elders, those participating in this engagement shared that they constantly deal with barriers, interference and pressure from within CSC, a workplace that exacerbates their vulnerability in their roles. Elders reported increased responsibilities, particularly administrative duties, without additional support, which takes away from their primary obligation to attend to the cultural and spiritual needs of Indigenous offenders. Lack of cultural awareness and competence within CSC undermines Elders’ authority over Indigenous interventions, like Pathways, they are assigned to lead. Elders described facing discrimination and disrespect at all levels within CSC, largely attributed to lack of understanding of their contribution and roles. These working conditions can make them susceptible to exhaustion and burnout.

When Elders felt supported and valued, these sentiments were contingent on the culture and leadership at the specific institutions where they were employed. Virtually all Elders cited national and regional headquarters as a hindrance and barrier to their work; few could understand the logic or reasoning behind Regional authorities acting as their contract “holders” and “overseers.” Elders feel much more valued working in collaboration with their home institutions:

“People way over here (gestures with hand to show distance) in Ottawa are always giving us direction, but don’t know our ways. The situation hasn’t been better with RHQ (Regional Headquarters). Head office asked if we want our contracts to be handled by NHQ or institution, we wanted the institution but the contract was sent to National anyways.”

“(Institutional) Management understand us, and listen to us and they want to let us do things, the office in (REGION) says, ‘No.’ Sometimes RHQ and institution agree, but then Ottawa says, ‘No.’ Ottawa is so far away and the way they do things over there in Ontario is not how we do things here.”

“Nobody feels supported by the region. One part of this is that RHQ is responsible for the whole region, they’re too busy for us!”

Elders highly value (and fiercely defend) their autonomy and independence, which adds to the complexity of the relationship, but it is manifestly unhelpful to have their work overseen by Regional authorities who are far removed or incapable of resolving issues at their local worksites.

Additionally, because many Elders employed by CSC do not remain in their roles for a long period of time, their memory and perspectives on change over time within these structures (including back to the original Spirit Matters report) are limited. It is important that CSC work to develop monitoring indicators and feedback mechanisms to ensure Elders can share concerns and make recommendations for improvement moving forward without fear of reprisal.

Longer-term, sustainable changes that support the wellbeing of Indigenous people in federal corrections – including by supporting Elders working within CSC to provide cultural and spiritual healing, advice, guidance and leadership – will require more transformational actions. Some of these actions may occur within CSC, such as giving Elders more control over cultural programming for Indigenous offenders, offering employment retention incentives such as increased job security and compensation rather than contract employment, and integrating Elder and other Indigenous people’s leadership within CSC’s governance structures and strategic planning.

This investigation details the experiences of Elders working within correctional institutions across Canada. The insights shared offer guidance and a path forward to better acknowledge and support Elders within CSC. The recommendations correspond with the thematic analysis of this report.

Concluding Message

Considered together, this two-part, two-year investigation reveals some common themes and fundamental problems in CSC’s Indigenous First framework. Based on the voices of more than 200 people living and working within the federal correctional system, as well as perspectives from external Indigenous organizations and groups with whom we met along the way, it is clearer than ever that components of CSC’s Indigenous Continuum of Care (i.e., Healing Lodges, Pathways, and Elders) are not working as intended, and that more of the same will do little to address the underlying issues. It has become abundantly clear that a sea change is required at the institutional, structural, cultural, and even philosophical levels of federal corrections, in order to recast the role the Service has been playing in perpetuating over-representation, to instead contributing to its resolution.

By our estimations, the culmination of our investigations and their findings provide compelling evidence of broader, prevailing issues within corrections, suggestive of:

• organizational paternalism and the risks of engaging in recognition politics;
• homogenization and prescription of Indigeneity;
• use of culture as program;
• exclusionary criteria and short-reaching investments of the Indigenous Continuum of Care; and,
• the need to better leverage existing opportunities for waysforward.

Organizational Paternalism & Recognition Politics

Corrections cannot deny its history. It has deep roots as an inherently colonial institution, one among many that have played a central role in the marginalization and criminalization of Indigenous peoples in this country. Now, at a time when public institutions are seemingly making deliberate efforts towards reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, corrections too must navigate these tides of change. While public and social pressures have indeed ratcheted up in recent years, as described throughout this report, the expectations for corrections to right the course, particularly concerning Indigenous over-incarceration, have literally been decades in the making. As we have suggested, lack of innovation and inertia have led to an unbroken legacy of unfulfilled promises.

At the best of times, there is an inclination within CSC towards the retention of power, authority, and control, placing limits on its ability to accomplish its own form of reckoning with decolonization. This incapacity for self-reflection has come at the expense of its engagement with Indigenous peoples Intentional or not, CSC has used the plight of Indigenous peoples to increasingly resource itself, and invest those funds into tired models of mainstream correctional practice under new names (e.g., Pathways, state-run healing lodges, continuum of care, Indigenous-driven, Indigenous-led).

