JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 26, 1998

• 0915

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): We are today working pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and we're considering two reports of the joint board of investigation from the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada.

From the National Parole Board we're welcoming Willie Gibbs, who is the chair, and Sheila Watkins, who is from Windsor, originally, and is the director of the communications division at the Parole Board.

From the Correctional Service of Canada we have Ole Ingstrup, who is the commissioner, and also Richard Clair, who's the corporate secretary.

Before we start, Mr. Thompson indicated to me this morning that he had a point of order.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Yes, Madam Chair. I'd like to bring to the attention of the committee that it appears to me that in 1988, when the Liberal people were in opposition, there was a precedent set when they brought forward a motion that the witnesses who are presently before us and who were there at that time be sworn in. I would make the motion that this be the case today.

The Chair: Is that the extent of your motion then?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, that the witnesses be sworn in.

The Chair: Can we just hold on to that for a minute while we balance the other procedure we have to deal with?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes.

The Chair: I'm just going to put it in abeyance for a minute because I'm sure that some people will have something to say about it somewhere at the table.

Let me say that there was another precedent set at that time. I'm going to ask Mr. Discepola to assist me for a moment. In committee we agreed as to how we were going to proceed today. I understand that, first of all, all full-time regular committee members have received a copy of the reports involving Russell and Hector. The copies you have received and that have been circulated have had some items deleted from them. My investigation of that, or my inquiries to the Solicitor General's Office, indicate that there would be two reasons for that. One, I think, would be privacy of third parties. Is that correct, Mr. Discepola? The second reason might be security of an institution. But as you read it you can see that it seems to me that on both reports the greater concern was not violating the privacy of third parties. I'm assuming that anyway.

Having said that, we then entered into a discussion about how we could see the entire report as a committee so that we could conduct our inquiries. A procedure was established, partly in 1988 and I think there was another case as well, whereby we would agree to receive information in camera, all of the information unexpurgated, take a look at it, have an opportunity to ask questions of the parties who are before us—and I see that you have many officials with you as well, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Ingstrup—who can assist us with information and that only full-time regular members of the committee would deal with that. We would then have another opportunity later today to ask questions generally in a public session of the committee.

It would be my view, and I think generally speaking it's the committee's view, that it would be most helpful to do the in camera session first and then to go on, keeping in mind that there are people's privacy rights and there are matters of the institutional security that are at stake here and that there should not be any cowboys at the table, so to speak, in terms of how we deal with that. I don't think we need to be cavalier in our attitude in terms of how we deal with that.

• 0920

The alternative is that we can do the public part of the meeting now, and then go in camera to complete our investigation of the issues. I'd like to know how you want to deal with that.

I'm going to turn to Mr. MacKay first. Mr. MacKay, I'd also ask you to comment on Mr. Thompson's motion.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I would second Mr. Thompson's motion, Madam Chair. I'm still waiting to hear whether we are going to be receiving or have an opportunity to view the full report. I would also put before the committee that I—and I believe perhaps other members of the opposition who are a part of this committee—would like an opportunity to review or look at the binders and materials that have been brought to the committee by the witnesses today, either before or subsequent to their testimony.

The Chair: Which binders and material are you referring to?

Mr. Peter MacKay: The supporting materials that are here with witnesses today.

The Chair: The personal files that they're keeping on the—

A voice: Their briefing books.

Mr. Peter MacKay: There seems to be a significant amount of material here before the witnesses, and I would say that it's akin to disclosure of a police file. The purpose of this hearing, as I understand it, is to look at this in a broad scope and to try to find some answers to what happened. So I put that motion forward as well.

The Chair: Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Could I know from Mr. Thompson his reasoning for wanting the witnesses sworn in before I comment on that, please?

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, did you want to elaborate on that?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Well, yes. I think it's fairly obvious as to why we expect this to happen. When you have reports that have holes, and we're going to be in camera, are we going to be able to fill the holes? Will that information be significant to what we're trying to achieve?

Is there an objection? I don't understand why. That's not an abnormal thing to ask.

The Chair: It is abnormal, first of all, but let's not get defensive about it. Let's keep in mind that we have never.... This committee, in two Parliaments—I shouldn't say in two Parliaments, but since I've been chair, certainly—has had some very contentious issues, and has never sworn witnesses. That's number one.

