JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

• 0907

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

[English]

It's always funny to have a job you haven't applied for.

[Translation]

I will be chairing the meeting for the next few minutes until the Chairman arrives.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses: Mr. Willie Gibbs, Chairman of the National Parole Board, Mr. Ole Ingstrup, Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Philip J.R. Murray, RCMP Commissioner, Mr. René Charbonneau and Mr. Richard Clair.

I believe Commissioner Ingstrup has some opening remarks.

Commr Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The last time we met here I did not have a chance to say anything about the Correctional Service of Canada's performance, so I'm delighted to have an opportunity to address the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this issue.

[Translation]

I would like to begin by saying that contributing to the safety of the Canadian public is, and will always be, the primary objective for the Correctional Service of Canada. It is our obligation, it is the foundation of our business.

[English]

As you realize, the law requires the Correctional Service of Canada to ensure that offenders in our care are properly prepared for safe reintegration into society at the earliest possible time. When I say the earliest possible time, it means as defined by the law itself. Therefore, in line with public safety, helping offenders to disengage from criminal behaviour and maintain a crime-free lifestyle through the provision of formal intervention is what good corrections is all about.

The way we carry out our functions of reintegration is the critical foundation for the safe release of offenders, bearing in mind that about 95% of all offenders will come back to society one day, sooner or later. We have many effective tools and processes in place that we use in assessing the potential of offenders for safe release, and in preparing them to become law-abiding citizens, which is our most essential contribution to public safety.

• 0910

[Translation]

In fact, there are 16 of them that we call reintegration levers. They consist in a series of assessment, management, and supervision activities, within time frames, which are in fact an index of reintegration success and can significantly determine an offender's movement through his/her sentence.

[English]

Of course I won't go through all 16, but I'll take some of the more important ones.

For example, appropriate initial security classification and placement is critical to the safe preparation of offenders for their appearance before the National Parole Board, and also for the outcome of the hearing by the National Parole Board.

Second, the development of a correctional plan is another of the main levers we have. The correctional plan is the basis upon which release is predicated. It is the basis upon which discretionary release is either supported or denied, as the case may be, by the National Parole Board. The correctional plan is often also understood as a binding contract between the system and the offenders, especially when we try to capitalize on the existing potential for reintegration that the offenders represent.

A third component is the correctional programming. Here we focus on mainly four things. First is improving program motivation, which means getting people motivated to participate. Second is increasing their actual participation. Third is keeping them to the end of their programs, and fourth is improving program performance. These are the four components we look at under the main lever we have labelled “correctional programs”.

Case preparation is a fifth main lever. All activities designed to prepare appropriate offenders for release and manage them throughout conditional release are based on good case preparation.

[Translation]

All of these activities allow CSC to operate according to its mission, in a way that is both effective and supportive of a sound case management and safe reintegration strategies for offenders.

[English]

I think we can safely say we know what to do, and we also know a lot about how to do it. The question in an accountability session like this is, how well are we performing in terms of contributing to the protection of society?

We have some key indicators there. The main component is whether or not offenders under community supervision are committing more crimes or fewer crimes. That's the way we measure our results. It's a pretty tough way of measuring oneself, but it's the only thing, in our view, that makes real correctional sense.

I would argue that some of the results are quite impressive. Indeed the Auditor General, in his latest report, stated that over the last five years the number of supervised offenders that were sent back to prison for new offences has decreased by 37%. That is, by the way, in spite of the fact we have more people out in the community. So I'm not saying that's 37% of the ones we have out; it's an actual drop in crimes committed by the group of offenders on parole on any given day.

• 0915

Revocation for violent offences is also down. Over the same period, it dropped by around 23%. Here I would like to mention that these results are produced in good collaboration with our friends at the National Parole Board. We are not alone in this. But 95% of the offenders on day parole did not commit new offences; 89% of offenders on full parole did not commit new offences; and 88% of offenders on statutory release—that's after two-thirds—did not commit new offences.

[Translation]

Let me give you more examples of the progress we have accomplished in providing effective corrections.

During fiscal year 1997-1998, 99.97 per cent of offenders successfully completed escorted temporary absences. We are talking about approximately 31,000 ETAs, and about a failure rate of only 0.03 per cent.

[English]

Of approximately 6,000 offenders, 99.5% successfully completed unescorted temporary absences, where they were out on their own, and 99.94% of almost 1,800 offenders successfully completed work releases.

I would argue, Mr. Chair, and I hope you and your members would agree, these numbers are eloquent and indicate we are making progress toward safe reintegration of offenders. The key message here, of course, is while the number of offenders released to the community has increased, the corresponding rate of crime has actually decreased.

The fact that the number of offenders safely returned to the community has increased, clearly suggests we are doing the right thing. Doing the right thing, or as we like to say in CSC, being the best we can be, has been the focus of many discussions I've had in the past with correctional senior managers. Together we've examined the way we do our work, and have outlined a series of initiatives that have the potential to produce better corrections, meaning better protection of the public.

It's very important to mention this does not mean there is a lessening in any way in the approach we take to ensure public safety. It certainly does not mean—although some people seem to take special delight in continuing to say this—there is any quota for offenders to be released.

[Translation]

We have simply asked ourselves how we could improve our processes and what results we could expect to emerge from these changes.

[English]

A preliminary assessment, when we started this process, indicated a potential outcome would be 50% on the inside and 50% on the outside, taking into consideration the variances from one region to the other. I indicated at that time this was a process we assessed on a regular basis, and the latest assessment we are getting from our regions suggests the proportion as we see it today will not be 50% inside and 50% outside, but more in the vicinity of 40% plus in the community and 60% minus in the institutions, as the population is composed today.

I know challenges remain and we need to continue to improve our management tools resource, particularly in the critical area of reintegration.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the responsibilities of the Correctional Service of Canada with respect to the safe reintegration of offenders. Thank you very much for your attention.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada): Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Before we go to questions, I'd like to correct an oversight , I neglected to mention the presence of a number of observers in the room. Welcome to our proceedings.