The legislative tools and policy supports that have been available to corrections for decades now, which have offered new and novel ways to build bridges with communities (e.g., Healing Lodges, Section 81 and 84 agreements), or opportunities to elevate and empower a different set of voices and leaders such as Elders, have been neglected and their potential squandered. Under the guise of being “Indigenous-led”, CSC has consistently placed itself squarely in the driver’s seat, keeping Indigenous peoples at bay – near, but not at – the decision-making tables locally, regionally, and nationally. Disappointingly, the Service has retained the vestiges of a colonial institution – hoarding the authority, the resources, and the ability to dictate what gets done, how, and for whom. In so doing, the role and reach of Indigenous individuals and communities is so marginalized and insufficiently resourced that it has hard to ignore the conclusion that they have been set up to fail. The deck is stacked in favour of traditional, mainstream corrections, in a way that guarantees the house always wins.

More troubling yet, there is sense that the Service has been playing a game of recognition politics, where it has learned to talk the talk of reconciliation to increase its resource base, quell the concerns of detractors and advocates, and stall for yet more time. This has been of no service to Indigenous peoples behind bars, nor their families at home. Furthermore, as was made abundantly clear in our interviews, it has served to damage the credibility of reconciliation efforts writ-large, by inspiring suspicion among those who see corrections as living “off the backs of Indigenous people”. One of the greatest risks of hollow recognition is that it gives the system an excuse to further bide its time, by sending the message that it is in a constant process of awareness, learning and transformation . It is safe to say that time is up on further pleas for the patience of Indigenous peoples in this country, particularly those who are living out that time behind bars.

There is great responsibility in engaging in recognition. The recognition of a problem creates the expectation that you will do something to address it. Thus, this understandably invites public scrutiny and accountability to commitments. Feigning the efforts of reconciliation will not only set corrections back further with Indigenous peoples, it also risks marring the reputation of other public institutions attempting to more seriously engage in earnest nation-to-nation relationship building.

Prescribing Indigeneity

As described, there are risks in taking on the work and responsibility of genuine reconciliation. There is both the danger of doing it disingenuously (or as a guise to further other motives), as well as the danger in doing it poorly. Part of that work is deciding who is best placed to lead the charge. Consequently, these risks further highlight why it should not be in the hands of corrections to lead this type of work at all. As an example of the latter risk, one of the over-arching findings of all three investigations is that corrections has ventured into the tenuous territory of defining what it means to be singularly Indigenous . Using a largely pan-Indigenous approach and predominantly non-Indigenous lens, CSC has taken to prescribing a particular brand of Indigeneity, requiring people to subscribe themselves to it in order to gain access to any kind of “culturally-informed” services, programs, or more timely forms of release. We heard this time and time again during our interviews. What has resulted are often crude, exaggerated and homogenized conceptualizations of culture, superimposed onto mainstream correctional interventions. CSC’s brand of pan-Indigeneity ignores the fact that most Indigenous peoples walk two worlds, and that diversity of Indigenous culture exists along a rich spectrum of cultures and individual identity. Moreover, one-size-fits-all is grossly unresponsive to significant cultural differences that exist between First Nations peoples, Métis, and Inuit.

Corrections should not be in the business of choosing or foisting a brand of culture or identity onto anyone. Nor should it be making the acceptance of such a brand the price of admission to accessing services, programs, and timely release. If we have learned anything from the past, requiring Indigenous peoples to assimilate or enfranchise themselves in order to gain access to justice is nothing less, and tantamount to, the violation of human rights.

Culture as Program

One of the many risks of defining and prescribing culture is that it opens the door for culture to be used as some kind of ‘soft’ program that can be packaged, dosed, and delivered like any other correctional intervention. Based on the findings from the investigations, there is a sense that CSC has grafted its own language, expectations and criteria – adherence to correctional plan, reintegration potential, behavioural modification – onto these initiatives and then renamed them as if they were somehow Indigenous-led, Indigenous-driven or Indigenous-first. Culture is not a program. Further, in treating culture as program, it mischaracterizes the experiences of culture, identity formation, and healing as a simplistic, linear, additive, or graduated process, for which signs of regression can be penalized, as with other correctional programs (e.g., kicked out of the program, sent back to prison). Access to or participation in one’s culture or healing should not have to be earned. One should not have to demonstrate readiness or potential to follow a traditional healing path. Culture should not be used as an incentive or reward to a more favourable placement. There appears to be little recognition within CSC that access to culture, ceremony, and traditional healing are in fact rights not privileges . As we have documented, there are few observable consequences when staff impede, obstruct, deny, disrespect or interfere with the integrity or authenticity of Indigenous ceremony or access to these rights in a correctional context.

Exclusionary Criteria & Short-reaching Investments

As evidenced by the rules placed around access to programs and initiatives such as Healing Lodges and Pathways, the Service has set largely unattainable standards for most Indigenous peoples to meet in order to benefit from provisions afforded under the law. Of their own making, CSC has set barriers and criteria that intentionally exclude those who most need those supports. There are obvious benefits to setting a high bar to Pathways or Healing Lodge placements – it screens in those who seem most likely to do well, which in turn makes these interventions appear “effective” by their own narrow metrics and measurement, and frankly these individuals may be more compliant and easier to work with. However, the pool of prospective recipients has been made so small that well over 90% of Indigenous peoples behind bars are effectively denied access. Furthermore, while the funding that has been allocated to Indigenous Initiatives is small relative to their large population it is purportedly serving, it is actually only being used to support a minority among the most promising individuals. Too much effort and resources are reserved for such a small group of people who likely don’t need that level of support as much as the excluded majority, helps explain why these initiatives have accomplished so little in moving the yardsticks on the bigger problem of over-representation.

