JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

0900

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Ms. Lucie McClung (Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Ian Glen (Chair, National Parole Board)

The Chair

Mr. Ron Stewart (Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator)

0905

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

0910

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

0915

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Ian Glen

0920

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Ian Glen

0925

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Ian Glen

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

0930

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

0935

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance))

Mr. Ian Glen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

0940

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

0945

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Ian Glen

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Ian Glen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Lucie McClung

0950

Mr. Ian Glen

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Ian Glen

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

0955

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1000

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1005

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

1010

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1015

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

1020

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Lucie McClung

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Lucie McClung

1025

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Ian Glen

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Ian Glen

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

1030

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Ian Glen

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1035

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Lucie McClung

1040

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

1045

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. Ron Stewart

1050

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Ron Stewart

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Ron Stewart

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Ian Glen

1055

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Ms. Lucie McClung

1100

The Chair

Mr. Ron Stewart

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 052

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good morning. Bienvenue. I call to order the 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering recommendations made by the subcommittee on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

We have as witnesses before us the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Lucie McClung; the Chair of the National Parole Board, Ian Glen; and Ron Stewart, Correctional Investigator, from the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

Welcome. I understand there are some opening statements you'd like to make. Then we'll go to exchanges with the committee.

Commissioner.

[Translation]

Ms. Lucie McClung (Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada) : Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We are here today to respond to your questions on the recommendations contained in your May 2000 report, A Work in Progress : the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Since the tabling of the government's response in October 2000, the Department of the Solicitor General has provided you with regular updates on our progress. The most recent follow-up report was provided just this past February.

As members may be aware, the Solicitor General has given notice to introduce amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Consequently, given that these amendments have not yet been tabled, we will not be in a position today to comment on issues requiring legislative change. Although our wish is to respond to members' questions, we may not be able to fully satisfy members on certain questions, those dealing with policy change. Our intention is to respect the legislative process; it's not that we don't want to answer your questions.

Our remarks today will focus on measures that have been taken within the existing legislative framework to strengthen the effectiveness of corrections and conditional release.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Glen.

Mr. Ian Glen (Chair, National Parole Board): Just very briefly, I stand with Commissioner McClung on the dilemma that exists with the notice paper already having an indication that the government will be coming forward with a bill, so as much as possible we'll try to answer your questions. And quite frankly, we'll look forward to that bill coming back before this committee in due course.

The Chair: Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Ron Stewart (Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation and the opportunity to appear before the committee with the Commissioner of Corrections and the Chairman of the National Parole Board.

As you well know, the mandate of the Correctional Investigator as an ombudsman for federal offenders is provided for by part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I appreciate the committee's ongoing support for our role as an ombudsman as detailed in the May 2000 report on the review of the legislation.

I further appreciate, despite the government's non-acceptance, the subcommittee's recommendations concerning the office's reporting relationship to Parliament and its affirmation of the principle that an ombudsman must not only be but be seen as totally independent, by all parties.

I have, in response to the subcommittee's recommendation concerning the formatting of my annual report for the past two years, provided a detailed summary of my recommendations on correctional operations. I have also, in line with the focus of the subcommittee's recommendations, provided specific comment and recommendations within my annual report on the topics of women offenders, aboriginals, and young and elderly inmates.

I look forward to our discussion and hope my appearance here today is of assistance to the committee.

Thank you.

¿ (0905)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll go first to Mr. Sorenson, for seven minutes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for appearing again. It's always good to have the commissioner and each one of you here before our committee.

It was more than three years ago when a subcommittee was formed. Some members of this committee sat on that committee to review the Corrections and Conditional Release Act after it had been implemented for a five-year term. It had been in for five years and they undertook a review of it.

The committee tabled the report called “A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act”. The committee travelled across the country and visited many institutions. It called many witnesses here to Ottawa. It undertook the writing of this report and came up with 53 recommendations.

I've sat on committees before that have written reports and I understand the complexity of coming up with a recommendation. I also understand that there is a great deal of debate. Sometimes the debate gets heavy when we start talking about refining an act such as the CCRA. The committee dialogued with many correctional officers and came up with 53 recommendations. It presented the report and the Solicitor General accepted the report and recognized that he could implement 46 recommendations. He commended the work of this subcommittee and said there were 46 recommendations he could move on.

I did not sit on that committee, but I've reviewed the report quite extensively. When we contacted the Solicitor General, talked to this committee, and talked to the Library of Parliament, we asked how many of these recommendations out of the 46 that the Solicitor General said he would implement had actually been done. The response that kept coming back was that they couldn't find where any really had been substantively moved on.

So I think what frustrates committee work and committee members is that when we go through an exercise such as this one, when we talk to correctional officers, when we hear their concerns and their frustrations and we try to make improvements, then the government doesn't take any substantive action to implement any of those recommendations. So one of the questions I would ask is, why has it taken so long? We know now that the government has begun to move on some, but it was 2001 when I asked for a review of the implementation of the report and the recommendations. This committee has told me, “We'll do it, we'll get the commission, and they can all explain what happens”. But we come here today and basically it's an apology for why they can't answer the questions that I think really need to be answered. There's one of the major frustrations.

I'm almost apprehensive about even going into questioning, because you've already pre-empted it by an apology for not being able to answer very many of our questions. I would like to try, though, so I would ask the commissioner of CSC about one of the recommendations, recommendation 7. I'll read it for you; it is that

CSC increase its efforts in community programs and allocate more resources to them, in order to ensure that offenders on conditional release receive the support considered necessary for their successful reintegration into the community.

The government's response to this was, and again I quote:

The safe integration of offenders in the community is one of the most important functions of CSC and NPB.

According to the CCRA follow-up report we received in March, which I think was written at the end of January, CSC obtained funding over four years, beginning in 2000-01, to develop a comprehensive community corrections initiative. So to the commissioner I would ask, how much money did you receive to improve the resourcing, some of the programs for people to be reintegrated into communities? How much did you receive?

Would you also comment on the statements made by the Auditor General? I'll quote what she said:

...Correctional Service has been slow to address our recommendations of previous audits. Not enough programs are available to offenders in the community to meet the need. The Service has made little progress in implementing key aspects of its approved national strategy for providing offenders with appropriate employment programs.

¿ (0910)

There are two or three questions. Could you deal with them?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, on the level of expenditures for community corrections, which is basically for residential or programming or one-on-one counselling, the sum of expenditures since 1998-99 has steadily increased although we have not seen a correlation in terms of an increase in the number of offenders.

So have we improved the availability of programming for offenders under conditional release? Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have. For instance, in 1998-99, the level of expenditure was $128 million, rising to $168.5 million last year. For this year I suspect that the level of expenditure would be in the latter order. So have we improved and have we augmented the capacity? Yes, we have.

The Auditor General has commented that we were not as quick to find jobs for offenders on release. We do have an employment strategy. We have invested. Corrections Canada in particular has invested, such that 1,100 people have been successful in finding jobs in the community. That has steadily increased.

When the Auditor General asks if more could be done, I am of the view that more can be done, and we have invested within our own resources $3 million, somewhere in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million, to invest in outreach, where we are specifically looking for opportunities for offenders upon release. Those are some examples and some elements of the response.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: The Auditor General really didn't say that more could be done. The Auditor General said you've been very slow in implementing the programs. Although you've said there's an increase in dollars, an increase in resources, she's very frustrated. Her report makes it very evident that it's been a slow process and that the Correctional Service hasn't responded to the degree that perhaps some of the extra resources would dictate they should have.

I want to go to another recommendation, Mr. Chairman. How much time do I have left?

The Chair: Less than a minute.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: In response to recommendations 21 and 24, regarding the independent chairperson being appointed by the Solicitor General as part of the inmate discipline process, I will quote:

An Enhanced Segregation Review model has been implemented on a pilot basis. Pilots have been conducted at five sites: Kingston Penitentiary, Stony Mountain, Springhill, Donnacona and Kent.

My understanding is that evaluation reports were to be completed by March 1, 2003. So my question is, regarding that pilot project, have those evaluation reports been submitted, and if so, can we receive copies?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, I'll make the copies available to you. Consulting and Audit Canada has just given us the report, as of eight days ago. I can't speak to the contents of the report.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Lanctôt, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is clear from what you said in your opening remarks that we won't be getting very many answers. I will come back later to the issue of reintegration into the community.

But before that, out of the 46 recommendations that are workable out of a total of 53, how many have you implemented? What did you give priority to? We can see how many recommendations were made and we know a number of them entail amendments to the act in order to produce results, but that hasn't been done yet.