On that note, we'll begin with an initial round of

[English]

seven minutes. Which one of you two would like to comment? Please don't rush.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming back to see us.

Commissioner Ingstrup, I have just a couple of questions. On the Sumas Community Correctional Centre, I'm sure you're aware of some of the problems that were going on in Abbotsford over the past few years with the walkaways. I know there was an inquiry. A meeting was set up with the community and an investigation was done on the problems at Sumas. Could you shed any light on what's been done at Sumas to cut down on the number of walkaways?

• 0920

Commr Ole Ingstrup: At the Sumas centre?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: The Sumas Community Correctional Centre in Abbotsford.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We've had a good management review of what happened. It was done in February 1998. We had a four-member panel, which included at least one community member and some specialists from CSC.

I met with your colleague Mr. White and several other MPs from your party to discuss the report some time in June 1998. In September 1998 the review team returned to Sumas to follow up on eight recommendations they had made in their report. The result of it is that the report back to me has been that all of the recommendations of the review team, as discussed, have been addressed by the Sumas centre.

If you would like, I would not mind sending you the recommendations.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I would appreciate that, yes.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I cannot exactly remember every one of them here, but we do have them. I'd be pleased to send them to you.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: As a bit of a follow-up to this, I understood that some of the problems started occurring at Sumas when the requirements for statutory release changed to residency. It's my understanding that this is when we really started seeing problems.

Has there been anything done to address some the problems that are being created by the statutory release program? More specifically, we have people like Richardson here in Ottawa, who was involved in the Sylvain Leduc murder and who was denied early parole because he was considered a threat to reoffend in a serious manner and yet still obtained statutory release. Has there been any kind of work between yourself and the National Parole Board to start to get talking to each other a little bit more?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, Mr. Cadman, we have ongoing discussions between ourselves and the National Parole Board on this. You're right, obviously, about the fact that more people are going at the end of their sentence to community correctional centres. And the fact that we only have one community correctional centre in British Columbia that is run by us of course gives a concentration of people who are being released at statutory release and on top of that those who have residency conditions.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm more concerned about the people who are getting statutory release after they've been denied parole because they are a threat to reoffend in a very serious way. There seems to be a little bit of a problem here when they're denied parole initially and then a couple of months later are released on statutory release—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: —and then go out into the community and, as I say, in one case, 50 days later commit a murder.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would agree with you that intellectually one should think that there would be a lot more recidivism. Our delight, in some ways, is that the numbers show us there is virtually no difference in the recidivism among people on full parole and people on statutory release. We're talking about 11% for full parole and 12% for those who are on statutory release.

I see that the transition, managed through some kind of community program, is extremely important. Otherwise we would be releasing them cold turkey back to society. I would be very worried about that. The real problem in the Sumas centre is that we don't have any other. We have been searching very vigorously for another spot to establish a CSC-operated centre, but we can't find it in British Columbia.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): I'll follow up on that question. Have you been turned down by communities in looking for a centre?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: Is that the problem?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes. That's the most important problem. Also, of course real estate in downtown Vancouver has been almost untouchable for us—

Mr. John Reynolds: It's getting better every week.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: —and some of the places we had before closed down. But there is a lot of community resistance out there.

• 0925

Mr. John Reynolds: It would seem to me there have to be some communities that would be willing to accept. I remember years ago, back in the 1970s, it was a problem getting one in Ladner; nobody wanted it. It's not a popular thing to put in. But certainly your numbers show that the system is working.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: And I think you should be congratulated for that. The numbers are pretty small on the recidivism side. But maybe if more communities knew that you were looking for a facility and that it wasn't a problem in the community, it was actually helping people, it might be easier to place another unit.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We are actually talking to members of Parliament—notably, by the way, from your own party—who have declared that they would helping us if they could to find another location. We are also talking to communities. But it has to be of course communities with a certain amount of population base; otherwise it becomes a little meaningless. The thing is also that when the number of residences goes up, obviously you are bound to have some of the recidivism cases coming out of the CCCs that you previously would have coming out—and in larger number, I would suggest—of the community but not associated with a halfway house.

Mr. John Reynolds: I know there are some communities in B.C. right now that are suffering because of mills closing down—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I know.

Mr. John Reynolds: —and major mines closing down, and certainly some of them are closed even in my own constituency. An area like Squamish is begging for jobs. I would be happy to have the mayor and council.... And I don't know what they're going to say; it may be, “God, don't put a penitentiary in my backyard”.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I can guarantee you that every time you mention a location we're writing down the name.

Mr. John Reynolds: I can assure you in regard to some of these communities that if you're looking for places, you should know that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely.

[Translation]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada): Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm): For several weeks now, the Bloc Québécois critic for the Solicitor General, Mr. Richard Marceau—by the way, he apologizes for not being here because he had to be in Kingston today—has been receiving an unusual number of complaints or has been hearing about unusual incidents between inmates and some guards. It seems that some guards are more inclined to order inmates into segregation for minor infractions and this has left people wondering if perhaps this is merely a sign of the guards' frustration with their employer.

When you were last here on April 28, Mr. Marceau spoke to you about the acrimonious relations between inmates and guards and you indicated at the time that the process of legislating the guards back to work had gone smoothly. Do you still maintain today that this was the case and that there are no problems, that guards are not abusing in any way their authority over inmates?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: In an organization as large as the Correctional Service of Canada, which oversees 13,000 or 14,000 offenders in correctional facilities and has over 12,000 employees, tension and problems do occasionally occur, but I have no evidence at this time of any increase in the number of cases of administrative segregation. On the contrary, I've been told that the number of such cases was on the decline. If you have some concrete examples, I'd like to hear about them. I promise I'll review these cases carefully.

Regarding the strike and the back-to-work order, the transition went smoothly, thanks to the managers, the inmates and of course the employees. Some employees may have done certain things they shouldn't have, although I don't believe that to be the case, but generally speaking, everything went smoothly.