Existing Opportunities for Ways Forward

Ten years after Spirit Matters it is clear that there has been minimal progress in improving outcomes for the majority of Indigenous peoples serving federal sentences. There are fundamental shifts that need to occur first in order to enable such systemic transformations. This will largely be dictated by, if, and when, a significant amount of control and resources are turned over to Indigenous communities. Herein lies cause for some cautious optimism. As we found, a more promising road lies in greater investment in communities – for example, through community-run Healing Lodges, Section 81 agreements with both communities and organizations – as a path towards reconciliation and reducing the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples.

One of the most promising practices we heard across all three investigations was the importance of Elders and the pivotal role they play in supporting individuals, incarcerated persons and staff alike, in deeply meaningful ways. For many people we met, it was the Elders who made all the difference in helping them find a path to their culture, identity, and purpose. Ultimately, corrections does not necessarily need to understand what Elders do, nor should they strive to package and deliver what Elders do en masse via another correctional program . CSC simply needs to trust that Elders provide something intangible that corrections cannot and should not; and so, the Service is best placed to listen to, respect, protect, and invest in the Elders in ways they and so many others have been asking them to do.

There is a lot to be said for turning over resources to locally grown initiatives that show promise. In the course of our investigations, we heard many examples of tested and untested ideas, largely conceived at the local levels, that were developed in an effort to solve problems that are likely not unique to a particular site, group, or region. For example, we heard about the Traditional Healing Program at Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge. It is a program that has sought to blend western and traditional approaches to medicine by incorporating Traditional Healers, medicines, and ceremonies, to better address the health needs of the residents in more culturally-responsive ways. What started as a two-year demonstration project, the Traditional Healing Program has been supported for an additional five-year period to continue operating at this lodge.

Others shared with us their ideas, including suggestions for Indigenous mobile clinics to better support sites that are either under-funded or remotely located. We heard ideas of how to diversify the cultural experiences of individuals, with for example, the creation of a Visiting Elder Program. This initiative would bring in Elders with specializations in various medicines, ceremonies, who are keepers of history, family clans, political structures, or Great Laws. It would give individuals greater opportunities to interact with Elders from their respective Nations or linguistic groups. It could serve as a way of countering pan-Indigenization within CSC. There are many creative and thoughtful ideas that exist locally, but they lack the platform, the seed funding, and/or the belief by leadership to test or implement. Creating opportunities for locally developed ideas to be shared and explored could offer more credible solutions to local, regional, or national problems. Again, this requires investment and respect for autonomy at the local community level.

Closing Message

Considerations regarding the redistribution of authorities and reallocation of resources are not issues unique to federal corrections. Many other public institutions are currently contending with learning how to engage in nation-to-nation work, without inadvertently repeating the mistakes of the past. This Office itself experienced a great deal of learning throughout the process of conducting this investigative work, by way of the guiding support, voice, and tutelage of various Indigenous partners. Systemic change within the DNA of an institution is by no means an easy feat. Change is inherently uncomfortable. But the reality is that there has been a far greater discomfort borne by Indigenous peoples for generations. Therefore, we not only recommend, we challenge corrections to confront this discomfort. This change work will require not only a shift in manner, but in institutional identity, as corrections will need to resituate itself at a different place along the problem-solving spectrum than it has been used to occupying. We challenge the Service, as we have built into our recommendations, to divest itself of many of the authorities, controls and resources it has retained for far too long and have yielded far too little in the way of progress for Indigenous peoples and communities. Instead, we ask the Service to invest in and trust the Indigenous peoples, communities, and organizations who stand a greater chance at creating meaningful and long-lasting changes for the better, for today, and the generations to come.

To conclude the Office’s update of our original Spirit Matters report from 2013, I issue three summative calls to action:

12. I recommend that CSC ensure that all staff undergo mandatory and annual Indigenous cultural safety and awareness training, provided by an external agency. Training should recognize the diversity among First Nations, Métis and Inuit to avoid perpetuating pan-Indigenous assumptions.
13. I recommend that CSC report yearly and publicly on measureable performance indicators, results and outcomes to reduce Indigenous over-representation in federal corrections. These indicators and outcomes should be co-developed with Indigenous stakeholders, including Elders and community leaders, and reflect Indigenous concepts of healing and progress.
14. I recommend that the Minister of Public Safety work jointly with the Ministers of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, as well as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to develop and implement a national Indigenous decarceration strategy.

