1. Canadian Human Rights Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, c. H-6.

2. For more information, see their site at http://www.vsi-isbc.ca.

3. Barbara Bloom, Barbara Owen and Stephanie Covington. Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders, Washington, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, June 2003, at 11.
Available: http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2003/018017.pdf

4. Correctional Service of Canada. Creating Choices: The Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, Ottawa, Supply and Services Canada, April 1990, at 125–135.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/choices/toce_e.shtml

5. Louise Arbour. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996, at xi.
Available: http://www.sgc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/199681_e.pdf

6. Barbara Bloom, Barbara Owen & Stephanie Covington. Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders, supra note 3, at vii.

7. Correctional Service of Canada. Basic Facts about Federal Corrections, Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2001, at 20-21.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/faits/pdf07/07_e.pdf

8. Data obtained from Correctional Service of Canada.

9. Data obtained from Correctional Service of Canada.

10. Correctional Service of Canada. Basic Facts about Federal Corrections, supra note 7, at 20-21.

11. Data obtained from Correctional Service of Canada.

12. Data obtained from Correctional Service of Canada.

13. Solicitor General Canada. Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services Canada, November 2002, at 57.
Available: http://www.sgc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/StatsNov2002_e.pdf

14. Correctional Service of Canada. Basic Facts about Federal Corrections, supra note 7, at 21-22.

15. Louise Arbour. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, supra note 5, at 201.

16. Correctional Service of Canada. Creating Choices: The Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, supra note 4, at 51.

17. Louise Arbour. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, supra note 5, at 201.

18. Shelley Trevethan. “Women in federal and provincial-territorial correctional facilities,” Forum on Corrections. Research. Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, Volume 11, Number 3, Women Offenders, 1999, at 10.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/v11n3/v11n3a3e.pdf

19. Ibid.

20. Correctional Service of Canada. Women convicted of homicide serving a federal sentence, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, October 1998, in the Details of the homicide section under context of the homicide.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/homicide/toc_e.shtml

21. Ralph C. Serin and Colette Cousineau. “Programs for substance abusing offenders in Canada: A national survey”, Forum on Corrections Research Focusing on Alcohol and Drugs, Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, January 2001, Volume 13, Number 3, at 58.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/v13n3/v13n3a18e.pdf 

22. Auditor General of Canada. Report. “Correctional Services Canada - Reintegration of Women Offenders, Chapter 4”, Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services Canada. April 2003, para. 4.23.
Available: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20030404ce.html/$file/20030404ce.pdf

23. Jane Laishes. The 2002 Mental Health Strategy for Women Offenders. Ottawa: Women Offender Program, Correctional Service of Canada, 2002, at App. D.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/mhealth/toc_e.shtml

24. Ibid. at 7.

25. Correctional Service of Canada. Speakers’ Kit — Module 10 Women Offenders, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, August 2001, at 3.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/

26. Correctional Service of Canada. Healing Lodges for Aboriginal Federal Offenders, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, May 2003, at 3.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/correctional/abissues/pdf/hl-e.pdf

27. Ibid.

28. Correctional Service of Canada. Speakers’ Kit — Module 10 Women Offenders, supra note 25, at 3.

29. Ibid.

30. Correctional Service of Canada. Regional Women’s Facilities Operational Plan, Ottawa: Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Women, Correctional Service of Canada, 2002, at 5.

31. Correctional Service of Canada. Institutional Profiles — Regional Psychiatric Centre, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, 2002, at 2-3.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/facilit/institutprofiles/rpcprairie_e.shtml

32. Correctional Service of Canada. Regional Women’s Facilities Operational Plan, supra note 30, at 49.

33. Correctional Service of Canada. Secure Unit Operational Plan — Intensive Intervention in a Secure Environment, Ottawa: Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Women, Correctional Service of Canada, September 2003, at 3.