• 0930

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In your opinion then, tensions have not increased and the situation is quite normal.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's my impression of the situation.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: When you last testified on April 28, Mr. Marceau spoke to you about an incident that had occurred on April 22 at the Port-Cartier institution. I believe an incident report was drawn up. Could you possibly forward a copy of the report to the committee for our consideration?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I could.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Then you will send that to us.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Richard Clair (Corporate Secretary, Correctional Service of Canada): The minister has sent a letter to the committee chair describing the incident that occurred in Port-Cartier.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The letter has been sent?

Mr. Richard Clair: Yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: When was it sent?

Mr. Richard Clair: Last week.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It was sent last week and we've yet to receive it. Our mail service is worse than Canada Post.

Could you tell us if the Port-Cartier facility has been the scene of any other unusual incidents and whether CSC monitors this institution more closely? In other words, do you monitor this facility more closely because of the special problems it presents?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Problems do occur from time to time at various institutions and they can persist for a while. The regional deputy commissioner did indicate to me at one time that there were problems at the Port-Cartier facility, but that matter was not put on the agenda for discussion at an executive committee meeting. According to the information I received, the problems were resolved at the regional level. Again, if you have any concrete cases, I will be happy to take a closer look at them.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I'll be happy to bring them to your attention.

I have another question, this time for the Chairman of the National Parole Board. I have here a case—and I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I simply want to some clarification—of one constituent who was charged with fraud in 1989 and ordered to pay a $200 fine. There are other similar cases in other ridings involving other persons. The person in question apparently still owed $7.50, although he's not really sure how this could be. In 1999, he applied for a pardon, but it was denied because of the outstanding amount owing. Surprised by this decision, he went down to the courthouse where he was told the case was closed. After finally managing to find his case file stored in another courthouse, he discovered that he did in fact still owe $7.50.

Bloc Québécois members are aware of other similar cases where persons still owe $1.50, $9 or $10.50. Once these individuals realize they still owe some money and pay up, is there any way of speeding up their case review? In the particular case I mentioned, there is a job hanging in the balance and it's unfortunate this person isn't being considered for a pardon, simply because he still owes $7.50 in connection with the only offence he's ever committed in his lifetime. Is there a special division to handle cases like this? Surely you've come across cases like this in other regions, not just in Quebec. Were you aware of this situation and what can be done to speed up the review process?

Mr. Wille Gibbs (Chairman, National Parole Board): Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of several cases similar to this. There is a process in place to accelerate the review of these cases, one that involves using the royal prerogative. Since I'm not certain which case you're referring to, I can't really be more specific, but we have come across many such cases recently where people have applied for pardons.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Who exercises the royal prerogative? The minister?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: The minister, and then the governor general. Cases like these are the exception.

• 0935

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Is the application then sent directly to the Solicitor General?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes, to the Solicitor General and then to the Governor General. We have to make an exception in these cases. Owing to an administrative error, perhaps the sentence was not....

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I know of at least five cases like this one and I haven't researched the matter thoroughly. Perhaps the Solicitor General will handle this full time at some point.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: No. We have recommended dozens, if not more people, over the past year.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I'll write to the Solicitor General and to the Governor General and then send you copies of the correspondence.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Thank you.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Thank you. I have no further questions.

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the gentlemen for appearing this morning. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to have some face-to-face contact with you.

Mr. Ingstrup, in your remarks you alluded to a 50-50 split. Now, this is a working hypothesis, and you described your correctional plan. As well, we know that on numerous occasions the former Solicitor General referred to his desire to see 50% of the inmate population in institutions and 50% in the community. In memos that have been circulated by yourself to officials in your department, you talk of a 50-50 split by the year 2000. You also refer to this 50-50 split as being a professional challenge but not at all unobtainable. You followed this up with a further memo to deputy commissioners in which you talked of a working hypothesis based on the information.

There's also a memo dated July 1998 from Ontario Commissioner Brendan Reynolds in which he talks of a reintegration agenda and also mentions individual accountability if certain quotas or a 50% split is not met. The Ontario regional reintegration plan of 1998-99 speaks of equalizing the institutional and community populations in the Ontario region and therefore has committed to the release of a further 660 offenders by December 31, 1999, in hopes of attaining a 10% reduction in the revocation rate.

Reintegration agendas, equalization of institution and community populations—this sounds very much like a quota system. A target number is another phrase that was used.

There are two major concerns. Firstly, setting that standard, it seems to me, sends a message through your department that these numbers are what is desired, that these numbers should be reached. To me, references to individual accountability to commissioners signal that there will be some ramifications if these target figures are not met. Secondly and equally important, when there's a reduction in the revocation rate, that again signals to me that we're lowering the bar in terms of standards for returning prisoners to custody if certain compliance standards are not met.

Perhaps, Mr. Commissioner, you could address those questions.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you how delighted I am to be given this opportunity to correct what is clearly a misunderstanding of what is really going on.

Reintegration is something the law requires. It's not something that Correctional Service Canada or the minister has invented. It's in the law that we have to use the least restrictive course of action comparable with public safety. So the dates have been set up in the law of one-third for full parole; two-thirds for statutory release; and, for a few people, detention to the end of their sentence being envisaged.

• 0940

The Auditor General, through a number of reports in the mid-nineties, pointed out that Correctional Service Canada's process of getting people assessed, getting them to the right institutions, getting them programmed the way they should be, and getting them moved to a point where they could be presented to the National Parole Board not as releasable persons but as people who would be safe on release took too long. Therefore, the Auditor General is saying that a lot of people who ought to be in the community—because they would have been safe enough had we done what we were supposed to do—are still spending time behind bars. Obviously, that is what inspired the public accounts committee to ask me, when I came back as commissioner, to get on with the job and do something about it.

Minister Scott, to the best of my knowledge, never used anything like 50-50. He was using a balanced approach. Those were the words he used. I could be wrong, but I don't think he ever used 50-50. Certainly the minister we have now has never used the term 50-50.

Where does that 50-50 come from? The 50-50 comes from the following. Shortly after we received the Auditor General's report, I asked the regional deputy commissioners, if we were to do everything we were supposed to do and do it well and on time, what would the result be? The result would be exactly as the Auditor General had expected, that a larger number would be safely reintegrated, not just pushed into the community but safely reintegrated. Their best guess at that time was 50% on the inside and 50% on the outside.