ANNEX A: Summary of Recommendations

1. I recommend that CSC consult with Indigenous community groups on the job description, role, mandate, and hiring process for the Deputy Commissioner for Indigenous Corrections position, and that they report publicly on their plans and short-term timelines to create and staff this position.
2. I recommend the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada include the Correctional Service of Canada and the Office of the Correctional Investigator in the development and implementation of the Indigenous Justice Strategy (IJS). Furthermore, the IJS should seek to redistribute a significant portion of the current resources within the federal correctional system to Indigenous communities and groups for the care, custody, and supervision of Indigenous Peoples.
3. Fund an external, Indigenous-led national engagement initiative to create capacity, interest, and innovation among Indigenous communities and organizations (urban and rural) to enter into Section 81 and 84 agreements for the care, custody, and supervision of Indigenous Peoples under federal sentence.
4. I recommend that the Minister of Public Safety direct CSC to develop and publicly report on clear actions, timelines, measurable targets and deliverables to:
   1. more effectively engage Indigenous communities and organizations to establish more Section 81 agreements, particularly in areas where there are noted gaps (e.g., Ontario and Atlantic region, for Indigenous women, and individuals from northern locations; urban settings);
   2. establish section 81 agreements in urban and rural areas; and,
   3. transfer control and ownership of existing CSC-run Healing Lodges to the local community, or an Indigenous group or organization, under Section 81 of the CCRA within three years.
5. I recommend that the Minister of Public Safety direct CSC to work with the Section 81 Healing Lodges to identify the main causes of vacancy rates and identify actions that will be taken to increase and maintain higher occupancy rates, with specific attention to:
   1. Developing new and rigorously validated security classification tools for Indigenous peoples, from the ground up, that reduce their over-representation in medium and maximum security, consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Ewert , 2018;
   2. Reviewing and modifying the policies and practices for Security Threat Group (gangs) flags with a view to facilitating the removal of these flags, where appropriate;
   3. Developing and implementing a gang-disaffiliation and exit strategy that is run by Indigenous community-based individuals and/or organizations;
   4. Increasing the availability of trauma-informed care at women’s and men’s facilities and the ability for incarcerated Indigenous persons to receive proper mental health diagnoses and treatment; and,
   5. Increasing the number of Indigenous persons who cascade to lower security levels (e.g., accepting medium security populations) and expediting transfers to Healing Lodges, particularly Section 81s.
6. Co-develop, with communities and organizations, a new funding model for Section 81 agreements and significantly increase funding to Section 81 Healing Lodges to better support their specific needs and to address the existing disparities with state-run lodges, in order to achieve resourcing parity.
7. I recommend that CSC enhance the impact and reach of institutional Indigenous initiatives by:
   1. Conducting a review of current Pathways participants to identify and recommend individuals for Healing Lodge placements and other non-custodial alternatives (e.g., section 84 agreements).
   2. Developing an overarching culturally responsive approach that comprises of institutional initiatives for Indigenous people who do not benefit from the current Pathways model. This would include expanding the benefits offered by the Pathways Initiative (e.g., access to Elders, ILOs, Healing Plans, one-to-one counselling) to a larger number of individuals.
   3. Developing clear and concrete Correctional Plan objectives that guide sentence planning for offenders serving sentences of 10 years to life, and providing more meaningful incentives to Indigenous Lifers (e.g., ETAs, lower-security transfers, and Healing Lodge placements).
   4. Collaborating with Indigenous Initiatives at the regional and institutional levels to develop yearly national action plans that increase in-reach by First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, community based organizations, non-profits, post-secondary institutions, and other stakeholders to establish ties and support systems with incarcerated individuals that begin at intake and continue post-Warrant Expiry.
8. I recommend that CSC create job security and additional financial supports for Elders:
   1. Elders should be compensated comparably to CSC staff, as well as those in similar roles, such as federal government employees working as chaplains.
   2. Elders should be offered and have access to a benefit scheme that will foster their long-term wellness, including access to mental health and trauma supports and resources, sick days, vacation, retirement contributions and savings and self-care, equivalent to federal government employees.
   3. CSC should do away with onerous Statements of Work that place an undue administrative burden on Elders.
   4. CSC should rethink how and to whom Elders report.
   5. CSC should ensure Elder insights are properly reflected and integrated into case management records and decisions.
9. I recommend that CSC integrate Elders within CSC’s leadership and governance structures respectful of Elder autonomy and independence with the same reverence, recognition, and status accorded Elders in Indigenous communities.
10. I recommend that CSC develop a standardized onboarding training for Elders that outlines the expectations, rules, and reporting practices of CSC. CSC should work to reduce the gaps and differences between institutions and their practices towards Elders. This could include the development of national guidelines or policies when working with Elders, as well as peer support.
11. I recommend that CSC provide Elders with appropriate, prioritized and dedicated indoor and outdoor spaces to conduct ceremonies and programs and for confidential counseling as part of their conditions of work. Elders should maintain control over all items used for cultural and spiritual ceremony, including sacred medicines. For greater clarity, CSC should not interfere with Indigenous peoples’ right to ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) of Indigenous intellectual property, including curriculum, ceremony and knowledge shared by Elders as a part of their work with CSC.
12. I recommend that CSC ensure that all staff undergo mandatory and annual Indigenous cultural safety and awareness training, provided by an external agency. Training should recognize the diversity among First Nations, Métis and Inuit to avoid perpetuating pan-Indigenous assumptions.
13. I recommend that CSC report yearly and publicly on measureable performance indicators, results and outcomes to reduce Indigenous over-representation in federal corrections. These indicators and outcomes should be co-developed with Indigenous stakeholders, including Elders and community leaders, and reflect Indigenous concepts of healing and progress.
14. I recommend that the Minister of Public Safety work jointly with the Ministers of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, as well as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to develop and implement a national Indigenous decarceration strategy.