But looking at the report, which is quite distinct after all, what were your priorities and which recommendations, in your opinion, have been implemented? We need to be able to follow-up on the ones that you say have been implemented.

¿ (0915)

Ms. Lucie McClung : Mr. Chairman, since the recommendations that we were able to act on consisted of steps that we could take within the legal framework available to us, my priority was implementation; we need to make sure that everything that has to be done is in fact done.

The Auditor General found that progress had been made in terms of implementing provisions under the current framework. There was even recognition of superior management efforts to see to it that this was done according to standard.

My main priority was to tighten up the accountability framework and to make sure that standard practice did in fact produce results in terms of reintegration into the community as measured by the recidivism rate. When you look at the recidivism result, you can see that there has been a decrease in violent recidivism.

The priority is really the accountability framework; we need to see to it that people are doing what they have been mandated to do, and the committee's recommendations were to keep working within the prescribed framework. Our efforts focused on implementation on a daily basis.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : You are referring to implementation in terms of your employees, not in terms of the results when offenders do or don't get out. Do you have any figures, any statistics on that?

Ms. Lucie McClung : I have the statistics, and we study them at every executive committee meeting. We obviously look at whether employees are following instructions and achieving the desired results, i.e., a decrease in recidivism. We have the results.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Glen.

Mr. Ian Glen: Mr. Chair, if I could perhaps pick off on the commissioner's remarks, all members recognize that the National Parole Board works within the framework of the statutes. We're definitely not a law of our own.

Where we worry about the move on committee recommendations that didn't relate specifically to amendments or suggested changes to the law, I think the area where we've made probably the most significant progress is in trying to advance or include more directly opportunities for victims to appear at hearings, not just as observers but to be able to read statements into the record for members. That has been in place for about a year and a half--two years in July--with over 200 victims having taken advantage of those provisions.

The other area where I think the board has made significant progress is trying to change the processes we have in place, the hearing approaches to deal with aboriginal offenders. We've made significant progress in having aboriginal elders for elder-assisted hearings and then community-assisted hearings in some cases so that our approach in dealing with aboriginal offenders is more culturally sensitive, while at the same time dealing with the public safety concerns and the reintegration issues that arise in all cases.

I think real credit is owed to several board members through the years, but with particular emphasis on the last number of years. Kathy Louis , who was the previous vice-chair in the Pacific region, was a real champion for improving our processes. Wilton Goodstriker, in Alberta, another member who still is a member of the board, has done a lot to enlighten board members and to encourage us to reach out in a more fundamental way in that area.

In terms of the day-to-day work of board members in ensuring that they're as prepared as they can be to deal with the workload they have, we've worked at ensuring that there is an increased amount of training for board members on an annual basis, training that relates to the issues that we see clearly in the cases coming forward. We need to better understand the risk or be given the ability to understand cases as they come through that might deal with addiction problems or problems around sexual abuse cases. Board members need to be engaged in areas in which issues are topical to the criminal justice agenda in Canada. These are things that can be done without waiting for changes to the law. I think the committee should be comfortable that the progress there is real.

We are also, although in a more limited way because of resources but certainly with some good returns, reaching out more to the public so they better understand the conditional release system that operates in Canada.

We had 13 citizen forums in different centres across the country engaging average Canadians in the process to better understand the processes. That, as well as having a very significant increase in the number of observers who go to hearings and watch how they operate, I think has helped Canadians generally to understand the parole decision-making process, but more important, the thoroughness that's brought to assessment of cases both by Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board.

I would encourage any members here who have not gone to hearings to seek us out, and we will make arrangements so you can come in and understand better how those processes work.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

[English]

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I usually wait for my other colleagues to have a first shot, but it looks like none of them really have any questions.

Ms. McClung, you were asked by some of the members of the opposition about the 53 recommendations. The Solicitor General had said there were 46 of them that could and would be implemented. A number of the recommendations that you've mentioned will require legislative amendment, and the Solicitor General has given notice that proposed legislation will be tabled in the House, we hope very shortly. In the meantime, of the 46, how many of those actually require legislative amendment and how many of them have you been able to work on, move forward without any legislative amendment?

Ms. Lucie McClung: For those pertaining to corrections in terms of day-to-day practice, we have moved on all of them.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Do you have a figure for that?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I will have to count the ones that pertain to us in particular. Can I get back to you? I'll count and I'll give it to you.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Sure.

Mr. Glen, while Ms. McClung is counting, and I'm sure her arithmetic is quite good, you talked about the National Parole Board and how the most improvement or the most significant progress that the National Parole Board has achieved in implementing recommendations has been on the side of inclusion of victims in the process. Can you describe to the committee what it was before the recommendations in the subcommittee report on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act came out? What was the process? How were the victims involved in that process, if at all? What changes have you made to the process so that subsequent to the tabling of that report you've moved on those recommendations so that we can actually see the actual difference? What was the process before for victims? What is the process now, which apparently includes victims much more?

Mr. Ian Glen: What happened before predates my arrival at the board, so I hope I'm accurate in this. What happened before was the victims had no direct role in the hearing process. If they had any way in which their concerns or interests could be brought into the process, it would have been through victim impact statements made at the time of trial or at the time of sentencing for an offender. We would see those remarks as part of the material that would come from the judicial process that preceded.

The only additional involvement may have been on those occasions when victims came as observers and sat, but they would be present with no voice. I believe this committee actually dealt with victims issues at one point and issued a report. The title was “Victims' Rights--A Voice, Not a Veto”.

What we now have is a process in which victims are permitted to come into the hearing room and orally present a statement they want the board members to be seized of. Those statements could go to continuing concerns for retribution: a person hasn't been punished enough and should stay in. They also could be very focused comments in terms of the impact the crime continues to have on the victim, genuine impact and concerns they would have for the offender's return to their community or any community in Canada.

The dynamic of the hearing room, I would say, has changed quite noticeably. In a lot of cases, of the over 200 victims who have come they have been, in general terms, either victims of a sexual offence or victims in the sense that they are family members of someone who has been killed in a crime, so the human tragedy and human trauma is quite real.

Our members have been trained to deal with that dynamic and to ensure that the victims feel they have a real capacity to say what needs to be put on the record and what the members need to be seized of. There are situations in which our staff assist the victims before the hearing so they fully understand what it is they're going to encounter and how their statements will be drawn into the process. There's generally a debriefing, if I can use that term, afterward so that the victim understands what the next step will be.

Victims will be present when the decisions are rendered, so it's not that you come and then you leave, but rather you can appreciate the full process.

¿ (0925)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Has the National Parole Board done any studies or collected data to be able to do an analytical study of how, if at all, the inclusion of victims in the parole process has impacted on the actual decisions of the National Parole Board? Have the decisions of the Parole Board changed with regard to certain offenders or certain types of offenders as a result of the inclusion? Has it had a substantive impact on the actual decisions the Parole Board takes?

Mr. Ian Glen: We haven't done any thorough study of that as yet. The number of hearings are few for the purposes of doing that type of a study. I would say anecdotally, based on discussions with members who have handled those hearings, I think generally they'd say no. Yes, the involvement of the victim has had a real impact on the hearing and has assisted in informing us better on the matters we need to be seized of. Would the result, because a victim made a statement, be that I would decide to side with the victim against the offender? I would say no. Members still deal with the requirements of the law that they have to bring to bear in their decision-making.

I think the impact, probably not in the outcome of decisions but more in the nature of the hearings, is where we've seen real change.

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, I apologize. I sort of skipped over.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I want to go back to the disciplinary process. I received a copy of the report of the committee reviewing inmate discipline in Correctional Service Canada institutions. I would like to commend the correctional officers and the wardens who took part in this study and who made some very important recommendations. I seriously hope that the recommendations they made in that report will be listened to and that it will not take three years to respond to them.

However, this report has raised some very serious concerns. One of the concerns that has been raised is the transferring of inmates who happen to be in the middle of a disciplinary hearing to lower-security institutions before the close of their disciplinary hearing.

Some of the other findings in the report had to do with the major inconsistencies among varying institutions, the whole concern of different laws and different institutions, and the fact that informal resolutions were rarely recorded in inmates' files.

Even some of the correctional officers who were in charge of the disciplinary hearings were frustrated with the rooms in which some of these hearings were held because some of them looked like that had just been pushed into a kitchen or into a place where any bench or any chair would do. It doesn't reflect a very high degree of professionalism. Certainly they want to make sure that the inmates understand that it's a very important hearing when we start talking about the discipline of their actions within prisons. Independent chairpersons do not discipline inmates consistently. Again, it's much the same as inconsistencies among institutions.