Secondly, we have in front of us two very senior public servants and a phalanx of other senior and middle-range public servants. I would suggest to you that they would be in very hot water for lying to Parliament, in any event. I think the oath is superfluous. But of course I'm in the hands of the committee.

I would expect the opinion to be that we are here, among other things, to respect our public servants, and they are here voluntarily to speak to us under some unusual circumstances—without a House order, I might add, which I think is a sign of how open they are prepared to be.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam Chair, I'm very curious. I think there are reasons why one might want to know if there is material that would be material to the cases we are studying. Under the Privacy Act, which we've studied to a great extent—and it's interesting, because I was going to ask about promoting an active review of the privacy study we have done.... I really would like to know from the witnesses if they have material that is relevant, that we should have, and if they have the intent to leave that material with us, or to share that material fully with us.

It is one thing to present your material. There is so much conflict of interest between the roles that both of you play in just the reading of the case study that I wonder how much you have not shared with us. So my question to you is, have you much material that you haven't shared with us that you could leave, or that you will share freely?

The Chair: Can we just leave the question floating there for a minute? We are doing some procedural wrangling and I'd like to try to get that out of the way. We'll keep your question in the air.

Mr. Nick Discepola: What are we dealing first, Mr. Thompson's motion or the way we should proceed?

The Chair: Well, I was having a general discussion, but we we can deal first, if you want to, with the issue of whether the witnesses should be sworn in, or we can get our whole procedure hammered out in a collegial way.

• 0925

Mr. Nick Discepola: Let's go back to the procedure we tried to accommodate for Mr. MacKay's motion.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Nick Discepola: We agreed that we would have the witnesses in here. We agreed that the full report would be available to answer Mrs. Finestone's question. It would be made available to full-time committee members.

We also agreed on a procedure, Madam Chair, that we would have a public meeting initially and then go into a closed-door session with full access to the report and full access to the witnesses. The witnesses have come prepared, based on that agreement.

So again, to answer Mrs. Finestone's question, if we were now to go into a closed-door session and acquiesce to Mr. MacKay's demands on all documents, they don't have all the documents in their possession at this stage because the in camera meeting was supposed to be this afternoon.

There are procedural problems, depending on how we proceed. I think we're wasting very precious time, and we should go back to the original understanding that we proceed with the testifying from the witnesses in public and ask all the questions you have.

I have very personal concern, and it's only my concern; it's not the officials' concern. They're prepared to collaborate with the committee in whichever way we choose. However, as a parliamentarian, I have difficulty having access to information that I may or may not be able to disclose in a public session. So if we go in camera first, we have information that may be disclosed inadvertently during our testimony or during our questioning, and I have problems with that.

The Chair: Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: If I could just respond to that, I have difficulty with having materials left for us or discussed in the closed session, if that is the option.

I would speak briefly to the motion put forward by the member for Wild Rose. If there is a suggestion that there is some undue pressure or having these witnesses sworn in is bringing into question their integrity, I would suggest that's not the motive, I don't think, in any way, shape, or form. I think this is simply a request that the witnesses be sworn, that their testimony be given the way it would be in a courtroom.

Madam Chair, you are more than familiar with courtroom procedure. Every day in this country, people are asked to put their hand on the Bible and swear the truth. I don't see the insult.

The Chair: I'm also more than familiar with procedure in these committees, and I've never seen it happen before.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm sure Mr. Lee has seen it happen.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Lee has seen it happen, and it has happened in the past and has happened in similar circumstances to this. But it's not my decision; it's the committee's decision. I'm simply saying that I see it as an extraordinary step that is unnecessary, and I presume that public servants who are before us are honourable.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think we're dealing with extraordinary circumstances in these cases.

The Chair: I don't think we know that yet. In any event, that's a little un-chair-like of me, so I'll back off.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Chair, I would just indicate that, first of all, I have the highest regard for both these gentlemen. It has nothing to do with their integrity or the possibility of lying, as was suggested earlier. I see it as a precedent that was set when Mr. Inkster, I believe, was part of the witnesses when they were sworn in in 1988, and I would like to see that precedent followed.