Endnote 1

Macdonald, N. (February 18, 2016). Canada’s prisons are the “new residential schools.” Macleans.ca.

Return to endnote 1 referrer

Endnote 2

Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI). (2013). Spirit Matters: Aboriginal People and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act . Ottawa: ON.

Return to endnote 2 referrer

Endnote 3

Section 84 is part of the release process and applies to individuals who want to serve their conditional or statutory release in an Indigenous community or in an urban area with the support and direction of an Indigenous organization.

Return to endnote 3 referrer

Endnote 4

Correctional Service of Canada (CSC; 2021 April). Corporate Reporting System – Modernized (CRS-M) .

Return to endnote 4 referrer

Endnote 5

Public Safety Canada. (2022 Jan.). 2020 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview (CCRSO) .

Return to endnote 5 referrer

Endnote 6

OCI (2020 January). News release: Indigenous People in federal custody surpasses 30% ; and, OCI. (2021 Dec.). News release: Proportion of indigenous women in federal custody nears 50% .

Return to endnote 6 referrer

Endnote 7

CSC. (2022, Feb. 15). CRS-M.

Return to endnote 7 referrer

Endnote 8

According to CD 568-3 Identification and Management of Security Threat Groups , STGs include any group, gang, organization or association consisting of three or more members, in one of the following: street or prison gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs, organized crime, Indigenous gangs, white supremacy groups, subversive groups, terrorist organizations and hate groups.

Return to endnote 8 referrer

Endnote 9

CSC. (2022, Feb. 15). CRS-M.

Return to endnote 9 referrer

Endnote 10

As per Public Safety Canada’s 2020 CCRSO , the median age of Indigenous vs. non-Indigenous individuals upon admission to federal corrections is 32 and 35 respectively.

Return to endnote 10 referrer

Endnote 11

Statutory Release is a legislatively requirement that federally incarcerated individuals serve the last third of their sentence in the community. It is not conditional and is not granted by the Parole Board of Canada; rather, CSC supervises these individuals and impose conditions of release similar to full parole.

Return to endnote 11 referrer

Endnote 12

CSC CRS-M – Offender Movement: Releases data cube.

Return to endnote 12 referrer

Endnote 13

Stewart, L.A., Wilton, G., Baglole, S., & Miller, R. (2019 Aug.). A comprehensive study of recidivism rates among Canadian federal offenders . CSC: Research Division.

Return to endnote 13 referrer

Endnote 14

CSC. (2022). CRS-M – Offender Movement: Admissions data cube.

Return to endnote 14 referrer

Endnote 15

Pathways is a signature initiative within CSC’s Indigenous Continuum of Care available to incarcerated individuals. It is described by CSC as, “an Elder-driven intensive healing initiative, that reinforces a traditional Indigenous way of life through more intensive one-on-one counselling, increased ceremonial access, and an increased ability to follow a more traditional Indigenous healing path consistent with Indigenous traditional values and beliefs.”

Return to endnote 15 referrer

Endnote 16

CSC. (2019, June 11). National Indigenous Plan . EXCOM presentation.

Return to endnote 16 referrer

Endnote 17

Ewertv. Canada, 2018 SCC30, [2018] 2 S.C.R.165.

Return to endnote 17 referrer

Endnote 18

Minister of Public Safety Canada. (October 2020). CSC Budgetary Investments since 2015 . Minister’s Appearance before SECU Committee Notes (Retrieved on March 3, 2022).

Return to endnote 18 referrer

Endnote 19

Section 84 is part of the release process and applies to individuals who want to serve their conditional or statutory release in an Indigenous community or in an urban area with the support and direction of an Indigenous organization.

Return to endnote 19 referrer

Endnote 20

Obtained from CSC via data request. Data Warehouse Services, RADAR-Prime, and AID-Admission , Extraction Date: 2021-10-10; and, Performance Direct (data up to the end of the fiscal year 2020-2021).

Return to endnote 20 referrer

Endnote 21

According to CSC, Exchange of Service Agreements are established between the Minister of Public Safety and provincial/territorial governments regarding the temporary detention, transfer, and community supervision of offenders. They detail the roles and responsibilities of each jurisdiction and include specific protocols regarding per diem rates, offender information sharing, and invoicing.

Return to endnote 21 referrer

Endnote 22

Blackburn, M. (2023, April 25). Can Kathy Neil fix Canada’s prison system for Indigenous inmates? Some people aren’t so sure. APTN News . Retrieved April 26, 2023 from https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/indigenous-corrections-kathy-neil-correctional-service-of-canada-section-81/

Return to endnote 22 referrer

Endnote 23

While occupancy rates have been steadily declining since 2017, there was an increase in 2022-23 to 67% occupancy. More follow-up time is required however to determine whether this increase will hold as a trend, or whether this is simply a one year increase.