One of the concerns raised by the correctional officers, the wardens, and those on that committee--a huge concern not only to those who are working in those institutions but to Canada as a whole and to the general public--is that offences such as possession of drugs, violent offences, threats, and homemade weapons are being treated as disciplinary offences and processed as disciplinary offences but are never processed as a criminal offence.

I think the concern for all of Canada is that when we put people in institutions we expect that it's not a law-free zone, that they need to abide under the law of not the jungle but the Criminal Code and the law of Canada when they're incarcerated. For inmates to believe they are above the law because they're in prison.... Some of these criminal offences are being treated simply as a disciplinary hearing.

Maybe the commissioner would like to address what I view as very serious findings.

¿ (0930)

Ms. Lucie McClung: The purpose of the review was to take a look at what was happening in reality across the country. That's an example of implementation and to look to make sure that what should happen is indeed happening.

Mr. Sorenson raises issues that are of preoccupation to us. One of the most difficult is the question of consistency. There was a meeting just this past weekend of independent chairpersons that was chaired by the senior deputy commissioner to in fact reiterate the importance of consequences to behaviour that is not law-abiding behaviour, even within institutions, and the need to recognize that it's really an aspect of their criminal behaviour, what they're doing on a daily basis in institutions.

What may seem to be a mild offence is indeed a transformation; it's indeed criminal activity within the institution and should be dealt with, with all the importance that should be warranted. So consistency, the importance of consequence, the importance of consistent consequences was reinforced, and we will monitor those most particularly.

It also offers us an opportunity to make sure that people understand policy when we do a review. What was not clearly understood was that there was an expectation that drug offences and assaultive behaviour, including threats, those listed in our Criminal Code, be brought to the attention of police forces so they may decide how best to dispose of those. That is being done, depending upon the judgment of police forces and crown attorneys in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the most controversial areas in my community has to do with the release of offenders who have been convicted of sexual offences of one kind or another. I appreciate that if in fact the offender spends the entire sentence within the confines of the prison, then the prison system essentially loses control over that individual.

Could you describe for the record the process by which persons, prior to the expiration of their sentence, are released into the community, how the choice of community is made, what safeguards the community can reasonably expect, what notice period the community can have, what input the community would have, and what changes you've made to your practice in light of considerable public controversy over periods of time?

This has happened in my own community, where a notorious sex offender actually was released about one kilometre from the front door of my office. As a practising member of Parliament, I certainly heard about it from my community, and the explanations frankly sounded a little thin at times. So I would appreciate it if you could put on the record the process.

¿ (0935)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you for having raised this important question. It was indeed subject to a discussion at the 66th annual conference of mayors and councillors across Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Offenders may access the community in a number of different ways. Discretionary forms of parole, where they must demonstrate to the National Parole Board that they have come to terms with the factors that have led to the incarceration and to the sentencing, is one way.

The second way would be on statutory release if they have not demonstrated that they would likely cause harm to a person upon release, and there is a full detention review for those specific cases. This would apply only to a portion of offenders. It depends. It's really well articulated in the law, and those cases will be reviewed for detention.

The third way is after warrant expiry. When that happens, it is likely that individuals have not been able to demonstrate that they have come to terms with the factors having led to the sentence and there is a very strong preoccupation that they would return to crime that involves serious harm to individuals. Those are the most distressing questions to professionals as well as to the community.

What is done then on a very practical level for the latter is that we get in touch with social services in that province or community as well with police forces. We try to implement a new strategy, which involves circles of support and accountability where individual citizens, not representing organizations or representing non-governmental organizations that work closely within the social services or criminal justice system, keep watch, if you will, on the offender.

We will inform them and teach them on the first signs of disorganization so that they may pick up the signs and it doesn't lead to a reincarceration. So there is a watch.

Mr. John McKay: There's almost a perverse irony here that the people who are the most dangerous effectively get the least amount of supervision.

Ms. Lucie McClung: There is a sentence in order to correctly address what is beyond our authority. It involves the principles of sentencing.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)): Mr. Glen, did you have something to add?

Mr. Ian Glen: I guess I would add that you always have to deal with the negative to perhaps state a positive.

People who are in for sex offences and are released back into the community reoffend at quite a low rate, and in fact they're proven to be manageable offenders back on condition of release. So their reoffending or their breach of conditions is no greater than and in fact is lower than many people who are put out on conditional release. But that begs the question that there are still the very small few who do reoffend.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Thank you, Mr. Glen.

Monsieur Lanctôt, three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are two things I would like to ask. I don't know whether you had a chance to look into the question I asked you about escorts for medical personnel. I had raised this issue, which apparently occurs in psychiatric institutions, involving medical personnel who find themselves alone, not escorted by a Correctional officer. I had asked you to look into that. I don't know whether that has been done.

But before that, I would like to talk about recommendation 44, the budget increase for inmate health. The new statistics we've been given show that hepatitis is on the rise. It is spreading at an incredible rate. It's not just about the health of inmates, it affects the health of all employees. The government response was to announce an increase to CSC's budget. But what have you focused on at CSC? What corrective action are you going to take, given such alarming statistics, even among inmates? Obviously, they come from outside and have often had problems. Is it because of drugs, prostitution and things like that?

It's the internal system that is being jeopardized. I would think that employees dealing with AIDS-related problems already had an awful lot on their hands. But considering that the rate of hepatitis infection is over 33 or 40 per cent, that's incredible. There must be other statistics on other communicable diseases too. What are you going to do? This epidemic has to be contained. How can you guarantee the safety of inmates and employees? What are you doing, and which option are you going to choose?

¿ (0940)

Ms. Lucie McClung : Mr. Chairman, the first point I'd like to make is that just like the Canadian public, which is grappling with infectious diseases and diseases that are not fully under control, the same situation occurs and is much more severe, as Mr. Lanctôt said, within our institutions. People arrive with diseases that may or may not be declared. It's a big concern.

In 1997 or 1998, we spent $64 million on diseases of all kinds in the prison population. Last year, CSC spent $92 million. Most of that increase had to draw on internal resources. We are negotiating a funding review with Treasury Board. Obviously, when you make an investment in the order of $30 million, other activities inevitably suffer. That's my first comment.

Secondly, when it comes to health, our personnel is truly extraordinary. They are truly extraordinary because they take the time not only to treat individuals who may have undeclared diseases, but also to do education and prevention work with the prison population and with staff. In my opinion, it's not enough, because their work infrastructure has not been organized to allow for this addition.

This year, what we are looking at in some detail is the extent to which the efforts and focus of medical and health care staff in our institutions can be directed towards prevention, education and employee training.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : Employees and the workplace too.

Ms. Lucie McClung : Yes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : The workplace has become a bit spread out. In the past, they used to work in a more enclosed area but now, it's starting to get a bit scattered.

Ms. Lucie McClung : With the new workplace health and safety legislative framework, we have to redouble our efforts to ensure that all members of staff feel safe.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : Are you talking about escorts?

Ms. Lucie McClung : It's not just in terms of static security, but also in terms of disease.

Secondly, to answer your specific question, all members of staff, including myself, can go anywhere in any penitentiary because, after all, that's our territory. All members of staff must feel safe. If they don't feel safe, they ask to be escorted by a correctional officer, a supervisor or a manager. I know of no departure from this, especially in a psychiatric setting. So I would need more details before I could check into that further.

However, it is my duty to go everywhere, and I encourage people from headquarters to do the same, for precisely that reason, to gage the atmosphere in our institutions.

¿ (0945)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Macklin, three minutes, please.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the detention review process, once you have gone through that process and an offender is released into the community and reoffends, is there a process by which you go back and examine that detention review process to see whether there was something that was missed in that process, whether in fact there could be improvement in that detention review process? Have you seen any particular trends in that relationship between a failure to pick up within the detention review process areas of concern that ought to be focused on in the future?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, every time there is an incident in the community involving serious harm--if that situation is presented to us--there is a review. Normally a joint investigation or review effort is carried out by the National Parole Board and CSC. We would review all of the case preparations, previous decisions, and recommendations that were made for that sentence to see if there are lessons learned. Then it is incorporated into our policy framework. The simple answer is yes, in every instance a review is done.

Mr. Ian Glen: Just to go a little further on that, yes, for the National Parole Board, where a death is involved. From the Parole Board's perspective, there is a link between the time of the decision and the time of the incident. If someone were out on statutory release, we wouldn't automatically join in consciously with the release of the decision-maker. We may have occasions when someone is out on conditional release perhaps two years since the time of the hearing. A lot happens during that time, but we assess each case to determine whether we should be part of a board of investigation.