Since that time we have learned more about this process. That was in the early stages. I was saying in the article you referred to that this is going to be difficult, but if we really do it well with the population we have, maybe that's what the result will be. So it's an output rather than an outcome that we were talking about.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Commissioner, do you believe it's proper to set a numerical figure that basically directs your officials to achieve? In my mind that would plant the seed that they have to meet these target numbers, and that would override the existing safeguards that are in place in your department. Granted they're there. That's their working guideline. They have to ensure that these certain standards are going to be met, that a prisoner has to have performed at a certain level before they're released and that when released they are going to comply with conditions of reporting, abstention from alcohol, and non-association. All of these early warning signals are there for a reason.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Do you not see it as being difficult to meet when you're telling them we want certain numbers, and if you don't meet these numbers, there's going to be a price to pay?

Comm Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Chairman, we never said that you have to reach these numbers. We've said that you have to assess the situation, and what you're telling us at this stage is 50-50. If that's what you're going to get, then that's what you're going to produce, obviously. That's what accountability is.

They have come back and said that this was not achievable. There is now a difference from one region to the other depending on the composition of offenders. There are different numbers. That is a result of their accountability. They explained to us that this was an overly optimistic or loose assessment and we have better numbers now. Then that is what we are heading for.

Obviously, any organization must be able to explain how many it is going to have by the end of the year. That can change over time as you get better insight into it. But at no time has there been anything that would indicate a quota.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You deny quota outright.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: What there is is an obligation to pull the 16 levers as well as you can.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You mentioned the past Auditor General's reports. The most recent one, I suggest to you, is less than complementary of your department. It talks about delays in processing, which you alluded to, and a 56-day maximum to complete offender intake. It talks specifically of CSC officials not performing case management duties and of the need for more training. CORCAN is singled out as having significant problems within their offender program, including treatment not being followed, employment needs not being met, and no steps being taken toward financial sustainability.

• 0945

I understand that between 1994 and 1998, CORCAN lost $12 million. And there are similar questions posed to the parole board with respect to insufficient face-to-face contact with offenders and parole officers. This is a very scathing report, in my opinion, as to internal problems within CSC and the parole board. I'm referring to the Auditor General's most recent report, not past reports.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: How do you address some of these issues that have been pointed out specifically by the Auditor General?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Let me first say that the Auditor General clearly says—and this is in his opening remark—that we have made concerted efforts to respond, and he's basically saying we need to do more of the same. We have always said that.

There are a number of other things that need to be done. He is supporting exactly what I've already said to you, Mr. MacKay—that we need to be better at pulling these levers. We know that, and that's what we are moving toward.

Regarding CORCAN, we're looking at a reorganization of CORCAN, and things in the report are being addressed.

In my view, the report is not at all a negative report. It is a report that points out certain problems but is positive overall. It is exactly from this report that we lift the number that there has been a 37% decrease in crime committed by people on the street. These are not our numbers; these are the Auditor General's numbers, which, in my view, clearly indicate that the direction in which the government is going with Correctional Service Canada works. There is less crime in the community than we had before.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing.

I want to direct your attention to page 19 of your report. The planned spending here is $427 million. In particular with respect to aboriginal offenders, which is a vexing problem for the justice system generally, as you know, section 718 under the code was recently upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. So in theory at least, this issue of aboriginal offenders is not going to disappear in the short-term.

You say at the bottom of the report that aboriginal offenders represent over 16% of the people under federal jurisdiction yet constitute only 2.8% of the population. As I understand it, out west it may well be even more skewed than that.

Then you suggest key plans and strategies, with particular attention placed on significantly increasing the number of aboriginal offenders safely and successfully reintegrated. Then you have a paragraph with the heading “Expected Results.”

I suppose the issue for any member of Parliament is how to measure those expected results. I'm assuming that members of Parliament and the successors to these members of Parliament are not going to want to talk about this issue forever and a day, so the question I have for you, Mr. Ingstrup, is how are members of Parliament going to measure these results? How are we going to know what the baseline is, other than in crude terms? How are we going to know whether these two pages of key plans and strategies are actually working? How can you report back to Parliament? What do you expect to report back to Parliament in the next year or two years, and so on? I'm assuming that you'll have some initial success, and then the success will become more difficult as you get further into that population.

I'd be interested in knowing, first, what is the baseline here, and secondly, how are we going to tell whether you're being successful?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It is really a very complex issue, and you're pointing your finger at something that is very difficult for us as well, because to some extent we're only very marginally able to influence the numbers of aboriginal people we have in our care, in that we don't determine the level of sentencing; we don't determine the number of people who come to us.

• 0950

Obviously the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Gladue case could very well have some impact that would change the numbers from what we anticipate at this point in time. What we do know is that if nothing changes, the expected result—and that is again not something we want, but something that is going to happen—would be that over the next ten years we would probably see a 40% increase in our aboriginal population in the federal correctional system, if nothing else changes.

Some of the things we are doing will influence the time at which aboriginal offenders can go back to the community. As you see, we are putting programs in halfway houses, involving aboriginal communities, and so on. Other things we can't influence at all.

It would be very difficult to give you a bottom line. It's very difficult for us, as well, to have a bottom line. The only thing we can measure is whether a larger number of offenders of aboriginal origin are getting back safely to society in the same time that people in a similar situation would be reintegrated back. That is going to be our most important number. At this point in time, they're being reintegrated later and with slightly less success, in the sense that more of them have their parole revoked and they are coming back into our institutions.

As I said to Mr. MacKay, this is not a question of then cutting down on revocation; it's a question of stepping up supervision and being better at what we're doing in the—

Mr. John McKay: Have you dedicated certain parts of your department or certain people of authority or responsibility in your department for this particular issue? You're right to respond that this is an extremely complex problem. And if you read demographic studies, the aboriginal population is reproducing much more quickly than the general population, so it's a problem that is not going to go away soon. All of this leads you to be a little worried as a member of Parliament that these are nice fluffy statements, but where's the meat? Where are we at? What do you anticipate in the short-term future, and what can we reasonably expect in the long-term future?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There are a couple of things I could mention. We have now a division dedicated to aboriginal issues, headed up by a director general who herself is an aboriginal person. We have increased the resources that go into aboriginal programs. We have established a research forum on aboriginal programs, aboriginal supervision, and aboriginal incarceration.