Return to endnote 23 referrer

Endnote 24

Office of the Auditor General (2022 May). Report 4—Systemic Barriers—Correctional Service Canada . Ottawa, ON.

Return to endnote 24 referrer

Endnote 25

While transfers have been steadily declining in the last five fiscal years, there was an increase in 2022-23 to 240. More follow-up time is required to determine whether this increase will hold as a trend or whether this is simply a one-year increase.

Return to endnote 25 referrer

Endnote 26

CSC. (2022). National Indigenous Plan – 2021-2022 . Ottawa, ON: Performance Measurement and Management.

Return to endnote 26 referrer

Endnote 27

CSC. (2022). Costs of Maintaining and Offender – 2021-22 .

Return to endnote 27 referrer

Endnote 28

Hanby, L., Ridha, T., Sullivan, R., & Farrell MacDonald, S. (2022). Indigenous healing lodges: Impacts on offender reintegration and community outcomes (Research Report R-437) . Ottawa, ON: Research Branch.

Return to endnote 28 referrer

Endnote 29

Throughout this report, individuals participating in Pathways will often be referred to as “participants.”

Return to endnote 29 referrer

Endnote 30

Green, N. (2002). Aboriginal pathways in federal corrections . FORUM on Corrections Research. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Return to endnote 30 referrer

Endnote 31

CSC. (2004). Final Report – Effective Corrections Initiative – Aboriginal Reintegration.

Return to endnote 31 referrer

Endnote 32

CSC. ( in effect , Novemeber 2013). Guidelines 702-1: Establishment and Operation of Pathways Initiatives. Note: CSC has since reviewed GL 702-1 and shared draft revisions with the OCI and other stakeholders in April 2023, for consultation. Unless otherwise specified, all references to GL 702-1 refer to the 2013 version.

Return to endnote 32 referrer

Endnote 33

CSC. (2017). Pathways to Healing: A Guide for Medium Security at Men’s Institutions.

Return to endnote 33 referrer

Endnote 34

CSC. (2019, Sep. 5). The National Indigenous Plan – A National Framework to Transform Indigenous Case Management and Corrections . Website. Accessed on April 27, 2023.

Return to endnote 34 referrer

Endnote 35

Draft revision of GL 702-1 – Pathways Initiatives . Shared with our office in April 2023.

Return to endnote 35 referrer

Endnote 36

The Indigenous Corrections Continuum of Care (see, CSC’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections) begins at intake through the Indigenous Intervention Centres, or initial engagement with Elders and pre-Pathways in maximum-security. It then continues through the levels of security as described here. In theory, throughout this process support should be provided to ensure continuity of care and successful community reintegration.

Return to endnote 36 referrer

Endnote 37

Waitlisted applicants at medium-security sites reside in general population and are considered “Pre-Pathways.”

Return to endnote 37 referrer

Endnote 38

CSC’s ultimate goal with Pathways is to transfer medium-security participants directly to Healing Lodges, but this is not always possible. Minimum-security movements are considered “transitions” until a suitable Healing Lodge can be identified.

Return to endnote 38 referrer

Endnote 39

CSC. (2004). Final Report – Effective Corrections Initiative – Aboriginal Reintegration . Initial expenditures for Pathways from 2000 to 2005 equalled to $2.9M.

Return to endnote 39 referrer

Endnote 40

This is assuming that all Pathways participants are Indigenous; however, we know that a minority are non-Indigenous. Therefore, this proportion is an overestimate.

Return to endnote 40 referrer

Endnote 41

Atlantic Institution, Edmonton Institution, Kent Institution, Port Cartier Institution,and Millhaven Institution. In 2022-23, Millhaven Institution had no beds assigned to pre-Pathways though it did in the past. Donnacona Institution did not have a Pathways Initiative on the date that data was obtained.

Return to endnote 41 referrer

Endnote 42

See, for example, CSC’s Indigenous Corrections Accountability Framework Annual Report (2019-2020), which reports that Pathways generates “positive results for Indigenous offenders, including higher education upgrading, fewer serious institutional charges, a lower rate of involvement in security incidents, fewer positive random-sample urinalysis results, and a higher rate of discretionary release, compared to Indigenous offenders who do not participate in Pathways.”

Return to endnote 42 referrer

Endnote 43

In its revised GL 702-1 (2023), CSC explained what is meant by Elder-driven : "The Elder/Spiritual Advisor is the spiritual leader of Pathways, and thus they are responsible for the spiritual and cultural integrity of the Initiative. There must be full-time Elder/Spiritual Advisor involvement in the Pathways Initiative as it is an Elder-driven Initiative. The Elder/Spiritual Advisor determines, with an offender, the spiritual/healing path required of the offender during their participation in the Pathways Initiative. The Elder/Spiritual Advisor establishes the schedule of circles, ceremonies, and one-to-one sessions with the offender, in collaboration with institutional management. The Elder/Spiritual Advisor is the best person to determine if an offender is ready to be accepted into a Pathways Initiative and no offender should be placed on Pathways or on the waiting list without consulting the Elder/Spiritual Advisor and obtaining their agreement.”