Where we do involve ourselves on boards of investigation we draw upon outside citizens to come in and lead in that exercise. Most definitely, the conclusions that are brought to our attention we pull into next steps that will affect our training of members or the things that we need to know more about or something that in hindsight one would say was a phenomenon we weren't particularly aware of or sensitive to. We try, as often as possible, to make it a part of our current training of board members present and board members future. It is an active process from that perspective.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Is there any reason why you might consider expanding that beyond just situations where a death has occurred?

Mr. Ian Glen: From the Parole Board's perspective, we're always paying attention to what is generating either scenarios of breach of conditions or someone reoffending, but in a systematic way to say that case by case we would review it. I think the return on that would be overwhelmingly expensive in resource terms. We work with Correctional Service Canada and others who study trends. We work with police forces from certain communities where there are patterns of conduct. We try to learn, as much as possible, the human behaviour that leads particularly to reoffending and draw that into our decision-making.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Mr. Chair, Ms. McClung would like to comment.

Ms. Lucie McClung: If I may, you asked about examples of reviews or investigation processes.

About two and a half years ago family violence was a recurring theme in investigation reports. We were not picking up, if you will, or assessing for family violence. Yet when persons were going back to the family, there were instances when they got into trouble because of family violence. That is one area. We now assess for family violence and ask questions for all offenders coming into our institutions. We ask about the family situation. We inform ourselves through direct interviews with the people closest to them. That would be one example of what happens after.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Ian Glen: Then it leads to Correctional Service Canada developing or refining risk assessment tools that are used to assess offenders. That information, or the product of those assessments, is before the Parole Board members when they're making their decisions. We train our members to understand and interpret those assessments and factor them into our decision-making.

The areas just mentioned, on family violence and spousal abuse, are areas in which I think strides have been made to either develop new or refine existing assessment tools to better predict the behaviour of offenders.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman, for three minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner McClung, it has come to my attention that there have been occurrences when sensitive victim information has wound up in the hands of inmates. I assume that's by accident. One of my own constituents, a victim of sexual assault, wound up with her address being placed in the hands of inmates and circulated around the prison.

I just wonder if you can tell us--obviously you would be aware of these things--how often this kind of an incident occurs. What's being done to correct it? Most importantly, are victims notified when this kind of mistake happens?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I'm not sure if I'm aware of the particular situation you raise. However, they are very low occurrences. I don't even have a statistic, so it would be by episodes only. So they are very low.

One of the things we're grappling with within Corrections Canada is the information that is provided to victims as part of the normal sentence management or case management of an offender, because oftentimes the victim or someone around the victim will tell somebody else, and then the first thing you know, it's in the press. That causes a lot of grief for many people. I'm not talking about the offender, necessarily, but for the victims themselves.

So to contain the information and to respect the sensitivity of the information as it pertains to a victim is a struggle these days, and one we keep struggling with.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: As to my last question, when that occurs, is the victim immediately notified that something like this has happened?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Absolutely. They should be immediately notified and something should be done about it, as well. So we will review it from a compliance-to-policy perspective, personal accountability, and we will also review it from the perspective of how can we then help the citizen who has been affected by this.

Mr. Ian Glen: If I could add to that, Mr. Chair, in terms of the victim's involvement with the National Parole Board, we go to great pains to ensure with the victim that we're sensitive to aspects of their private life today with regard to an offender, perhaps even where they're living, to ensure that the statements they put into hearings don't reveal that, because that's a concern for them. And we don't ask questions that would draw that out during the hearing.

There are occasions when a victim has chosen to relocate, not for witness protection, but just to get on with their life, and we feel that isn't information that should be conveyed to an offender. So we go to some pains to make certain we understand the dilemma the victim may have about how much information the offender has about them.

We also stay as current as we can on providing decisions to those victims who want to receive them, so that they receive them in a timely fashion, and they're aware of the progress of the offender through the various stages of possible release or not, so they can be prepared for those situations where an offender is to be released back into the community.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to follow up on some of the questions Mr. Lanctôt has been asking. It has to do with the release of offenders back into the general public when those offenders are actually going to carry certain very communicable diseases like HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C.

I know you have said that you've spent what seems to me a staggering sum of money--$64 million, and then recently last year $92 million, and it's gone up--to deal with these diseases and health problems within the system. Do you believe that money is well spent? Obviously in the communities you're not dealing with these problems in the same way communities outside correctional institutions are dealing with them. The incidence of HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C has been going down among intravenous drug users in the communities outside corrections and they have been going up at a remarkable rate within corrections.

My big question to you is are you applying all of the methods for containment and for prevention of these diseases within Corrections? Because if you don't, what happens is you affect then the statistics and the well-being of people outside when offenders are released. Therefore, should you not be treating offenders within the system in the same manner and with the same modalities that people are doing outside of corrections institutions? Otherwise, it has become a sieve. You're really reinfecting outside populations.

¿ (0955)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, our act mandates us to deliver health care services to the same extent and to the same standard as is offered in the community. In terms of service delivery, it has to be at the same standard.

Hepatitis C is higher and HIV is also higher. One of the factors is that people come to us with very serious substance abuse. The prevalence and the factors that lead to their own personal situation is much higher than that of the general population. They come to us with what they carry because of their very serious substance abuse, and the service delivery is to the standard that's offered by the community.

I'm hopeful that the methadone will help to assist. There is also a “surveillance system”, the terminology used by Health Canada, to make sure there is follow-through and continuing care upon release.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I'm not comparing the incidence with the general populace outside. I'm comparing it with intravenous drug users in the outside community, and it's still higher.

Methadone does not do anything about dealing with the spread of HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C. It certainly doesn't at all. Methadone is for dealing with addictions, not for the spread of those diseases.

It's my understanding that within the corrections institutions you do not have the same harm reduction techniques and the same prevention that occurs outside in the community. In fact it's difficult for you to do it, and you don't have it. I want to know what you're going to do about it, because you're continuing to see populations outside of corrections with diseases by not doing the appropriate things inside.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fry.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, the only systemic initiative that we have not implemented is needle exchange within institutions. It's highly controversial, and one we are still grappling with. There are some correctional jurisdictions worldwide that have needle exchange programs in institutions. It's not the case in Canada.

The new initiative we will be implementing is safe tattooing. The others, we have.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Currently, I am also the government operations critic. We are looking at the modernization of the public service, and as part of that initiative, the Bloc Quebecois wanted the legislation to include protection against harassment. That was rejected, and the bill will be studied at third reading in the House today.

Despite the fact that there is a policy on harassment, harassment remains a huge problem. In the public service alone, it's around 20%, and in the prison setting, it's over 30%. So, since our amendments were turned down, how are you going to deal with this? What new policy are you going to pursue? Your harassment policy has not worked, and I don't understand why the government refuses to incorporate that into the new legislation.

What are you going to do about this huge harassment problem in the prison setting, at over 30%? Don't say that there is a policy in place, it doesn't work. What are you going to do that is different? There is no willingness to use legislation, and I just don't understand. Surely you must be discussing a new policy with Treasury Board. What are you going to do?

À (1000)

Ms. Lucie McClung : I obviously can't comment on government policy. I will say that with respect to harassment in the prison setting, whether it's between members of staff, between inmates or between staff and inmates, all that we can do beyond a policy statement is to take action when there are grounds for taking action. When I say take action, I mean action at the human resources management level.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : There is no new policy?

Ms. Lucie McClung : I have no authority to set that kind of policy.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : But you can make requests. You have a problem in your institutions, and I hope you are going to make requests. What are your expectations?

Ms. Lucie McClung : The government has made its decision...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : Do I have any time left?

[English]

The Chair: You have a minute.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have trouble understanding that, not as critic, just as a citizen. It is a bizarre phenomenon. The prison setting is a closed environment, so how is it that so many drugs get in? Can you explain that to me so that I can explain it to my constituents, because I have absolutely no idea how to explain it?

I can understand how it happens in society, because the borders are so long. But when you are talking about the prison setting, what is it that is lacking in terms of control, that would explain the amount of drugs on the inside? Tell me how that works, because I have absolutely no idea how to explain that to my people. How can drugs be so present in such a closed environment, and how can it be that there is so much trafficking? Next thing you know, they will be producing it on the inside.

Ms. Lucie McClung : That's the number 1 problem of all of the heads of correctional institutions the world over. Every time we meet, whether it is at the provincial or international level, that's the number 1 problem.

How does it happen? I called the regional deputy commissioner for the Prairie region yesterday, because there were balls, or some kind of projectile, thrown over a wall. I can't give you any more details, but they were filled with drugs. The drugs are very often in pill form now. So whether it is a tennis ball or a parcel, it's not very easy.