We have established two healing lodges: one in the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan, Maple Creek, for aboriginal federally sentenced women; and another for federally sentenced men in Hobbema, south of Edmonton. Both of these institutions show very promising results in terms of lowering recidivism.

We are working with a large number of aboriginal communities to let them take over responsibility for supervision of aboriginal offenders. We're working with a large number of communities, including Crane River and Beardy, in northern Saskatchewan, and other communities, to establish more healing-lodge kinds of facilities that can be run jointly with the local communities that are prepared to take responsibility for that.

We are working on a large number of assessment tools that are specific to aboriginal people and programs that are culturally specific, getting more and more local communities and expert companies that now exist.

Mr. John McKay: With the greatest respect, these are all soft answers. The issue for any member of Parliament is what's the bottom line—what can we reasonably expect here? Can we measure the reduction in aboriginal population in the federal system?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Chairman, as I said, it's easy to measure the size of the population, but very little of the size of a population will have anything to do with Correctional Service Canada, except that we house these people.

• 0955

What we can measure of our own activities, as I say, is how many people can safely reintegrate into society without returning with new offences to us, as compared to what we have today. We are making progress in Maple Creek, and we are making progress in Hobbema. We're making progress in the community. So that progress can be measured.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: That's fine.

The Chair: Mr. John Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd like to ask Commissioner Murray some questions about British Columbia. We've heard many statements out there from the Attorney General, who talks about anywhere from 300 to 500 positions being vacant in the RCMP in British Columbia. Yesterday I heard Mr. Sekora commenting on British Columbia radio that the Attorney General's wrong; it's only 200. I was wondering if you can fill us in as to exactly what is the number of position vacancies in British Columbia right now, and what is the expectation for the end of the year.

Commissioner Philip J.R. Murray (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to respond to that question.

The vacancy pattern that exists today in British Columbia is slightly over 200, but if you include the number of people who are on maternity leave, who are on leave without pay, who are on long-term medical disability, the numbers come up around 400. So the difference between the 200 and 400 is that those people are actually on strength but, for one reason or another, are not on duty. And given a population in the division in the province of British Columbia of over 5,000, 200 vacancies is pretty much business as usual. A lot of organizations in the private sector run 3% to 4% vacancies routinely, so running about a 2% vacancy rate is certainly not unusual.

We have funding challenges in British Columbia, there's no question about that, and we have a number of initiatives under way addressing those at the moment. The overall vacancy pattern there encompasses all programs, not only the contract policing or the local policing programs, but our federal programs as well. The number of resources in British Columbia are very much skewed toward local policing, what we call contract policing, either policing the province or policing a number of municipalities in that province. About 85% of the resources are deployed in what we call contract policing and about 15% in federal policing. So the number 200 really includes both the contract and the federal policing programs.

Mr. John Reynolds: Okay. Is there an audit being done by the Solicitor General on the state of affairs in E Division right now?

Commr Philip Murray: There isn't a specific audit being done in relation to British Columbia. There is an overall resource review being undertaken, which is dealing with the resourcing situation in the RCMP generally. We believe we have systemic underfunding problems across our various business lines, including the contract policing, as I've discussed, and also our federal policing programs, the national police services, our technical operations, our internal services, and our overall peacekeeping responsibilities. As a consequence, the Treasury Board is doing a complete review of that and the report is expected this fall. So we're hoping that some of these more systemic issues will be addressed during that review.

Mr. John Reynolds: So there's no specific audit being done just on E Division?

Commr Philip Murray: No, there isn't, sir.

Mr. John Reynolds: Okay.

For my last question I would like to find out whose fault it is. I know I went through my constituency last month and met with your people in Powell River who run the police department there. In Madeira Park there virtually is nobody there because of a shortage in the Pender Harbour area. And this is also the case in the Gibsons area, where there are real serious drug problems. All of those areas are short of people who should be working. And it's not just a normal 2% in those areas; it's 25% maybe of what should be there is not there. There don't seem to be any replacements. Is it a provincial problem that they're not filling those jobs, or is it a problem that you could handle from the federal angle?

Commr Philip Murray: Mr. Chair, the resource allocation as to which of the units the 200 vacancies will have is really left to the local division command as to where the impact will be felt the least. In terms of the allocation of the federal resources, when you talk about drugs and so on, the federal resources are targeting at higher levels. The expectation is that the local detachments or the local municipal police department, as the case may be, will address the street-level drug problems, whereas the federal resources will be dealing with national and international drug cases.

• 1000

For the overall allocation of resources, as you mention, if there is a four-person detachment and one is missing, that's a 25% vacancy pattern, but it could well be that in individual circumstances they're between transfers, as opposed to running permanent vacancies. I don't know the specifics of that one case you mentioned, but I do know that division management in British Columbia is very cognizant of the issue and is attempting to make sure the balance is appropriately aligned, given the nature of the problem at the local level. I think in a larger place like a Surrey or a Burnaby, if you're running 14 or 15 people empty out of 300 or 400, the impact is probably less than if you're running one short out of four in terms of the overall impact on the resource allocation. So they watch very closely to make sure there is not only a sense of fairness but also that the impact is least felt.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Derek Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Commissioner Murray, as I look through the Solicitor General's plans and priorities for this fiscal year, I see a lot about the problem of organized crime. It is featured prominently in the description of the ministry's operating environment and it is listed as one of three key priorities for the ministry in this fiscal year. As I look at the description of what they wish to prioritize strategically, it's a long list of developing, enhancing, collaborating, undertaking, refining, and modernizing, and there's presumably a lot of investment or allocation and reallocation of what we call FTEs at budget time.