34. Correctional Service of Canada. Speakers’ Kit — Module 10 Women Offenders, supra note 25, at 3.

35. Information provided by Correctional Service of Canada.

36. Correctional Service of Canada. Institutional Profiles — Isabel McNeill House, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, 2002, at 1.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/facilit/institutprofiles/isabelmcneil_e.shtml

37. Corrections and Conditional Release Act, (1992, c. 20).

38. CHRA, supra note 1, s. 3.

39. CCRA, supra note 37, ss.. 97. and 98.

40. CHRA, supra note 1, s. 15.

41. CCRA, supra note 37, s. 4.

42. See for example: Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624, at para. 78.

43. Patricia Monture-Angus. The Lived Experience of Discrimination: Aboriginal Women Who Are Federally Sentenced, submitted to the Canadian Human Rights Commission by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS), Ottawa, CAEFS, May 2003.
Available: http://www.elizabethfry.ca/submissn/aborigin/1.htm

44. University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353.

45. CHRA, supra note 1, at ss. 3 and 3.1.

46. Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321, at para. 18.

47. CHRA, supra note 1, s.15(1)(g).

48. See the analysis established by the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. B.C.G.S.E.U., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; and British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 (also known as Meiorin and Grismer).

49. Grismer, supra 48, at para. 22.

50. Wendy Chan and Kiran Mirchandani (eds.). Crimes of Colour: Racialization and the Criminal Justice System in Canada, Peterborough, Broadview Press, Ltd., 2002, at 79.

51. Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143.

52. Correctional Service of Canada. Offender Intake Assessment and Correctional Planning SOP 700–04, at 16–18.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/sop/doc/700-04_e.pdf

53. Tim Brennan. “Institutional Classification of Females: Problems and Some Proposals for Reform”, Female Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions, in Ruth T. Zaplin, ed., Gaithersburg, Maryland, Aspen Publishers, Inc.,1998, at 181. See also: Kelly Hannah-Moffat & Margaret Shaw. Taking Risks: Incorporating Gender and Culture into the Classification and Assessment of Federally Sentenced Women in Canada, Ottawa, Status of Women Canada, March 2001, at 64.
Available: http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/301/swc-cfc/taking_risks-e/010514-0662654323-e.pdf

54. Tim Brennan. “Time to think about Cognitive Behavioural Programmes”, Female Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions, supra note 53, at 203. See also Kathleen Kendall, in Women and Punishment: The Struggle for Justice, edited by Pat Carlen, Portland, Or., Willan Pub., 2002, at 191.

55. United State Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Classification of Women Offenders: A National Assessment of Current Practices, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, U.S., August 2001, at 7-9. Available: http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2001/017082.pdf

56. The low employment rates of women with disabilities tend to result from systemic, not individual factors. Women with disabilities have higher rates of unemployment, lower employment earnings and higher rates of poverty overall than their male counterparts. Status of Women Canada. The Dynamics of Women’s Poverty in Canada, Ottawa, Status of Women Canada, March 2000, at 9.
Available: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662281594/200003_0662281594_e.pdf

57. Examples: For the employment domain, the assessment indicators include:“Has physical problems that interfere with work?” For the domain of personal/emotional orientation, the indicators include: “Ethnicity is problematic? Religion is problematic?” See SOP 700–04, Annex 700-04C, supra note 52.

58. “... discriminatory acts may be based as much on perception and myths and stereotypes as on the existence of actual functional limitations. ...” Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montréal (City) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665, para. 39.

59. Auditor General of Canada. Report. “Correctional Services Canada - Reintegration of Women Offenders ”, chapter 4, supra note 22, para. 4.38.

60. CCRA, supra note 37, at s. 30.

61. Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, s. 18.
Available: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-44.6/SOR-92-620/index.html

62. Ibid. at s. 17.

63. Louise Arbour. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, supra note 5, at 221.

64. Auditor General of Canada. Report. “Correctional Services Canada — Reintegration of Women Offenders ”, chapter 4, supra note 22, para. 4.2.

65. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Response to the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Consultation Paper for the Special Report on the Situation of Federally Sentenced Women, Ottawa, May 2003, at 4.