Our territory is vast. So I asked the warden to notify the community. That's one example. Leclerc Institution is another : it's springtime, so it's the same routine. So I think that the public has to be informed on entering our institutions--there are about 5,000 visitors per day--and we need to ask them to report any difficulties. Inmates are looking for drugs and they pressure people. If that happens, we urge the public to let us know. We need better control over visitors.

Another example is children, who sometimes have to be searched. And it's not necessarily in their clothing. So that requires searches, notice and police information. We have strengthened our ties with police forces. The back of a stamp is another example. There is as much in the way of examples as there is in the way of creativity within our institutions. That's the number 1 problem.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I think Mr. Lanctôt is right. It does seem to be passingly bizarre that we have a law-free zone in prisons, and probably drugs are the number one contributor to that law-free zone. It seems awfully thin, Madam Commissioner, to say that they pitch them over the wall in tennis balls. I mean, since God made little green apples, that's probably been happening in prisons, that kind of stuff.

I don't quite fathom why it's so difficult to make it extremely difficult to pitch tennis balls over the walls. I can't fathom why the visitors can't be thoroughly searched. You can't get into Parliament Hill without going through screens and searching as necessary, etc., etc. And I can't imagine why there are so many visitors to these prisons that that kind of stuff can't be done.

It seems to me that you almost feed your own problem of a law-free zone by allowing this kind of thing. So can you tell me about any progress you've made in the past few years with respect to this issue?

À (1005)

Ms. Lucie McClung: We've invested in control mechanisms--for instance, an airport-like check for visitors and parcels at front entrances of our institutions. We've also invested in drug dogs, for lack of a better word--dogs that will sniff out and point to presence of drugs, as well as dynamic security, which is always the best way, in terms of intelligence with police forces, etc. There were, as an example, 300 more drug seizures in the first three quarters of last year than ever before. So we are progressing in terms of seizing drugs.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, but 300 more than what, though? I mean, 300 more than zero, or 300 more than...? You see, it doesn't mean anything to say you have 300 more. That 300 more could be on 3,000, in which case you've got a 10% increase. So I don't understand that.

Ms. Lucie McClung: The number of drug seizures for 2001-02 was 2,029 precisely, and in the first three quarters of last year it was a little bit more than 2,300.

Mr. John McKay: So you picked it up a couple of hundred.

Ms. Lucie McClung: But 2,000--we're picking up more than 2,000, and at the end of the year, we'll probably be 3,000. How many more are missing? Some are missing, definitely, because we're still seeing people under the influence inside our institutions.

Mr. John McKay: Are we catching 80% of the illicit drugs, or are we catching 20%? The numbers in some respects still become quite meaningless unless you know--

Ms. Lucie McClung: You have to match them against the number of infractions or people under the influence. I don't have this readily available, but I can certainly get if for you.

Mr. John McKay: That would be interesting.

The Chair: Thank you.

To Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Out of the 2,300 visitors who were trying to bring drugs in, how many charges were laid?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I don't have that, and I'm not sure that they were visitors. There were 2,300 drug seizures in the first three quarters of last year. I would have to provide a breakdown and then link it to the number of criminal charges.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Can we get that information?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Sure.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: If an ion scanner is broken, do you still allow visits?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We'll allow visits if there's no other information that would lead us to believe that drugs are being brought in. If there is a preoccupation, we can always contain the visit.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: If there's no ion scanner and if there is no drug dog, would you still allow visits?

À (1010)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Again, the same situation would apply. We know our business and we know the people with whom we transact. If there is a preoccupation, we can always contain the visit. Basically, it's up to every warden.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: One of the recommendations of the subcommittee three years ago was that the CCRA be amended to allow the warden of a correctional institution to suspend the right of an inmate to receive visitors if it is determined that the visitor has attempted to bring drugs in. The government rejected this idea because it said that the warden already had that ability. After speaking with I don't know how many corrections officers across this country, they've made it abundantly clear that this is not happening. It's not happening enough. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's not happening where wardens are indeed suspending the visit.

Many of these correctional officers report that in many of the federal institutions there are no ion scanners, and where there are scanners they can be out of order for a number of months. That's one of the concerns that was brought forward to us. In some cases there's no individual there who is really able to operate the ion scanner.

I've gone through the ion scanner before, and it doesn't take a lot to operate, but sometimes people may be subbed in who aren't sure if the beep really means it's high-level, or that it just picked up something somewhere. So that's one of the concerns I've had relayed to me.

On May 25, apparently there was a party or a large social at Matsqui, a medium-security facility for men, in which there were approximately 80 visitors going into the institution that day. The ion scanner was not used, nor was there a drug dog on site. We hear about these instances--I'm not saying regularly--far too often.

I know Ms. Fry and a number of us sat on the non-medical drug committee, and one of the major concerns was the number of drugs in prisons. We've talked about it here today.

I would strongly suggest that the CCRA be amended to make it mandatory that in cases where visitors are caught with drugs, not only those visits should be suspended, but the police should be called and the visitors charged accordingly. Visits should be stopped at institutions where ion scanners are not being used. Would you support that type of recommendation?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I'll certainly relay it to the Solicitor General in terms of a recommendation, but let me be clear that we must call the police if visitors are caught with drugs.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Shall, must, or may?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We must call the police. Often it's the police officer who says it's too small, or he can't do it, or whatever. Those situations are followed up on a case-by-case situation.

Since you raise it, Mr. Sorenson, it may not be clear. I will go back within my own organization and ensure that it's clear.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

I have two questions. First, when you were being asked about the prevalence of illegal drugs within the corrections facilities, you mentioned a figure of 5,000 visitors a day. Is that across Canada?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Across Canada, yes.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Across Canada, and each one of those visitors is subject to some form of non-intrusive search.

Ms. Lucie McClung: That's right.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's also my understanding that following the recommendations of this committee, of CCRA, ion scanners will be in every penitentiary by September 2003.

Ms. Lucie McClung: At the end of this year there will be 48. We don't have ion scanners at the healing lodge at Montée Saint-François because there's one in close proximity, but they have a dog, and at Willow Cree Healing Lodge and Elbow Lake Healing Lodge. So it's either/or--either a dog or an ion scanner.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay. Thank you.

My second question concerns an issue that was raised by my colleague, Ms. Fry, about the prevalence of HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C within Correctional Services. It doesn't have to do with the medical treatments that are made available. It has to do with the decision-making process for release.

Where Correctional Service Canada is aware that an individual is HIV-AIDS affected or hepatitis C or some infectious disease, is that a factor that's taken into account--not in terms of the release itself, but in terms of the conditions that may attach to that release, in the same way as for an offender who has come in and alcohol abuse played a large part in that person's committing an offence, or gambling? Many times when a decision is made to release offenders into the community, there are conditions. They must go to AA to seek treatment for their alcohol addiction, etc. Is that taken into account in terms of issuing conditions attached to the release once a decision for release has been made? And if not, why not?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I'm not aware of any conditions. I've just verbally checked with the chairman of the National Parole Board. I'm not aware of any conditions whereby the release plan would have a condition of either medical treatment or some sort of support group for HIV-AIDS.

There is a piece of legislation in Canada where the medical information is on a need-to-know basis. For HIV-AIDS, not everybody needs to know that this person has HIV-AIDS. Health Canada and the medical professionals would deal with the medical conditions of offenders just as they would with medical conditions of members of staff or citizens.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Given that it's on a need-to-know basis and that it's an infectious disease, I would think that Correctional Service Canada would know that an inmate is indeed infected. It means that the individual voluntarily submitted to the testing either before coming in or after, informed Correctional Service Canada, and received treatment while inside. It means that there was that need to know and it was voluntarily disclosed. Would that not be a need to know--once a decision has been made to release the inmate or offender into the community--to attach conditions so that treatment would continue and that it's part of the release program?

À (1015)

Ms. Lucie McClung: It's part of the release program in terms of the continuum of care that needs to be there. The parole officer would know because of access to the files and knowing that what should be happening was happening. In terms of the conditions, I've never seen it as a condition of release per se.

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : I have so many questions for you that you will have to come back. I was stunned by what I heard. You say that if a visitor has drugs on him and he is caught with a small quantity, the police will probably decide that it's just simple possession. I am sorry, but whether it's a small quantity or not, it's trafficking. We are currently studying a bill that would stiffen penalties for producers and traffickers, and what we are talking about here is trafficking.