Having said all of that, I have missed any obvious reallocation or allocation of resources, either from the government from Parliament to the force or within the force, that would allow you to accomplish those important and strategic objectives in relation to organized crime. Could you describe to me how you're resourcing this major strategic initiative in relation to organized crime? Do you have enough resources?

Commr Philip Murray: Mr. Chairman, I will ask Mr. Charbonneau to elaborate somewhat on what I'm going to say, because he's dealing directly with that particular program and is responsible for it.

There have been a number of initiatives undertaken over the course of the last several years in relation to our overall attack on organized crime. First of all, let me say this is not strictly an RCMP initiative; it involves partnerships with other agencies, both directly in the policing side and also what one might call quasi-enforcement, be that with Revenue Canada, with Immigration Canada, and certainly with partnerships in other countries. But the integrated proceeds of crime initiative was something around the whole issue of money-laundering that was a major undertaking in that regard.

Secondly, we were resourced quite heavily around the issue of the anti-smuggling initiative, which is still ongoing and remains intact.

The next big ticket item from our perspective in that regard is the suspicious monetary transactions in cross-border trafficking. I know René Charbonneau has been dealing with authorities in the United States as recently as the last couple of weeks around some of these issues. There are a lot of things on the go.

Perhaps, René, you could elaborate a little bit in terms of the area of telemarketing and some of those initiatives with the United States authorities that are coming along quite nicely.

• 1005

Mr. René Charbonneau (Director, Federal Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): I met a few times with my colleagues from the U.S.A. a few weeks ago. On one particular occasion, police officers from Peru, Colombia, and Mexico were present, so the entire hemisphere was represented. One of the big items that was discussed was partnership—to have an approach nationally, but also from North America. We also discussed globalization and the impact of the Internet on drug enforcement—making transactions through the Internet; the use of technology by organized crime people.

We discussed the partnership we must have, not only within municipal policing, provincial policing and federal policing, but also the leading role Canada must have, especially the RCMP, on the international scene. We have one person from U.S. customs in our Montreal office, and I will be signing an MOU with the FBI a few weeks from now in Montreal.

We have a member from the FBI at our office. This is the type of approach we want to have. We want to be able to take positions right away on whatever happens. These people have a role in coordinating the information. So we must have the information very quickly and we must transmit the information to our partners. We are trying to look at crime all together.

In the last few months, just about everything we have touched is international. We are very scared about the impact of technology on crime. So we're always trying to redefine our mandates, in the area of customs and excise and especially in commercial crime, white-collar crime and high-tech crime. We need expertise and partnership, not only from within enforcement, but also with all the other departments, such as health and industry, as well as the private sector. So we must have new skills, new people.

We have been working on it for the last eighteen months, and especially for the last six months. What kinds of people do we need to work in the years to come?

[Translation]

I'm sorry for taking a while to answer your question.

[English]

The Chair: Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: You didn't really provide an editorial comment as to whether you felt you had enough resources. I'm assuming if you didn't scream here today, you have at least some resources.

Perhaps the good news is you're partnering with other countries, particularly American law enforcement agencies. I'm sure the Americans will be free to comment on the under-resourcing or over-resourcing here in Canada. They usually get around to that at some point. We'll be able to read about it in our papers.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I have a question for Commissioner Murray. On April 28, my colleague Mr. Marceau asked the minister a question about some statistics and the minister promised to send them to us. I realize only 15 days have elapsed, but I would like some assurances that the minister has instructed you to get that information out to us. He asked for a breakdown of budget items respecting staff, equipment and property. Was this request passed on to you?

Commr Philip Murray: Mr. Chairman, I sent our minister a memo last week detailing Mr. Marceau's requests. I would image Mr. MacAuley will be forwarding that information to your committee.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Have we received that information, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: I haven't seen it. I'll ask my staff about it and we'll have it translated and sent out, Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I'd also like to mention at this time that we have yet to receive another document that the committee requested from a witness last week. Has the clerk received it? No? We should arrange to get this information as soon as possible.

• 1010

The Chair: Is that all?

[English]

Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): I don't have a question.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: It was my pleasure to sit in for you for half an hour.

[English]

The Chair: Put your name down here.

Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to follow up on this issue of release and some of the highly publicized escapes we've been hearing about of late. One was from Kingston, where a grappling hook and a ladder were used by a prisoner to escape. There are two other incidents I'm aware of where it appears convicted criminals walked away from minimum security prisons. One we've been hearing a great deal about was in British Columbia, where they walked away from a minimum security prison. One of the individuals was serving time for first-degree murder, the other for aggravated assault, and it appears they are now suspects in a double homicide. So I have questions as to why they would have been in a minimum security prison.

A more specific case I'm sure you're aware of as well took place at the Frontenac minimum security prison. It appears two individuals were there because of a perceived emergency to fill beds to keep the funding at that institution. I believe one of these convicts, Jeffery Whyte, is still at large.

Even more shocking is the fact that after it became known by your institution and your officials they were at large, this wasn't disclosed to the victims' families. The mother of a victim read about it in The Toronto Sun.

A board was set up to look at this particular incident. I'm quoting from the report on the individual responsible for the murder of 17-year-old Cameron Alkins. In this report, it's stated:

Many staff strongly perceive that the need to maintain population quota levels at minimum security prisons is taking precedence over sound security classification, case management and transfer practices, thereby compromising CSC's legal obligations to adhere to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to public safety concerns.

In those instances, I would like to know how that jibes with your maintaining that public interest always takes precedence over classification of prisoners, in terms of where they're serving their time and their release back into the community.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Let me make it absolutely clear that public safety is priority number one for the Correctional Service of Canada in everything we do. Does that mean we never make mistakes? No, it doesn't. Like any other organization, we sometimes make mistakes. Whenever we have things that look like mistakes or policy errors, we look into those things.

As far as the British Columbia minimum security escapes, walkaways, or whatever you call them, are concerned, we have a national investigation going on. One part of the mandate of the investigation committee is to determine whether these people were appropriately placed in minimum security institutions. We have lifers in minimum security, but usually they have served a long time before they get there, or there are very special circumstances, or whatever. We will see that when the national inquiry comes in.

