The mandate of the Correctional Investigator is contained in Orders-in-Council PC 1973-1431, PC 1974-1696, PC 1976-1977, PC 1977-2801 and PC 1977-3209. The office commenced on June 5th of 1973 and was occupied by Miss Inger Hansen, ac, until October 1st, 1977. The position was temporarily assumed by her former assistant Mr. Brian McNally on September 19th, 1977, until November 15th, 1977, when Mr. Ronald L. Stewart became the new full time Correctional Investigator. The Correctional Investigator or Ombudsperson, as he is sometimes called, is a Commissioner, pursuant to Part II of the Inquiries Act, and holds office at pleasure. He is authorized to engage, with the concurrence of the Solicitor General of Canada, the services of such experts and other persons are as referred to in s11 of the Inquiries Act and he is required to submit an annual report to the Solicitor General of Canada regarding the problems investigated and action taken.

    The mandate of the Correctional Investigator as set out in appropriate Orders-in-Council is as follows:

    ...to investigate, on his own initiative, on request from the Solicitor General of Canada, or on complaint from or on behalf of inmates as defined in the Penitentiary Act, and report upon problems of inmates that come within the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada other than problems raised on complaint

(a) concerning any subject matter or condition that ceases to exist or to be the subject of complaint more than one year before the lodging of the complaint with the Commissioner,

(b) where the person complaining has not, in the opinion of the Commissioner, taken all reasonable steps to exhaust available legal or administrative remedies, or

(c) concerning any subject matters or conditions falling under the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada that extend to and encompass the preparation and material for consideration of the National Parole Board,

and the Commissioner need to investigate if,

(d) subject matter of a complaint has previously been investigated, or

(e) in the opinion of the Commissioner, a person complaining has no valid interest in the matter.

    In addition, the Commissioner of Corrections has issued a Commissioner's Directive No. 600.6.03.01 pertaining to the Correctional Investigator. This Directive sets out the jurisdiction of the Investigator, his unlimited right of access to inmates in all Canadian penitentiaries by either regular announcement visits or irregular unannounced visits. Private interviews are to be arranged and the Investigator is to be provided with all the information he requests that pertains to any investigation including copies of documents for detention as required. Staff are directed to fully co-operate with the Correctional Investigator and correspondence from inmates to the Investigator is to be mailed unopened from the institution and correspondence from the investigator to inmates is to be delivered unopened to the inmate.

    An important distinction that exists between the office of the Correctional Investigator and the office of a traditional Ombudsman is that the former reports to the Minister who has responsibility of the Canadian Corrections Service, namely the Solicitor General, and the latter reports directly to Parliament. This distinction has led to some criticism and scepticism being directed towards the office of the Correctional Investigator. The position of the present Correctional Investigator is succinctly stated in his Annual Report for 1977-78:

    No matter how properly the Correctional Investigator performs his task, it will always be complicated under the present terms of reference. It is not so much whether there is actual direction by the Minister but how the office is perceived by the inmates. If the office appears to be part of the Ministry it loses credibility and the task becomes more difficult.

    I reiterate, no interference has been encountered and none is anticipated but the Ombudsman can only be effective if the office maintains a high level of credibility.

    ...I merely wish to point out some of the difficulties inherent in the job of a Correctional investigator as compared with an Ombudsman who reports to Parliament.

    Legislative change to eliminate this distinction upon the creation of a federal Ombudsman, integrating the office of the Correctional Investigator as an assistant Ombudsman, has been considered by Parliament, but the proposals have yet to become law.

    The provision in the mandate requiring the person complaining to exhaust available legal or administrative remedies requires some comment. In practice, this phrase is interpreted to require the prisoner, except in delicate or urgent matters, to exhaust the inmate grievance procedure first. The intention is to avoid premature involvement on the part of the office of the Correctional Investigator and to bring about, through the use of the grievance procedure, a greater awareness by the administration of the nature of the complaints raised as well as weaknesses inherent in the grievance procedure itself. This condition precedent to the use of the office of the Correctional Investigator does not in practice require the prisoner to exhaust other legal remedies such as seeking relief in the courts. Similarly, a prisoner is not required to exhaust any remedy available within the mandate of the Correctional Investigator before he proceeds to seek relief in the court.

    Prisoners should similarly be encouraged to use the office of the Correctional Investigator whenever appropriate after using the inmate grievance system. Once again, to those who might allege that the office is ineffective or unsatisfactory, the best evidence of that allegation will be the record of proceedings or communications supporting such an allegation. As previously stated, in some delicate or urgent situations, the Correctional Investigator will agree to become involved, prior to the use of the inmate grievance procedure. Similarly, in certain emergency situations, it will not be practical to resort to this office because of the further time that might be involved. It must be remembered that the Correctional Investigator cannot anticipate administrative action and therefore he can generally only be of assistance once action has been taken in an attempt to resolve a problem arising therefrom. Nevertheless, the record of communications with the Correctional Investigator and the decision arrived at by him after investigation, will undoubtedly prove invaluable once again to counsel in considering the merits of commencing a legal action and avoiding the pitfalls previously expressed.