You gave a lot of examples of ways of getting drugs into the prisons, and surely there must be 20,000 ways of doing it. I will ask you again whether that could be because of a shortage of staff. Or is it because of a lack of effective technology? There are walls all around a prison, and there are cameras. If someone is seen throwing a package from outside, the police can be called. I have trouble understanding that, despite your explanations.

There were lots of police officers at the Quebec Summit. They were not afraid to assign a lot of officers to that. Apparently it's different when it's about protecting society. Traffickers are operating in prisons as if they were in their living room. A new drug policy is supposed to be brought forward any day now, and if there is a shortage of staff, perhaps we could start by increasing the prisons' staff. I hope you will ask for that, because education is not enough; it takes appropriate levels of staff in the rights places too.

May be I am mistaking myself for superman, but it seems to me that I could maintain reasonable control within four walls. I could be wrong, but what you are saying doesn't change my mind : in spite of all the ways of getting drugs into a prison, you would get results if you cracked down, if you allowed visitors like Mr. Sorenson and didn't merely post the rules. You should be able to do something when you suspect people. If you started there, that might give other people some ideas about things that could be done elsewhere. It takes a number of steps : enforcement, information and rehabilitation. These days, when people talk about rehabilitation, they mean when an individual get out of prison, but rehabilitation should start in prison. An attempt must be made to educate inmates about drugs. That's ambitious, isn't it, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: I'd love to answer, but I'm going to let Ms. McClung.

[Translation]

Ms. Lucie McClung : Things would be much easier if there were a magic solution. As Mr. Lanctôt suggested, we need a many-pronged approach, including prevention activities, and therefore searches. Searches must be carried out on a daily basis. This is a serious job that must be carried out every day. Once we relax on this, the inmates know how to take advantage of the situation. Has there been some relaxation? That is why we have managers. The objective of our prevention activities is to evaluate the inmates' situation. I would like to emphasize that our substance abuse treatment programs are accredited internationally. We have a range of programs : from low-intensity to high-intensity. They also include a research and development component. For example, we would like to offer a high-intensity program for women with a criminal profile. However, no such program exist yet, because it takes two years to establish a structured intervention program based on research findings. Is that enough? No, it is not enough, and that is why this is one of our priorities. If we could be more successful in controlling substance abuse, which affects 80 per cent of our inmates, we would achieve better results as regards prevention and rehabilitation.

À (1020)

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, for sort of asking a question on the same issue over and over. I'm going to ask the question a little differently.

Does Corrections Canada or do you know how drugs get into the prisons? Have you done a survey on this? Have you decided that there is a larger percentage of it coming through? I'm trying to think, how would you get drugs into a prison? You'll either get them in through visitors or through throwing them over the wall in a ball, I suppose, one way or another. There has to be some way drugs are getting in.

Has anyone investigated how drugs are getting in there and what the most favoured form is of getting them in? Have you therefore been targeting those ways to ensure that this kind of movement into prisons...? It is so important. The big question is this: having decided that it's getting in there, what are you doing to stop it? Secondly, now that it is in there, what are you doing to prevent the spread of communicable disease? Because obviously people in corrections institutes go out into the public again, so you have to think about that.

The question then is that if the communicable diseases are spread through blood and body fluids, you have to look at sexual contact within a system. What are you doing about prevention of disease through sexual contact, and what are you doing about prevention of disease through intravenous drugs?

Did you know that there are 4,000 new cases of HIV-AIDS in Canada every year? I am here to ask what you are doing to stem it. It's one thing to have public health strategies outside when inside there is this festering spread occurring all the time, which is being seeded outside. So everyone is spending millions of dollars a year with zero results, with an almost negative impact at the end of the day.

There's a responsibility, I think, for you to remember that you have to participate in public health strategies. Going back to Ms. Jennings' question, what are you doing to work with public health officials and what are your prison health officials doing to work with public health officials outside of the system to track and to survey, to do some surveillance and some tracking of the movement of these diseases back and forth and in and out of the system? Because it's getting to be ridiculous. I'm sorry, but I need an answer from you about how it's spread and what you're doing to stop it.

Ms. Lucie McClung: How it's spread in terms of infectious disease--

Ms. Hedy Fry: No, not how infectious diseases are spread, but how drugs are getting in. Have you done a survey on that? What are the ways, and what are you doing to stop it?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes. The across-the-CSC survey is a few years old. What we do, though, is that each warden, in conjunction with their staff, would be able to tell you the preferred method, for lack of a better word, and what the sources are. Wardens are telling me that the sources are mostly through the front door. Therefore, in the very strong policy framework, they're working with police forces to curtail the front door, to watch the front door. If it's not the front door, the second method is offenders coming in and out of the institution and carrying.

Ms. Hedy Fry: What are you doing to prevent those things from happening or to stop them?

Ms. Lucie McClung: To prevent them, we have control measures at the front door. We have re-emphasized the necessary link in terms of information between police forces and the institution. We have forums to share that information and to take action. The presence of the dogs is very helpful. That's been in some areas for two years, because it takes a certain investment in order to train the dogs. The dogs are proving to be very profitable. Sometimes when citizens notice there's a dog, they turn around right away and they don't even try to enter the institution. We are seeing progress in terms of seizures.

On the spread, the surveillance is managed through Health Canada. There is a national drug strategy. We have received or are about to receive a portion of the money that was distributed for health, to be directed towards prisons for education and prevention. The surveillance of individuals, however, is managed through Health Canada, and we ensure that there is a link between CSC and Health Canada in terms of the individuals themselves.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, by way of comment, Mr. Glen alluded earlier to the policy of allowing victim impact statements to be presented orally, saying it's quite possible that this could be coming forth in legislation. Just by way of comment, I've had a private member's bill before the House since October 2001 that has one clause that would have done exactly that. So if we get legislation, it's unfortunate that it will have taken that long for it to come forward.

My question is to the commissioner. The report recommended the establishment of a national office to deal with victims' complaints. Apparently what we have is a watered down version of that, with one staffer and a limited budget. I just wonder if the commissioner could bring us up to date on the status of that office and what the budget for that office looks like compared to the correctional investigator's budget.

Ms. Lucie McClung: There is one person right now representing it, who will pull together the efforts of CSC and National Parole Board. Our legislation directs us to provide certain types of information to victims of crime who have told us they would like that information, so it's to pull together, to streamline, and to make it more obvious to citizens who to phone when there is a situation that demands attention, on behalf of the service and on behalf of the National Parole Board.

There are also victim liaison coordinators within our own resource base to come to terms with the demands, because oftentimes it's not only a question of providing information. For instance, when a victim participates at a parole board hearing, it's very upsetting, so staff are called upon to deal with what is presented, with the aftermath of having heard the deliberations of the offender or the parole board members. Right now it's within our own resourcing.

Mr. Ian Glen: If I could just add to that, on the person who was recently appointed to represent our interests in the victims' domain, by locating that person at the Department of Justice's victim policy centre, quite frankly we're hoping that it will leverage more interest and more opportunity to assist from their resources as well.

In terms of the investment of resources out where it really happens in the regions, at each of our regional offices we now have roughly three or four staff who spend quite a considerable amount of their working day working with victims, either maintaining contacts with them and getting information out to them or, as Ms. McClung said, perhaps meeting with them around times of hearings to assist.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Is there any formal process in place to actually deal with complaints by victims? I think that's really what the report was concerned about: complaints.

Mr. Ian Glen: Certainly from my office's perspective, if people have complaints about the service we provide to them or the assistance we've given to them, on occasion I've dealt with it directly. I understand the committee's interest when they made the recommendations, but I don't feel I've had a groundswell of complaints that have gone unattended.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to look at another area, and that would be education. It's come to my attention that with budgets being as they are, in some cases budgets have been dealt with in a manner that has led to minimum objectives in education not being met. I wonder how pervasive this is, if in fact it is. Secondly, what is happening in order to review and deal with this? A further question would be is there in fact any correlation between the lack of a minimum level of education and reoffending?

À (1030)

Ms. Lucie McClung: In terms of education, the standard we strive for is to get everybody through to grade 12. For the most part, during the period of incarceration and given that some people have three-year sentences, sometimes that is not possible, because they come in with barely grade 7 and are oftentimes functionally illiterate. The first preoccupation is to increase the level of education to grade 12. If it's not possible during the period of incarceration, there is a lot of support so that it may continue in the community.

The budget has not been cut. We are preoccupied with the budget and service delivery and what needs we will target on a priority basis, not only case by case but more systemically across the service so that we may come to terms with the budget. We're doing that for this year at the end of June. So far there's no indication that the education budget or the education allotment would be affected.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: The allotment itself may not be affected, but it's come to my attention that within certain institutions, although the allotment may be there in the overall picture, in fact within the institution they have had to cut because of other demands, and the cuts have come at the expense of education. I'm concerned about that.