I'm aware of the things about Frontenac, but there is no quota for minimum security institutions. There was a discussion—that could be part of it—at one time where the Auditor General looked at our assessment instrument for minimum security institutions. He found, I think in 1993 or 1994, there was a certain amount of override by parole officers who do the security classification. He told us, and rightly so, “Look into this, because either your instrument needs to be adjusted or your parole officers need to be told they can't override to the extent they do”.

• 1015

We looked into it there. There is a scientific quota here, where people are saying up to about a 15% override is a normal thing for an instrument of that nature. I don't know if that's what we're talking about, but there's no quota.

Mr. Peter MacKay: If I can just interrupt you, this is from a report that was prepared by your department. Whether it's real or perceived, do you not see a difficulty in having staff at your institutions feel they have to meet certain quotas, and that this would take precedence over sound security classification case management transfer practices? Whether this is something you want to acknowledge—and two successive solicitor generals have denied it—if this is the perception of individuals working in the institutions, don't you see this as a problem?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely. I think what you're quoting from is a report that is three years old. If you go back to my speeches to my senior managers, there is no indication of quotas or anything. I am reinforcing—

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's even more troubling if this is three years old and since that time you have issued documents to wardens encouraging them to reach a 50-50 split.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. MacKay, I thought I explained there is no such quota at 50-50. As I said the last time—I don't think you were here at the meeting—there was some unfortunate language at the time, but that has been corrected by memos I have sent out to all regional deputy commissioners—

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think I have the document you're referring to in my hands that you sent out for clarification purposes. Was it dated August 10, 1998?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That could be.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This was written to all deputy commissioners. I'm quoting from the second paragraph: “When asked to give a better sense of the implications of this initiative....” I'm assuming this initiative is the 50-50 split—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay:—because your next sentence goes on to say:

...you proposed to me that a 50-50 split in each region was achievable by the year 2000.

Therefore, our correctional interventions must support the timely preparation of each offender for his or her safe release to the community, as was powerfully pointed out to us by the Auditor General in his reports to us. Research has shown that gradual and structured release is the safest strategy to contribute to the protection of society.

These are your own words. Then you refer to it again in the final paragraph:

The 50-50 split is our working hypothesis, based on the best information we have today. It is not an arbitrary or artificial target, since the protection of the public is the paramount objective of all of our activities.

You talked about “objectives of our activities”, “targets”, and “quotas”.

The Chair: Would you wind up, Mr. MacKay, please?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, I said it was not a target.

Mr. Peter MacKay: How can you say this wouldn't be interpreted as a quota?

The Chair: Mr. Mackay, would you allow him to speak? You're way over your time, and there are others who would like to respond to questions or ask questions.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: You read to me and the committee that it was not a target. It was a working hypothesis, the best we could do at the time.

We need to prepare our resources in the community if we are putting more people out there. We need to allocate resources in order to meet the needs of what we expect is going to happen. So obviously we need to look at the best hypothesis at the time.

At that time it was 50% on the inside and 50% on the outside. Today, as I said in my opening comments, it is closer to 40%-45% and 55%-60%, or thereabouts. It could change again. We follow that on a regular basis. Just something like a difference in the number of people serving life sentences from one region to another makes a huge difference in what we can expect, in terms of numbers on the inside and on the outside.

I don't think you or anybody else, and certainly not my minister or me, would be happy to see a number of offenders out in the community we have not resourced for, in terms of community programs, parole officers, supervision, and working relationships with the community and the police. That's what I'm talking about—not a target, but a working hypothesis at the time. That hypothesis has changed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ingstrup.

Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you very much.

I had the opportunity yesterday to address a forum called the National Association Active in Criminal Justice. One of the issues that came up was the need for more resources in the volunteer sector to assure that once someone was released into the community, besides the fact of what the government provides or you provide, correctional services, parole officers, and so forth, there are resources also in the community in order to continue a long-term reintegration. I'm wondering if that question has been addressed.

• 1020

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, Madam, it is being addressed. To my recall, the minister mentioned last time that community programming and community resources are part of his correctional priorities. Therefore, believe me, they are also part of my priorities.

We are looking at ways of strengthening the community, both on our side, so to speak, and on the side of the voluntary sector. I don't think you will ever say that you have resources enough. There's always more to be done. But obviously, at this stage we need to think about better programming and better resources.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: But in the estimates has there been any allocation or long-term planning in terms of increasing the amounts? We are discussing the estimates today.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right. Our long-term plan is to move more resources into the community. What we're looking at is a standard for the number of inmates to be supervised, at both the direct and indirect levels and by the voluntary sector, so that we can resource according to a formula-funding principle.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: To go back to another question that was asked about halfway houses, an issue that was raised yesterday by the voluntary sector was that there's an ongoing problem with perception within the public about what the real role of halfway houses is. There is always one case, there is always the exception, and that seems to be the one. What should you be doing more of in terms of educating the government? In the estimates I didn't see an allocation—and maybe that's a suggestion on my part, or maybe you could correct me—in terms of public education, in terms of the type of educating we should be doing.

The statistics you brought before this committee usually get lost when there's one case that makes the front pages of every newspaper in the country. And we do know that this is the exception, although some people tend to exploit that exception for other reasons. But is there thought being given to actually having a section that will be allocated in terms of public education and getting out the real facts?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There are a couple of things here. The first thing is that I have some concerns about the trend we are seeing a little bit, although it's not a strong one, toward continuing to use more and more institutional capacity to deal with offenders' reintegration.

It's never been the idea, and I think neither I nor my minister would like to see halfway houses being used as minimum security institutions in the city. I don't think the John Howard Society, the St. Leonard's Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and other good contractors that we use to run 175 halfway houses for us, on top of our own 16, want to be jailers. They want to be halfway house operators, and it's very important to keep it that way.

I think we're looking at the fact that we've maybe been a little too inclined to use halfway houses as a natural transition in a lot of cases. We have a large number, over 2,000 beds now. That is a lot of halfway house beds.