66. Sharon D. McIvor and Ellisa C. Johnson. Detailed Position of the Native Women’s Association of Canada on the Complaint regarding the Discriminatory Treatment of Federally Sentenced Women by the Government of Canada filed by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Ottawa, May 2003, at 13. Available: http://www.elizabethfry.ca/submissn/nwac/1.htm

67. Louise Arbour. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, supra note 5, at 224.

68. Louise Arbour, Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, supra note 5, at 228.

69. Tim Brennan. Female Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions, supra note 53, at 186.

70. Auditor General of Canada. Report. “Correctional Services Canada — Reintegration of Women Offenders ”, chapter 4, supra note 22, para. 4.41.

71. Meiorin, supra note 48, paras. 74-77.

72. Correctional Service of Canada. “Security Classification of Offenders Serving a Minimum Life Sentence for First or Second Degree Murder”, Policy Bulletin No. 107, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, February, 2001, para 1.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/

73. Correctional Service of Canada. Secure Unit Operational Plan, supra note 33, at 13.

74. Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2001-2002, Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services, 2002, at 33; Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2002–2003, Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services, 2003, at 41.
Available: http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/reports/pdf/AR200102_e.pdf  and http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/reports/pdf/AR200203_e.pdf

75. Correctional Service of Canada. National Response to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Consultation Paper, Ottawa, April 2003, at 3.

76. CAEFS. Response to the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Consultation Paper for the Special Report on the Situation of Federally Sentenced Women, Ottawa, May 2003, at 12.
Available: http://www.elizabethfry.ca/sentence/1.htm

77. Marie-Josée Préville. Union of Canadian Correctional Officers - Joliette Local. Comments for the Special Report on the Situation of Federally Sentenced Women, Quebec, April 2003, para. 3.2.3.

78. St. Leonard’s Society of Canada. Comments, Toronto, April 2003, at para 6.

79. Correctional Service of Canada. Policy Bulletin No. 107, supra note 72, at para. 1.

80. Mary Dodge and Mark R. Pogrebin. “Collateral Costs of Imprisonment for Women: Complications of Reintegration”, The Prison Journal, Volume 81, Number 1, 2001.

81. Esyllt Jones and Anna Ste. Croix Rothney. Women’s Health and Social Inequality, Winnipeg, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — Manitoba, 2001, at 3. Available: http://www.policyalternatives.ca 

82. Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), [2003] F.C.J. No. 117, at paras. 49–52.

83. Correctional Service of Canada. Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control in Canadian Federal Penitentiaries 2000–2001, Ottawa, 2003, at 26. A Report of the Correctional Service of Canada’s Infectious Diseases Surveillance System, 2003
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/infectiousdiseases/en.pdf

84. Andre Picard. “Native Drug Users Hardest Hit by HIV, ”Globe and Mail, Toronto, Globe and Mail, January 7, 2003, at A7.

85. Anne Marie DiCenso, Giselle Dias and Jacqueline Gahagan. Unlocking Our Futures: A National Study on Women, Prisons, HIV, and Hepatitis C, Toronto, Prisoners’ HIV/AIDS Support Action Network (PASAN), March 28, 2003, at 53 and 55-56.
Available: http://www.pasan.org/Publications/Unlocking_Our_Futures.pdf

86. Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. HIV/AIDS in Prisons: High-Risk Behaviours behind Bars - Info Sheet 2, Montreal, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2001.
Available: http://www.aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/issues/prisons/e-info-pa2.htm

87. Anne Marie DiCenso, Giselle Dias and Jacqueline Gahagan. Unlocking Our Futures: A National Study on Women, Prisons, HIV, and Hepatitis C, supra note 85, at 29.