Ms. Lucie McClung: So am I, sir. That's why at the end of June we're reviewing all of the budgets per site, per institution, and per district. It's not sufficient anymore to manage within the overall picture; we have to go into envelopes and match the 12 month plan against the allotment at that level of precision.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Is there any means or method whereby you could at least mandate the minimum standard of budget within an institution and mandate that any excess requirements within the institution would have to be drawn from a contingency fund in some fashion so we wouldn't get into this difficulty whereby institutions are having to cut back on the teachers they have within their institutions in order to try to meet the goals?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, that's the plan this year. We've separated the budget in terms of allotment, and allotment that makes common sense to the warden who has to make the decisions. So there are the allotments for programming and for food, for instance, closely related to the activities of the institution. There will be no authority to move money from one envelope to the other unless it comes to the executive committee table where we will have a chance to really assess the impact.

Mr. Ian Glen: If I could just add to what the commissioner has said from the board's perspective, the concern of literacy for offenders is quite a significant one, because it clearly paints a worrying picture in terms of successful reintegration into society. One of the dilemmas we're constantly seized with--and I say “we” collectively in the corrections system--is the true level of literacy or lack of it in an offender against this so-called stated “how far they've gone in school”. That someone with grade 11 might well only have a grade 3 reading capacity is a troubling commentary on education in Canada and the impact on this community.

From the board's perspective, with the real pressures to deal with resourcing within CSC and the impact on programming, I think they really are trying to do their best. There's no doubt that someone who has improved their education capacity through the programs in CSC is a more favourable candidate when they come before the board.

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : I would like to pursue your comments regarding health certificates. The government response to recommendations 45 and 46 states : "Considered, but not pursued at this time". It also states "without endangering relations with the provinces [...]"

The Correctional Service of Canada has some doctors. Although, generally speaking, health comes under provincial jurisdiction, you can adopt an internal policy in your centre requiring a certificate, because you are able to adopt a policy on harassment. I don't know why the act is not being modified immediately. You could adopt a policy requiring that a place be set aside, not for quarantine purposes, but in order for the doctor in your institution to observe the inmate and issue a certificate. This certificate and the laboratory analyses will enable you to protect all employees and other inmates who are not ill. Why not do that?

In the right-hand column entitled "Action/Status", we see that, according to the government, no action is required. Does that mean that there will be no research, or that you, or the government, are saying that there will be no follow-up. I find it incredible that there would be no action taken as something as important as inmate's health care certificate.

À (1035)

Ms. Lucie McClung : If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will explain the terminology used here. It was recommended that we require a certificate from the provinces before accepting the inmate. Generally, they wait in prison to be transferred to us. In most cases, they already have a medical certificate.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt : You are speaking about the proposed amendment to section 23, but the proposed amendment to section 13 refers to new arrivals.

Ms. Lucie McClung : That has already been done. There is no problem with respect to certificates. The physician has two days—I will check on this and get in touch with you directly—to do a medical examination of all individuals "received" by our service. I used this word, because the word "reception" is an official term. The reception process includes a medical examination.

Furthermore, I am very pleased and perhaps lucky, to say that there has been no cases of SARS in our prisons. Exceptional procedures have been introduced, particularly in Ontario. We had some visitors from the Philippines, and that country had been identified as a potential source of the disease for one day. We therefore refused to allow a diplomatic visitor to enter our facility for that reason. The screening procedures are therefore working well.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings : Thank you. I would like to talk about education programs. You said that the success or lack of success of rehabilitation—that is, finding a job, in particular—of inmates in the community depended in part on their level of literacy. I imagine you have a mechanism for evaluating inmates' level of education and literacy when they arrive. What programs, designed specifically to deal with this problem, are offered to inmates who want to achieve rehabilitation?

Ms. Lucie McClung : The programs are the same. The education programs are accredited by the... I am sorry, I can only remember the terms in English.

[English]

I'm sorry, I'll answer in English. The school boards of various provinces accredit our education programs, so they're to the same standard they deliver per se. So the assessments are there according to the standards of the education boards as well as the response.

One area that was missing, however, as raised by not only our staff but as well the teachers who would receive people, even in the very low level of functioning, was cognitive deficiency. They were saying they cannot understand simple instructions that are already rendered simple because we're at the most basic level of education. So there is a program or an intervention being developed, hopefully by this fall, where we would have some sort of a series of interventions directed toward improving the cognitive ability of people to be able to understand simple instructions for education.

À (1040)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

Do I have any more time?

The Chair: Yes, 30 seconds.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I know that there are innovative literacy programs that involve e-learning. Is Correctional Services using those kinds of innovative programs that assist inmates to improve their literacy skills, but through e-learning? That's basically computer programs. You go on and....

Ms. Lucie McClung: I will answer in theory, but I don't have any picture in my head, nor have I been told recently that they are indeed using e-learning. The tools that are readily available to boards of education are supposed to be delivered to the same extent inside our institutions. I can't answer specifically for e-learning, however.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I want to quickly return to two subjects we have been speaking about fairly comprehensively today. I have a pile of information from institutions all across the country dealing with ion scanners. I'll just read some of it from the Atlantic region and different prisons here.

One says that on several occasions they have seen people hit for cocaine--on the ion scanner--and THC and they were still able to come in and finish their visits. We have here from Joliette correspondence saying that the institution has one instrument, but it's not in operation since local management stated that it cost too much to operate. Another one in Quebec says they have one, but it was never put in service. Another minimum security institution in Quebec said the institution has no instrument and no correctional officer trained to operate the instrument. Another maximum security establishment in Quebec said they have an instrument, but it is not in use.

Let's keep going. There's Bowden Institution, which says they have an instrument, which is used all the time. This institution is the second highest in the region for drug busts. Edmonton Institution said they have an instrument, which is rarely used. Another one, a minimum security institution in Alberta, said the institution has no instrument. Another one in Saskatchewan said the institution has no instrument nor any qualified correctional officer to operate it.

It goes on and on. One says here that they have one, but it's rarely used. Another one I saw somewhere in here says they have one and in working order, but they had problems in the past where it was broken for months at a time. That's months. There's another example of one that has a sign on it that says “Broken--do not use.”

We're talking about ion scanners. Consequently, we have a problem of drugs in prison, and people seem to think, yes, but we have an ion scanner. But if they aren't being used....

The people who write me are saying if we are trying to keep drugs out of our communities, and we can't even keep them out of our prisons, you're never going to solve the drug problem in our communities if we can't keep them out of the prisons.

Going back to what Mr. Lanctôt brought up in regard to recommendations 45 and 46, regarding the certificates of health, part of that recommendation says that it be amended to require the warden of a correctional institution to refuse to receive an offender if there is not a certificate. He's required to do it; it's not that he may refuse. Is that requirement being met at the present time, that they will refuse to receive an offender if there is not a certificate with him?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, that has not been a problem that was raised with me specifically. I will have to ask specifically the question, what are the instances where there was not a certificate? My information is that it is not a systemic problem across the service. They are coming with certificates.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Recently correctional officers, and we've talked about it today, have raised some serious concerns about hepatitis and about the prevalence of HIV-AIDS in prisons. Correctional officers, with the full support of the Canadian Alliance, have called on the government to ask for mandatory testing of all inmates. I think we should recognize that not only are we talking about a public safety and health concern to the correctional officers, but it reaches beyond that: it reaches to every family of every correctional officer here.

Would you support mandatory testing of all offenders for HIV and hepatitis C?

À (1045)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, I believe the Solicitor General answered when he appeared before this committee last week, or two weeks ago, that he does not support mandatory testing. There are no plans for mandatory testing at this time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Thank you, Mr. Sorenson. Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. O'Brien, three minutes. Go ahead, Pat.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): As a relatively new member on this committee, I find this particular hearing a bit depressing, to be candid about it, given the illiteracy you're talking about and the drug problem. I'd like to pursue the educational part of it a little bit.

I'm assuming that there's some diagnostic testing done of these various people. Is that then followed up by an IEP, an individual educational plan? Is there a comprehensive plan for the time the person's in there to try to take him or her however far they can, given where they're starting from? That's my first question.

I wonder who the teachers are involved. Are they seconded from various institutions? Are they permanently placed at these institutions? That would be my second question.

My third question would be how many inmates refuse the opportunity to further their education? If you have any numbers on the percentage, I'd like to know what they are.

I'll finish with a last quick one. Is there any use of more-educated inmates to supplement the teaching staff in trying to help the lesser-educated inmates?