Return to endnote 43 referrer

Endnote 44

Stony Mountain Institution (SMI). In fact, despite being one of CSC’s oldest facilities, our Office found SMI to be the most responsive, progressive, and well-run in terms of Indigenous Initiatives overall. However, it is difficult to compare SMI to other federal penitentiaries. SMI is a clustered institution where all three-security levels are located at the same prison, and some variation of Pathways or pre-Pathways can be found at all levels. SMI is also unique in that it benefits from being close to a large urban centre (Winnipeg), allowing for greater access to human resources and a workforce stability uncommon at federal penitentiaries. Furthermore, the leadership at SMI is relatively forward-thinking, creating frequent opportunities for stakeholders and community-based organizations to offer services to prisoners. Replicating this sort of activity at CSC’s more remote institutions would be difficult, if not impossible.

Return to endnote 44 referrer

Endnote 45

Section 4 (g) of the CCRA states, “correctional policies, programs, and practices” will respect the differences and identities of federal inmates and will be “responsive” to the special needs of Indigenous persons. Section 80 requires CSC to “provide programs designed particularly to address the needs of Indigenous offenders”. Finally, section 83 provides Indigenous inmates with “the services of an Indigenous spiritual leader or elder…”

Return to endnote 45 referrer

Endnote 46

Office of the Auditor General. (2016). Report 3 – Preparing Indigenous Offenders for Release – Correctional Service of Canada . Ottawa, ON.

Return to endnote 46 referrer

Endnote 47

Joseph, B. (2018). 21 Things you may not know about the Indian Act: Helping Canadians make reconciliation with Indigenous peoples a reality . (pp. 67). Indigenous Relation’s Press.

Return to endnote 47 referrer

Endnote 48

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Canada’s Residential Schools: The Legacy: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 5. (pp. 171). McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Return to endnote 48 referrer

Endnote 49

Cram, S., & Farrell MacDonald, S. (2019). Substance use patterns of Indigenous and non-Indigenous women offenders (RIB-19-08). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Return to endnote 49 referrer

Endnote 50

Stewart, L., Wardrop, K., Wilton, G., Thompson, J., Derkzen, D., & Motiuk, L. (2017). Reliability and validity of the Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis – Revised (Research Report R-395). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Return to endnote 50 referrer

Endnote 51

In its place, new text was added emphasizing the importance of providing clear expectations and “that offenders participating in Pathways Initiatives will remain substance free.” It goes on to say that there may be consequences for violating the substance-free policy, but these would be “determined on a case-by-case basis, and consider the offender’s Indigenous social history.” It concludes by underlining “Urinalysis testing is not a specified criteria for admission to, or participation in, a Pathways Initiative.”

Return to endnote 51 referrer

Endnote 52

Even with the revised GL 702-1 (2023), the model continues to cater to a small cohort of motivated, self-disciplined, and compliant individuals ready to engage in traditional healing approaches.

Return to endnote 52 referrer

Endnote 53

Though we were not able to complete a participant profile for all of Pathways, we analyzed a few of the larger initiatives and found that Pathways serves a diversity of individuals with varying correctional profiles. However, the vast majority of those who were included in our analysis were scored high on, Engagement in Correctional Plan.

Return to endnote 53 referrer

Endnote 54

Motiuk, L., & Hayden, M. (2021 May). Federal offenders serving life sentences: 2015-16 to 2019-20 (RIB-21-08). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. Also, see: Public Safety Canada (2022). 2020 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview .

Return to endnote 54 referrer

Endnote 55

Some of these younger individuals find their way to Pathways through the Indigenous Intervention Centres (IICs). According to CSC (Hanby & Beauchamp, 2022), the IICs were designed to “meet the needs of individual Indigenous offenders through an integrated and culturally responsive approach to case management.” Through the IIC process, candidates are identified and fast-tracked into the Indigenous Continuum of Care, typically via Pathways. Unofficially, we found that IICs also aim to circumvent gang recruitment in general population. Between April 2018 and March 2020, 21% (477 / 2,263) of Indigenous men and 64% (172 / 267) of Indigenous women admitted to federal corrections were identified as IIC participants. A further 297 men and 32 women were “eligible but did not participate for various reasons.” Although individuals recruited through IICs are thought to cascade and/or secure conditional release quicker than others are, this is typically due to their shorter sentences rather than any commitment to the Healing Path. In fact, we found that IIC residents appeared to be characteristically less committed to traditional teachings, ceremonies, and cultural interventions.

Return to endnote 55 referrer

Endnote 56

Section 7 of Annex B in CSC’s revised GL 702-1 proposed to remove the following language pertaining to Lifers, i.e., the available bed space for Lifers should not normally exceed 20% of available bed space. Later in this policy document, under Annex C, it states, “Offenders who have an indeterminate sentence or are serving life sentences may be placed in Pathways for a specific period not exceeding three years.”