88. Health Canada. Canada’s Drug Strategy, The Office of Alcohol, Drugs and Dependency Issues, Ottawa, Public Works and Government of Services Canada, 1998, at 9.
Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/cds/pdf/englishstrategy.pdf

89. Correctional Service of Canada. Making a Sustainable Difference in Corrections, Remarks by Lucie McClung, Commissioner’s Speeches, Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, November 8, 2003.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/speeches/commish/03-11-08_e.shtml

90. Correctional Service of Canada. “Correctional Service of Canada Releases Results of Inmate Survey at Joyceville Institution near Kingston, Ontario”, News Release. June 5, 1998.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/releases/98-06-05_e.shtml

91. CHRA, supra note 1, s. 25.

92. The Commission has previously expressed its support for a pilot needle exchange program in federal prisons. Canadian Human Rights Commission. Annual Report, Ottawa, Supply and Services Canada, 1995, at 34; Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996, at 38–39; 1997, at 31–32; and 1998, at 27–28.
1996 - Available: /ar-ra/ar1996/conteng.html
1997 - Available: /ar-ra/ar1997/a_disable_e.html
1998 - Available: /public/ar98-ra98/ar98-complete.pdf

93. F/P/T Advisory Committee on Population Health, F/P/T Committee on Alcohol and Other Drug Issues, F/P/T Advisory Committee on AIDS and F/P/T Heads of Corrections Working Group on HIV/AIDS. Reducing the Harm Associated with Injection Drug Use in Canada, for the meeting of Ministers of Health, St. John’s Newfoundland, Health Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada, September 2001, at 10. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/cds/pdf/injectiondrug_e.pdf

94. Ibid. at 4.

95. Reducing the Harm Associated with Injection Drug Use in Canada, supra note 93, at 24–25.

96. Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “Update on Needle and Syringe Exchange in Swiss Prisons” Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy and Law Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 4, Montreal, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, July 1995.
Available: http://www.aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/otherdocs/Newsletter/July1995/04SWITZE.html

97. Canada’s Solicitor General says that the government is open to the idea of needle exchange programs in federal prisons. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, “Ottawa considers needle exchange in prisons” CBC News, May 2003. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/17/wayneeaster_030517
See also: Canada. Parliament House of Commons. Standing Committee on Health. Report. Strengthening the Canadian Strategy on HIV/AIDS, Ottawa, Communication Canada, June 2003, Rec. 4.
Available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/2/HEAL/Studies/Reports/healrp03-e.htm

98. Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2002-2003, supra note 74, at 53.

99. Jane Laishes. The 2002 Mental Health Strategy for Women Offenders, supra note 23, at 7.

100. Marc Daigle, Mylène Alarie and Patrick Lefebvre. “The problem of suicide among female prisoners,” Forum on Corrections Research. Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, Volume 11, Number 3 - Women Offenders, September 1999, at 41.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/v11n3/v11n3a11e.pdf

101. Jane Laishes. Mental Health, Health Services, The 2002 Mental Health Strategy for Women Offenders, supra note 23, at 11-12.

102. Anita Dockley. “Suicide and Self-harm Prevention: Repetitive Self-harm among Women in Prison,” Prison Service Journal, Issue 138, 27–29.

103. Cathy Fillmore, Colleen Anne Dell and Elizabeth Fry Society of Manitoba. Prairie Women, Violence and Self-Harm, Prairie Women’s Health Centre of Excellence, Winnipeg, August 2000, at 72.
Available: http://www.pwhce.ca/pdf/self-harm.pdf

104. Ibid. at 84.

105. Correctional Service of Canada. Creating Choices: The Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, supra note 4, at 51.

106. Jane Laishes. The 2002 Mental Health Strategy for Women Offenders, supra note 23, at 20-33.

107. We support the recent suggestion of the Office of the Correctional Investigator that a distinction be made between information acquired for diagnosis and treatment purposes, and information necessary to assess risk. See Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator, 2002–2003, supra note 74, at 46.

108. Decision of the Board of Investigation. Board of Investigation into the Suicide of a Segregated Inmate in the Female Unit at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary on February 5, 2000, File 1410-2-413. Performance Assurance Sector, Correctional Service of Canada, August 2000, para. 35.