Ms. Lucie McClung: First, on the question of whether once there is a need in the realm of education it is captured for the correctional plan, the IPP, yes, it is, as well as other needs that are more directly linked to personality or criminogenic factors.

The teachers are working for the education boards. Their place of work happens to be an institution. And because of the rhythm and because of other preoccupations, there's not a rapid changeover in the teachers, so they will complete the year, and as a matter of fact they will complete a number of years to avoid the changeover, because in a correctional setting it's not only the education but as well the security and the link to other correctional staff.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: So they're full-time at the institution.

Ms. Lucie McClung: They're full-time at the institution, paid by the education board. So we'll have a contractual arrangement with education boards.

Offenders don't normally refuse going to school, because it's seen from their perspective as a privileged site, so the refusal rates would be extremely low. It's seen as a privilege. There is less noise, they're more on their own, they have readily available tutoring and monitoring.

Some offenders who are proficient in these matters will sometimes serve to supplement during the classroom, not normally outside the classroom, because we're not sure that other things would not be going on at the same time.

The Chair: To Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'd like to direct my questions to Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Stewart, when the subcommittee did a review of the CCRA one of the concerns was the adequacy of your budget, and they recommended an increase. Has your budget been increased, and what have you done with those additional resources? And further, do you require more resources to adequately do your job?

Mr. Ron Stewart: Thank you.

Yes, our budget was supplemented. I think at the present time it's $1.4 million. We had several areas we were asked to look at, and we didn't have the staff to do that.

Our main job is to go to the institutions and deal with complaints, but we were also dealing with incidents of use of force in the prisons, and we would get the tapes and we'd have to review them. It started out we'd have two or three, and now we get hundreds of them, and it's a big drain on our staff.

We have what we call section 19s, where inmates are subject to some bodily harm, and we have to look at those incidents too, and that was taking another person. So we had all this extra sort of work thrust upon us, and I talked with the Solicitor General of the day and asked, “What do you want me to do as our priority? Because we can't do everything.”

Then we talked to the committee about budget, and they raised the budget, and now we're looking after all those things.

Thank you.

À (1050)

Mr. John Maloney: So you have additional resources, you feel?

Mr. Ron Stewart: Yes.

Mr. John Maloney: Very good.

Do I have any more time?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Maloney: The committee also recommended that you report directly to the minister, and simultaneously to Parliament and to the appropriate committee, which would likely be our committee, and that was not accepted. You made some reference to that in your presentation this morning, about ombudsmen having to be independent. Do you have any comments on the government's position and not taking the recommendation of the subcommittee?

Mr. Ron Stewart: We've remained convinced that this is the way it should work. Ombudsmen traditionally report to the government, and we would like to do that. We still feel strongly about that. But the government has a number of ombudspeople, and every year there seem to be a few more, whether it be the post office, National Defence, or whatever. The number of agencies wanting to report directly was just getting to be too much. So they didn't accept our recommendation or our proposal that we report to Parliament. It still remains something we'd like to do.

Mr. John Maloney: That's your preference.

Mr. Ron Stewart: That's our preference, yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, I note from a letter here that the work of the victims office will be guided by an interdepartmental victim advisory committee. I see a list of folks here who will be on that committee from the Parole Board, CSC, Department of Justice, Policy Centre for Victims' Issues, the Solicitor General secretariat's corrections policy division. I don't see anything here about actually going to some victims for advice, on this committee.

The reason I question this is that I had the pleasure of serving on a committee a number of years ago, reporting directly to the deputy commissioner of Pacific region, that was made up entirely of victims, for their input to go directly to the top. That committee is still functioning, and I know it's doing good work and there's a lot of good input. I was wondering if you intend to reflect that in advising on this particular victims office.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, this initiative was a direct result of a consultation, if you will, or a day session with associations dealing with victims of crime. It was conducted by the chairman of the National Parole Board and myself. We asked basically how we can be of more assistance within the current mandate of information-sharing.

They suggested we establish a national office on behalf of both organizations, because oftentimes our activities are so intrinsically linked that although they may direct a question to the National Parole Board, often it relates to the progress or specific information with respect to the offender, so why not get more clarity and more precision by bringing these issues and considerations under one office?

That came from the victims. The note you may have is about how we will organize so that within our respective organizations all of the perspectives are taken into account. There is every intention to go back with a plan of action to that first group that came together.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Is there any intent to actually include victims on that committee? That's my point.

Mr. Ian Glen: If I could intervene as well, in the session the commissioner referred to we had various groups. This is reflective of the phenomenon of victims' interest or advocacy bodies being formed. There were people who were victims in the past who then went on to lead small organizations. Generally these are small organizations to advance the interests and the expectations of victims. It wasn't as if victims were absent entirely.

As I reflect on your question and our experience to date in trying to find ways to include the right people, I would be attracted to your suggestion; that is, where we feel there are particular individuals independent of the victims' advocacy groups who would be willing to come forward to assist in an advisory way, I would be quite willing to seek those people out.

I would say, then, and quite strongly—and I think the commissioner would support me—that the groups that represent the interests of victims are a very dedicated group of people, I would say well informed, and we appreciate very much the input we get from those organizations. They assist us quite constantly, week by week.

One gentleman I have a high regard for is located here in Ottawa, Steve Sullivan. I think quite often he has both the insights and the perspective that assist me in thinking through issues.

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: Thank you very much.

My questions relate to two specific groups within the prison population: one, which is a small group, women, who make up 2% to 3% of the population; and the second one, of course, aboriginal people, who make up the majority of the prison population.

My question is this. There was a recommendation a long time ago, when Madame Arbour looked at this whole problem in 1996, that there be specific programs for women. I know the argument has been that they're such a small number that you don't have any specific program, so it's difficult to do so. But there is no women's prison—and there was a specific need for a specific one that's been closed—so there is no place for women to find safe places to be in a prison system and to have the right kinds of rehabilitative and integrative programs specifically for women. I wondered what you had to say about that.

The second issue has to be with the recommendation for a deputy commissioner for aboriginal people in prisons, similar to the deputy commissioner for women prisoners. Given that a large percentage of the prison population, probably the largest, is aboriginal and that aboriginal people have specific cultural issues to deal with, and given that a large number of inmates in prisons who are aboriginal have FAS—or if not FAS, at least have fetal alcohol effect—and it affects their cognitive abilities and their ability to deal with an education program, and the recidivism rate for that group is very high, why would you not want to appoint a deputy commissioner for aboriginal peoples?

Ms. Lucie McClung: It's a very large question, so it may take supplementary questions.

On the issues that relate to women offenders, we have closed the prison for women, as Ms. Fry indicates, to be replaced by five regional sites specifically dedicated for women offenders across this country. These regional sites have shown very good progress, because the interventions for women offenders need to be different. First, we had to recognize that they needed to be different. We had to develop and then administer interventions that were significantly different from those for men offenders. That is the case.

The result in terms of safe reintegration at the most opportune time, as early as possible in the sentence, has shown impact. When we compare the rate of reintegration and how women do on release, they do much better than men, and they access discretionary forms of release because they are shown to have the support system and the capacity that is required to succeed at a much greater rate than men offenders.

In terms of development, there was a whole series of programs that were developed for women offenders. I have the list here if you would like me to leave it with you.

For aboriginal offenders, notwithstanding the level of effort to recognize the cultural dimension in program intervention, because our programs have been adjusted to take that into effect somewhat, not completely--we are still under development in many areas--although we have seen a slight increase in terms of earlier release and better capacity for aboriginal offenders to do better upon release, still too many are coming back for technical revocations. So they are being reincarcerated for reasons other than a commission of crime, either a relapse into substance abuse, or getting in with the wrong crowd, so much so that we are worried. So they are being incarcerated.

Rather than a simple answer in terms of the deputy commissioner, the appointment of one person in Ottawa, rather than create a bureaucracy, we have focused our resources on either direct intervention or development for intervention, because the issues are so wide and deep. We have a policy arm in Corrections Canada already specifically dedicated to aboriginal issues.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I thank the committee and the panel.

Mr. Stewart, you wanted to make a comment.

Mr. Ron Stewart: Yes, a comment, Mr. Chairman.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator and CSC have met on both of these issues. They have been perennial complaint issues that we bring to their attention. We've had a series of meetings, and we're dealing with these. I would just like to thank the commissioner for her decision to try to get on top of these issues, and clear them off the slate. I'll do that in front of the committee.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Again, I thank the committee. I thank the panel, Ms. McClung, Mr. Glen, Mr. Stewart. I'm sure we'll see you again.

We will adjourn.