The Chair: All right. Normally we would have a 48-hour motion rule. I don't think there's a problem. We'll waive that if everybody consents.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, I don't consent.

The Chair: You don't consent to waive it? Well, that puts the motion to rest.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman. For myself, I am very uncomfortable when you do something like that. I think both the witnesses and the members who are assuming responsibilities under that kind of a motion should have some forewarning and should know what is in front of them.

I have strong feelings about privacy and privacy rights, and once something is revealed it can never be recovered. I'm uncomfortable with the procedure. I just wish Mr. Thompson had advised you yesterday; then I would have known how to proceed today. I would have given it serious consideration and serious thought.

I have no particular knowledge of either group that is before us. I am very uncomfortable with what I have read in the report. I don't wish to in any way cast aspersions on the character of the witnesses before us, but if I knew we were going to put them under oath—which means that at some point you can use that material in a very different kind of forum—then I'm sorry, I would have wanted to have some further counsel on this.

• 0930

So I'm not comfortable. I'm sorry, gentlemen, I would like to cooperate with you, but this is something I absolutely cannot do.

The Chair: So we don't have consent to waive the 48-hour rule.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): For the record, I don't think the testimony that we will hear from our witnesses will be any different, whether it's under oath or not. However, if it was under oath, then we could rely upon that in responding to any concerns that anyone raised about these two issues. We could put forward the testimony of these witnesses and say to anyone who was raising a concern that this has been testimony given under oath, and it is therefore solid and unquestionable.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You don't believe that just having this on record in an in camera session, in a written format, is sufficient at this point?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I think the condition of the oath adds to the weight when you're responding to questions raised about either one of these two cases. What we are looking into in the case of Russell is a murder case.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm well aware of that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Someone's life has been taken, and that is very serious. I agree with Mr. MacKay. Since I've been a member of this committee, we have never had this kind of a situation. The circumstances are unique, and a precedent has been set.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Well, Mr. Ramsay, I have to say to you that I have the utmost respect for your opinions, as you know. I have asked you questions and I have supported you because I see you as someone who's very knowledgeable and is quite balanced—not always in the House, but that's a different circumstance. And I say the same to Mr. MacKay. I can't get over the sense of discomfort I have inside, though, and I cannot change that. But it's not out of lack of respect.

I believe you have sufficient powers from the written word that comes in the transcript, and if necessary you can call them back in and quote them in public.... No, you can never quote them in public in an in camera session, but you can embarrass them sufficiently.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have nothing further to add, Madam Chair.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I sincerely hope our witnesses are forthcoming enough, honest enough and honourable enough to recognize the seriousness of this, exactly as you have said—the conflict of interest that seems to appear before us, the great misery that has been caused family and families—and that they would be forthcoming in this instance. I have not any cause to believe they would be other than forthcoming, except that they both might be protecting each other's butts, but I hope that will come out in the cross-examinations. And I should sincerely hope they would be candid enough in this kind of an instance to see where the errors of the ways may have been and are doing something to correct it.

The Chair: Thanks, Mrs. Finestone.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Yes, I would have preferred to do the swear-in procedure, but if we're not going to be able to do that, I'd just like to add that this is a standing committee, not a legislative committee. A standing committee does have certain inherent powers, and when someone gives testimony in front of a standing committee, it is indeed as though they were sworn.

Also, the individuals in front of us have taken oaths of office for their employment, and they're well aware of those conditions. They are public servants, and I'm certainly sure that with their observation of the conversation they have listened to, they will make oral commitments about the seriousness of what their comments are going to be in that context. So whether they're sworn or not, I think the residual authority resting with the committee in the situation exists in any event. If we ever got into a situation in which a witness, and especially a public servant, came in and misled a committee, that witness would be clearly in contempt of Parliament. I think that's the situation they're in regardless.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Forseth.

Are there any other comments, then? Mr. MacKay, did you want to have the last word? It's your motion that we're dealing with here.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No, actually I thought we were on the motion of swearing in of the witnesses, which was Mr. Thompson's.

The Chair: The procedure was initiated on your motion, so I just wondered if you wanted a last word on the issue.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No, but with respect to the other motion, Madam Chair, I'm willing to delay that if we're going to proceed with the public forum first.

The Chair: Okay.