109. Correctional Service Canada. Working Together, CSC National Headquarters Working Group on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Fetal Alcohol Effects (FAS/E), Ottawa: Aboriginal Initiatives Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.
Available:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/correctional/abissues/challenge/3_e.shtml

110. Correctional Service of Canada. CSC Women’s Institutions and Maximum Security Units: National Operational Protocol — Front Line Staffing, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/nopfrontlinestaffing/index_e.shtml

111. Thérèse Lajeunesse and Associates. The Cross Gender Monitoring Project Federally Sentenced Women’s Facilities: Third and Final Report, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, September 2000, Recommendation #1.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/gender3/toc_e.shtml

112. R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679, para. 90.

113. King v. Canada (unreported) July 5, 1989 - File: 89-21-PEN-11.

114. Correctional Service of Canada. “Code of Discipline”, Commissioner’s Directive 060, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, March 1994.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/doc/060-cd.pdf

115. Note the Correctional Service of Canada’s own research indicating that more empathic and non-punitive attitudes on the part of correctional officers could be fostered by “a reward system that is based more fully on correctional orientations”. Michel Larivière. “Antecedents and Outcomes of Correctional Officers’ Attitudes Towards Federal Inmates: An Exploration of Person–organization Fit”, Forum on Corrections Research, Volume 14, Number 1, Academic Contributions, Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, January 2002, at 23.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/v14n1/v14n1a5e.pdf

116. Correctional Service of Canada. Task Force Report on Administrative Segregation — Commitment to Legal Compliance, Fair Decisions and Effective Results, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, March 1997, under section K. Women Offender, at 1.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/taskforce/toc_e.shtml

117. Kelly Hannah-Moffat and Margaret Shaw, eds. An Ideal Prison? Critical Essays on Women’s Imprisonment in Canada, Halifax, Canada. Fernwood Publishing, 2000, at 130.

118. Data obtained from Correctional Service of Canada.

119. Correctional Service of Canada. Task Force Report on Administrative Segregation — Commitment to Legal Compliance, Fair Decisions and Effective Results, supra note 116, Section E at 1.

120. Louise Arbour. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, supra note 5, Recommendation 9, at 255-256.

121. Correctional Service of Canada. Task Force Report on Administrative Segregation — Commitment to Legal Compliance, Fair Decisions and Effective Results, supra note 116, Recommendation 3.

122. Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2002-2003, supra note 74, at 53.

123. Correctional Service of Canada. “Classification of Institutions”, Commissioner’s Directive, Number 006, Section 10, CD 6, August 2002.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/doc/006-cd.pdf

124. Correctional Service of Canada. Secure Unit Operational Plan, supra note 33, at 37-38.

125. Correctional Service of Canada. Secure Unit Operational Plan, supra note 33, at 9–10.

126. Correctional Service of Canada. Secure Unit Operational Plan, supra note 33.

127. CCRA, supra note 37, s. 76.

128. CCRA, supra note 37, ss. 4(a), 77 and 80.

129. Correctional Service of Canada. Correctional Program Strategy for Federally Sentenced Women FSW N –18, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, July 1994, at 3.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/fsw18/toce_e.shtml.

130. See references cited in chapter 4, at supra 53.

131. It should also be noted that researchers for the U.S. Department of Justice suggest that women’s risk of re-offending is tied to a lack of transitional programs and support systems in their communities, not criminogenic factors. See Gender Responsive Strategies, supra note 3, at 20.

132. Auditor General of Canada. Report. “Correctional Services Canada — Reintegration of Women Offenders, Chapter 4”, supra note 22, para. 4.59–4.64.

133. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Response to the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Consultation Paper for the Special Report on the Situation of Federally Sentenced Women, supra note 65, at 3.

134. Correctional Service of Canada. Creating Choices: The Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, supra note 4, at 76.

135. Patricia Monture-Angus. The Lived Experience of Discrimination: Aboriginal Women Who Are Federally Sentenced, supra note 43, at 1.