On the other hand, many of these people who have spent a considerable amount of their lives behind bars need some kind of decompression period. So whether you call that a public safety issue or call it meeting a personal need of people who have been through a tough time in prison, I don't know. But there is a need to look at a better definition of what a halfway house should be all about.

In terms of public education, you're absolutely right. Your observation is also mine, that there is one case that can be exploited for all kinds of purposes and we forget about all the many successes that are behind the statistics I shared with you this morning. But we are doing something.

• 1025

One thing is that we're building up a stronger communications division in the Correctional Service of Canada. We've just hired a new assistant commissioner of communications, who is very knowledgeable in the criminal justice field.

The second thing we have done is we've worked with a number of TV documentary companies on videos such as A Test of Justice, and one about aboriginal justice. We are sending out quite a few of them, and there's a great appetite for these videos.

We are doing work through a number of the citizens advisory committees. We are trying to strengthen the impact of our 400 citizen advisers that we have across the country, so they can be not so much ambassadors, because that's not really what we need, but people who go out and give some sober information to the public at large.

So these are some of the ways we are working at it. But I think we will forever share that problem with other correctional services, that one case will make the new statistics stop.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Unfortunately. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bakopanos.

Mr. Reynolds, you have three minutes.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'm going to go back to Commissioner Murray.

I wonder if you could advise the committee, whether it's today or in writing, on how long it's going to take to replace the 200 to 400 vacancies in British Columbia. Are there people in training to fill those positions? How long is it going to take?

I ask that because I want to go over the Sunshine Coast area. I mentioned Powell River, where there has been a dramatic increase in crime, and it's directly related to the fact that there's a shortage of police in the area—and the police are the RCMP.

In the Sechelt detachment, in Pender Harbour, it takes over 24 hours sometimes to get a response to a home break-in. That's because of a definite shortage of police in the Sechelt area.

In Gibsons, we have a major drug problem. In fact it's so bad that there's a local restaurant where there are people who are directly involved, and they harass your own officers. They have a problem. They have a shortage of people there.

That's why I'd like to know how long it will take to fill the 200 vacancies. It's an issue every time I go up there: they ask when the federal government is going to put more money and more people in to get the police up to force. Is that your problem, or is it the problem of the Attorney General of British Columbia?

It's the people's problem right now, because crime is going up in those areas, and it's directly related. We looked at programs in Powell River, and it went way down last year because they had the proper number of police on the force. As soon as the police dropped, people started doing break-ins again, because there was a shortage of people there to stop them. If you live in a place like Pender Harbour—it's a gorgeous part of the world—and you have a break-in and you can't get somebody to answer the police call because there's no detachment there, number one.... There's been a recommendation to have one for a long time. But the drive up from Sechelt is a half-hour drive, and right now with the shortage, at night there's just no way you get a response.

Is that a problem of the Attorney General of British Columbia, or is it a problem you can solve by filling those positions?

Commr Philip Murray: The issue around some of the things you describe is clearly within the mandate of the Attorney General of British Columbia. The administration of justice is the responsibility of the Attorney General of each province. The resource allocation around the issues you are describing is within that kind of mandate.

We have clearly shown, just in a recent review, that the allocation of RCMP resources, not only in British Columbia, but across Canada, is significantly lower than in other jurisdictions, those being the Ontario Provincial Police or the municipal police agencies across the country. So if there are insufficient resources, it's really for the province to apply the necessary funding associated with that.

Under the contract with the federal government, the federal government is required to fill the contract positions within 12 months of their being allocated. We have fulfilled that obligation, despite the funding issues, going back through the program review period, going all the way back to 1993-94. We have fulfilled all of our obligations in relation to new resources that have been purchased by the provinces, and in most cases they have been resources in the province of British Columbia during that period of time.

Mr. John Reynolds: What would you say to the Attorney General of British Columbia if he told me that he'd fill those jobs tomorrow, but the RCMP won't give him the bodies to fill them?

Commr Philip Murray: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the issue around 200 vacancies out of a resource allocation of something in the neighbourhood of 6,000 is fairly routine. There are always lag times in terms of being fully up to strength. And as a matter of fact, if you're functioning at 100% in terms of the people, you really don't have enough money left to do any work with them.

• 1030

So there is a question of not using too much of the budget for salary dollars and having enough left to put into the operational budget to be able to carry on. There's always somewhat of a balancing act in that regard. There's always some lag time in terms of filling positions. So generally speaking, you tend to run a vacancy pattern of 2% to 3% across the board over time. Where that 2% or 3% is left, of course, is a decision for the local division command to determine.

As to exactly when those vacancies will be filled, as I said earlier, there is always a lag between the time people retire or are transferred and the time their replacements are brought into the system. So to say that we will be at 6,000 instead of 5,800 in any particular point in time is probably more a question of affordability than of when it will really take place. Given our existing resourcing levels and our overall budget, we need to run a 2% to 3% vacancy pattern across the country in order to make our numbers and still have enough money left to do the police work.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Saada. This is the last round of questioning.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: My question is for the Commissioner of the Correctional Service. Regarding the 50-50 issue, that is the alleged quota system for offenders, is it not a fact that mention was first made of this about three years ago?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, that's true. I believe the issue was first discussed when I resumed my position as CSC Commissioner. The Auditor General's reports were there at the time.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Am I correct in saying that the number of offenders who re-offend while on parole has declined in the past three years?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: You're absolutely right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Shouldn't this reassure my Conservative Party colleague that safety takes precedence over any supposed quota system?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I was hoping it would, but I don't think Mr. MacKay is entirely convinced. The evidence clearly shows that the number of repeat offenders continues to decline every year. There's really nothing unusual about the statistics we currently have. Approximately 40 or 41 per cent of the total offender population has been released into the community, whereas 57 per cent or 59 per cent are incarcerated in institutions. These figures are lower than they were in the early 1990s. The numbers are not very high. It's a question of doing our job better, that is doing it as it should be done in all federal government agencies.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I appreciate the panel being back again to respond to these questions and for taking time from your busy schedules to do so. Thank you very much.

We'll adjourn for about five minutes and then go into an in-camera discussion of our draft bill on impaired driving.