• 0935

Mr. Myron Thompson: Likewise, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks. We're agreed on the procedure. We'll do the public forum first and then the in camera.

So here we are. I assume, Mr. Ingstrup and Mr. Gibbs, that you both have statements to make before we begin. Mr. Ingstrup, we'll start with you.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service of Canada): Madam Chair, committee members, I have to say that usually I look forward to our meetings, when we have an opportunity to share our thoughts on correctional issues. Usually I can share with you progress that we have made, and we can gain from your advice.

This meeting today, Madam Chair, is a different type of appearance. I must brief you on two cases: Michael Hector and Raymond Russell, both of whom have been found guilty of murder while on conditional release in the community and under supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada, for which I am accountable with respect to overall performance.

Madam Chair, permit me first to publicly express my condolences to the families of the victims. We in the Correctional Service of Canada are truly very saddened when such incidents happen.

The reports that we have in front of us have been sent to the families, and in the case of the Thunder Bay murders, family members were visited by senior members of the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board to help them understand what the reports were saying. The same offer was made to Mrs. Turnbull's family.

Madam Chair, I would also like to say, based on the discussion that we've just witnessed, that I have every intention, as I've always had, to share with you what I know to the best of my knowledge. If I make mistakes, it's not to mislead you. I have to base my statements on what I know, and I will do that throughout and be as open with you as I can.

I do realize that some members, and I would think the families of the victims, might feel that some of the things that I will be saying could sound defensive. That's not the purpose. I see my role here as one of explaining to you what we are doing and trying to work as well with you as we possibly can to improve the system. That's my attitude and that would have been exactly the same attitude had I been sworn in.

[Translation]

We are here, Madam Chair, to provide explanations about those two cases and to profit from your advice. We are accountable to the Committee and to the citizens of Canada. As for those two offenders, they had to account before the courts.

I will let my colleague, Mr. Gibbs, the chairman of the National Parole Board, whom you know well, talk to you about the issues concerning the decision-making process, as they relate to decisions taken by the Board. As for me, I will deal firstly with case preparation and secondly with the supervision of offenders in the community.

My introductory remarks will be short, Madam Chair, and will deal with four issues: first, what happened; second, the findings of the investigations; third, our response to the investigations; and fourth, the broad context within which those two cases took place.

• 0940

My remarks as well as our discussion will have to take into account the fact that the families of the victims have taken legal action. As well, some details of the investigation reports, which are covered by the Privacy Act, will have to wait for the in camera discussion later today.

I think that you all have a copy of the two investigation reports and of our response.

[English]

Madam Chair, I would like to start with the Hector case.

On February 7, 1997, Michael Hector, who was on parole, was charged with a double murder that occurred in Thunder Bay in January 1997. He was later charged with a third murder that occurred in Thunder Bay on February 3, 1997.

As a result of these charges a joint National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada board of investigation was convened to examine the release and supervision of Mr. Hector. The findings of the board of investigation largely focused on issues that I would call non-compliance issues, Madam Chair, with respect to existing policies within CSC.

Of the eleven recommendations in the Hector case directed at Correctional Service Canada, seven relate to compliance issues. One recommendation, number four, is both a compliance and a policy issue. Two relate to policy issues, and three concern other issues, such as training, staffing, and research that should be undertaken.

The board in the Hector case, Madam Chair, had a conclusion. I will go through the five key recommendations.

The first conclusion was that there were indeed signs that Mr. Hector was having difficulties in his life and that these types of difficulties had in the past been connected with criminal behaviour.

The second general conclusion was that Mr. Hector was not properly supervised. The supervision by the John Howard Society in Thunder Bay—I'm not talking about any part of the John Howard Society other than this one in Thunder Bay—was found to be deficient, but so was the indirect supervision conducted by my organization, Madam Chair.

The third conclusion of great significance was that CSC, our organization, did not provide the John Howard Society with all the information that was required in order for the society to do the best possible supervision, nor were we in compliance with our own policies in that area.

The fourth conclusion was that there was an over-reliance in the Michael Hector case on self-reporting by Mr. Hector. No collateral contacts were made, nor was there any verification made of Mr. Hector's employment or residence.

The fifth major conclusion was that there was nothing, according to the board of investigation, to suggest that although Hector had resumed what was seen to be his crime cycle, he would commit a murder. I guess this conclusion was reached because he had not killed people before.