136. Auditor General of Canada. Report. “Correctional Services Canada — Reintegration of Women Offenders ”, Chapter 4, supra note 22, para. 4.66. See also: Kelley Blanchette and Craig Dowden, An Investigation into the Characteristics of Substance-Abusing Women Offenders – Risk, Need and Post-Release Outcome, Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, April 1999, at iv.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r81/er81.pdf

137. Kelley Blanchette and Craig Dowden. An Investigation into the Characteristics of Substance-Abusing Women Offenders – Risk, Need and Post-Release Outcome, supra note 136, at 14–15.

138. “Aboriginal women were overrepresented amongst substance abusers (N=251 federal women offenders). An extremely high proportion (93%) of Aboriginal women was classified as substance abusers, compared to 49% of non-Aboriginal women. This difference was statistically significant, and highlights the need for substance abuse programming tailored for Aboriginal women...” (emphasis added). Kelley Blanchette and Craig Dowden. An Investigation into the Characteristics of Substance-Abusing Women Offenders – Risk, Need and Post-Release Outcome, supra note 136, at ii–iii.

139. This policy has a statutory basis: CCRA, supra note 37, s. 54(b).

140. Correctional Service of Canada. “Urinalysis Testing in Institutions”, Commissioner’s Directive 566-10, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, April 2003, para. 36.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/doc/566-10-cd.pdf

141. Correctional Service of Canada. “Work Releases”, Commissioners Directive 740, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, December 2001.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/doc/740-cd.pdf

142. K.C. Vigilante. “Reduction in Recidivism of Incarcerated Women through Primary Care, Peer Counselling, and Discharge Planning”, Journal of Women’s Health, Volume 8, Number 3, 1999, at 414.

143. Auditor General of Canada. Report. “Correctional Services Canada — Reintegration of Women Offenders ”, Chapter 4, supra note 22, at para. 4.91.

144. Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Report of the Royal Commission on The Status of Women in Canada, Ottawa, Information Canada, September, 1970, at 385; Correctional Service of Canada. Creating Choices: The Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, supra note 4, at 116-119.

145. Of these thirteen women, five are still being supervised in the community, four are incarcerated (two women had parole denied; the two others had their parole revoked), two successfully completed their sentences, one is temporarily detained on pending charges and one is absent without leave. (Data provided by the Correctional Service of Canada)

146. Auditor General of Canada. Report. “Correctional Services Canada — Reintegration of Women Offenders ”, Chapter 4, supra note 22, at paras. 4.76–4.81.

147. Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel. Promoting Equality: A New Vision, Ottawa, Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel under the authority of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, June 2000, at 27.
Available in .PDF format.

148. Correctional Service of Canada. Offender Complaint and Grievance System Audit Report, Ottawa: Performance Assurance Sector, Correctional Service of Canada, June 2002, at 23.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/pa/complaint/complaint_e.pdf

149. Correctional Service of Canada. Human Rights and Corrections: A Strategic Model, Report of the Working Group on Human Rights, Ottawa, Correctional Service of Canada, December 1997, at 76.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/rights/human/toce_e.shtml

150. See Louise Arbour. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, supra note 5, at 253; Thérèse Lajeunesse and Associates. The Cross Gender Monitoring Project Federally Sentenced Women’s Facilities: Third and Final Report, supra note 111, Recommendation 9, at 70; Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator, 2001-2002, supra note 74, at 12-13; Report of the Working Group on Human Rights, supra note 149, at 74.

151. Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada. Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace, Ottawa, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada.
Available: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/hw-hmt/hara_e.asp  See also: Correctional Service Canada. Policy Bulletin 146, Ottawa, Correctional Service Canada, March 13, 2003.

152. Correctional Service of Canada. Internal document, October 6, 2002, at 2.

153. See Correctional Service of Canada. Policy Bulletin 96, June 2000, which is clearly restricted to accommodation in employment, and does not address accommodation in the provision of services. It is unclear how inmates would even know of its existence.

154. Correctional Service of Canada. Offender Complaint and Grievance System Audit Report, supra note 148, at 11.

155. Ibid. at 12.

156. Thérèse Lajeunesse and Associates. The Cross Gender Monitoring Project Federally Sentenced Women’s Facilities: Third and Final Report, supra note 111, at 37.