Return to endnote 56 referrer

Endnote 57

During interviews, we also learned that there are many operations staff who volunteer to work on Pathways units, and wish to do so for the right reasons. These individuals are willing to take training and are fully committed to the Pathways model/vision, but reported facing barriers in their efforts to secure assignments on these units.

Return to endnote 57 referrer

Endnote 58

There was an opportunity to mitigate the second-hand smoke issue with the installation of a new ventilation system, but at the time of our investigation this plan was not moving forward.

Return to endnote 58 referrer

Endnote 59

Retrieved on April 19, 2023, from: https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/002/003/002003-0002-en.shtml. Date modified timestamp reads: 2019-09-05.

Return to endnote 59 referrer

Endnote 60

Though CSC Research denies that this is a concern, they did admit that Indigenous Social History factors do not appear to influence assessments for decisions relating to security classification and discretionary release. For example, see: Keown, L. A., Gobeil, R., Biro, S., & Beaudette, J. N., (2015). Aboriginal social history factors in case management (Research Report R-356). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Return to endnote 60 referrer

Endnote 61

Escorted Temporary Absences are used in corrections to facilitate the gradual and timely reintegration of federally sentenced individuals. ETAs are an opportunity for individuals to make connections in the community and to demonstrate their readiness for release. In the context of Pathways, ETAs are a required step before cascading to minimum security or being moved to Healing Lodges. ETAs can involve visiting loved ones and community supports or participating in cultural activities. One staff member explained how residents “often do an ETA to a Healing Lodge or minimum to participate in ceremonies and to have first hand knowledge of how it works.” In sum, the purpose of ETAs is to make progress on ones healing and correctional plans, and to prepare for gradual release back into the community. However, at the time of interviews, ETAs had been stalled (or altogether stopped) at many institutions for months due to the lingering impacts of COVID-19, and the absence of Elders and case management staff. As a result, Pathways residents could not make progress along the continuum of care.

Return to endnote 61 referrer

Endnote 62

It seems that this is especially the case for Lifers.

Return to endnote 62 referrer

Endnote 63

Based on comments made by staff and Elders at Pathways Initiatives and Healing Lodges.

Return to endnote 63 referrer

Endnote 64

When CSC’s shared its revised Guidelines in April 2023 with my Office, they also shared a draft “Pathways National Handbook” for review. On page 12 of said Handbook, it states, “After six months participation in Pathways, participants have usually made significant progress in their healing, and this is demonstrated by their behaviour.” In our response, we said that setting a timeframe for “healing” Indigenous individuals affected by both direct and intergenerational trauma is unrealistic and culturally insensitive. We suggested removing this timeframe or changing the wording so that it does not appear that CSC expects an Indigenous individuals to “heal” over the course of six months, in a prison .

Return to endnote 64 referrer

Endnote 65

As an integral part of this investigation, the Office acknowledges the support, background report and research conducted by Archipel Research and Consulting Inc., an Indigenous-owned and women-led company. The team of OCI and Archipel researchers worked collaboratively in sharing insights, developing questionnaires and refining methodologies. Although Elder gatherings and interviews were conducted separately and concurrently by each agency, the findings of this report represent a joint and consensus-based compilation of internal and external data collection and thematic analysis. Through this partnership, the Office benefited and learned a great deal about doing business rooted in Indigenous methods and pedagogies.

Return to endnote 65 referrer

Endnote 66

These included review of the notes and minutes of the National Aboriginal Advisory Committee (NAAC) and the National Elder Working Group (NEWG).

Return to endnote 66 referrer

Endnote 67

CSC. (2017). Elder vulnerability within CSC: A summary of discussions with Elders, recommendations and action plans.

Return to endnote 67 referrer

Endnote 68

CSC. (2022, Aug. 5). Audit of the Management of Elder Services .

Return to endnote 68 referrer

Endnote 69

Rowe, G., Straka, S., Hart, M., Callahan, A., Robinson, D., & Robson, G. (2020). Prioritizing Indigenous Elders’ knowledge for intergenerational well-being. Canadian Journal on Aging, 39 (2), 156-168.

Return to endnote 69 referrer

Endnote 70

A number of Elders spoke about the experience of lateral or horizontal violence (a form of bullying or harassment or other harmful behaviours directed against other co-workers). Beyond the scope of this investigation, these experiences often involve the work duties and relationships between Elders and other Indigenous staff. Some of this violence relates to improper hiring and selection practices or perceived lack of cultural competence (such as holding proper titles to perform certain ceremonies). Not surprisingly, the differences and politics, both within and between different Nations, sometimes spills over creating tension and “in-fighting” among co-workers. As one astute interviewee observed, “There’s a lot of lateral violence that happens also, because of the colonial history between all of us. Even the Native initiatives.”

Return to endnote 70 referrer

Endnote 71

Indigenous self-identification refers to the self-reporting process by which any person in federal corrections can self-identify as Indigenous without any vetting process to ensure their claim to Indigeneity is authentic and legitimate. This practice was seen as problematic by some Elders because they felt that some individuals were claiming to be Indigenous when they had no demonstrable claims to Indigenous identity in order to access supports intended for Indigenous inmates.

Return to endnote 71 referrer