157. Law Commission of Canada, Transforming Relationships Through Participatory Justice, Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2003, at 143-144.
Available: http://www.lcc.gc.ca/en/themes/sr/rj/participatory_justice/participatory_justice.pdf

158. Correctional Service Canada. Secure Unit Operational Plan, supra note 33, at 27.

159. The Office of the Correctional Investigator has repeatedly expressed concern about excessive delays in responding to grievances at the institutional and regional levels of the process.

160. A survey conducted by the Cross Gender Monitor in 1999 found that 61 of 82 federally sentenced women thought the inmate grievance system was either not at all or not very effective. See Thérèse Lajeunesse and Associates. The Cross Gender-Monitoring Project Federally Sentenced Women’s Facilities: Third and Final Report, supra note 111, at 24.

161. Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2002-2003, supra note 74, at 37.

162. Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2002-2003, supra note 74, at 18 in the Response from the Correctional Service of Canada section.

163. Thérèse Lajeunesse and Associates. The Cross Gender Monitoring Project Federally Sentenced Women’s Facilities: Third and Final Report, supra note 111, at 37.

164. Gillian Calder. Rethinking the Treatment of Federally Sentenced Women in a Substantive Equality Context, Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund — National Legal Committee, submitted for the Special Report on the Situation of the Federally Sentenced Women, Toronto, April 2003, at 11.

165. The report identified problems related to the lack of training for staff who process complaints and grievances. (Correctional Service of Canada. Offender Complaint and Grievance System Audit Report, supra note 148).

166. Correctional Service Canada. Human Rights and Corrections: A Strategic Model, supra note 149, 12-20.

167. The areas are: safe, secure and humane conditions of confinement; humane treatment; harassment and discrimination; freedom of religion and spirituality; freedom of expression; right to liberty; principles of fundamental justice; right to effective internal and external remedies; right to privacy; right to vote; right to information; right to maintain contact with outside; language rights; equality rights; freedom of association; and right to medical services. Another area, employee conditions of employment, has also been added.

168. Correctional Service of Canada. The Review of Offender Access to Religious and Spiritual Programs and Services, Ottawa: Performance Assurance Sector, Correctional Service Canada, June 2002.
Available: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/pa/relig_spirit/relig_spirit_e.pdf

169. Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2002-2003, supra note 74, at 57-58.

170. Thérèse Lajeunesse and Associates. The Cross Gender Monitoring Project Federally Sentenced Women’s Facilities: Third and Final Report, supra note 111, recs. 6, 7 and 8; Correctional Service of Canada. Human Rights and Corrections: A Strategic Model, supra note 148, at chap. 4, at 12;
Correctional Service of Canada. Task Force Report on Administrative Segregation — Commitment to Legal Compliance, Fair Decisions and Effective Results. supra note 116, at section O, Rec. 3a.
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons Canada. Sub-committee on Corrections and Conditional Release Act of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, May 2000, at Chapter 5 - 5.32.
Available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/SCRA/Studies/Reports/just01/07-toc-e.html

171. Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Twenty-sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts — Chapter 4 of the April 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada — Correctional Service of Canada — Reintegration of Women Offenders, Ottawa, Public Works and Government Services, November 2003, Recommendation 12.
Available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoCom/PubDocument.asp?FileID=66140&Language=E

172. Louise Arbour. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, supra note 5, at 255.

173. Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. The Tip of the Discrimination Iceberg: Barriers to Disclosure of the Abuse and Mistreatment of Federally Sentenced Women, A Submission by the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), Toronto, LEAF, May 2003, at 12.
Available: http://www.elizabethfry.ca/submissn/leaf/1.htm

174. Michael Jackson. Justice Behind The Walls: Human Rights in Canadian Prisons, Toronto, Douglas and McIntyre, 2002, at 277. Available: http://www.justicebehindthewalls.net

175. CCRA, supra note 37, s.167(1).

176. Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator. Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2002-2003, supra note 74, at 58.