I'll turn now, Madam Chair, to the Russell investigation.

• 0945

[Translation]

Raymond Russell, who was also on full parole, was charged with second degree murder in the death of Darlene Turnbull, on June 6th, 1996. On June the 14th, the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada were ordered to hold a joint investigation.

Madam Chair, here are seven of the main findings of the board of investigation.

First, the policies of the Correctional Service of Canada have essentially been complied with.

Second, there were no pre-incident indicators that Mr. Russell was likely to commit another murder.

Third, Mr. Russell had shown no sign of violence during his prison term and there had been no breach of parole during his three years on day parole.

Fourth, information was missing in Mr. Russell's file concerning the sexual nature of his past crimes, which might have distorted his correctional plan.

Fifth, even though the National Parole Board had asked to be kept informed of any change in Mr. Russell's employment prospects, no report was made when his full-time job offer fell through.

In the sixth place, although conversations had taken place between the victim and the parole officer, no written community assessment had been completed before Mr. Russell rented a room in the house of Darlene Turnbull, who was to become his victim.

The last main finding in Mr. Russell's case is that the police were not informed ahead of time of his release, as required by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

[English]

Madam Chair, the action plans to address the recommendations have been forwarded to you, along with all the reports, I guess.

In the Hector investigation, Madam Chair, in the Thunder Bay incident, several steps have been taken—I'm now turning to what we have done—to strengthen the parole office in Thunder Bay. Specifically, an additional full-time parole officer was hired in July 1997. The contract with the local John Howard Society group was terminated. And third, the area director now carefully supervises the only private contractor we have up there who provides supervision. And regular auditing of the cases has verified that the individual is in compliance with CSC's standards and policies.

On a broader scale, CSC has implemented regular reviews of all supervision agencies across the country with which we have contracts, and we have also updated the documentation checklist to reflect all documents that are to be provided to those who are supervising federal offenders.

• 0950

As a reaction, Madam Chair, to the Russell investigation, CSC is pursuing the implementation of information-sharing agreements—we've been onto that and I think I've informed the committee of it before—both with courts and police agencies, and agreements have been signed with eight provinces and progress is being made in the rest of the country.

We are also, on the part of the service, widening the distribution of the results of national investigation reports across the organization. They are being shared with all heads of operational units. Senior managers at headquarters are being briefed every time we have a report coming in.

Summaries of the incidents investigated and their findings will appear in our publication, the one that several of you may know, called Let's Talk. It's a publication that receives circulation both internally and throughout the criminal justice system. So we try to be as open as possible.

Towards the end of this introduction, Madam Chair, let me try to set the context a little bit.

[Translation]

The field of corrections is not an exact science. It is a difficult field, even a very difficult one. Even when we do things right, the results are not always good. It's a fact. There are few Correctional Services, if any, which supervise their offenders better and more closely than the Correctional Service of Canada today.

[English]

We are, I would say, Madam Chair, setting very high standards for ourselves, and resources to match those standards are being put in place to ensure the best we can do. The best we can do is not a static thing. It's a thing that constantly improves with more insights into the business we are in.

[Translation]

Research results show clearly that gradual release increases the chances of safe re-entry into the community. Therefore, gradual release serves the interests of us all as citizens of Canada.

We must find the wisdom and the strength to consider these incidents as a departure from the norm, which is the safe reintegration of offenders. We must not turn a blind eye to these incidents, but learn from them.

On the other hand, we must not dismantle the system. Instead, we must double-check it and better it in order to be sure of its quality. This is what we have done, Madam Chair. What we have noted is that we have a system which is good in general and which contributes greatly to the protection of society.

[English]

These incidents, Madam Chair and honourable members, must be seen within the context of our mandate to contribute to the protection of society through the safe reintegration of offenders.

Risk-free management of risk does not exist. We issue drivers' licences to people and we know that some of them, we don't know who, will be involved in accidents. We know from hospitals that operations carry a certain risk, but the risk of not using operations is known to be higher than that of going through the procedure. But there is no risk-free procedure in that respect.

In any criminal justice system, we know that recidivism, relapse into crime, is a fact of life. We can do our best to improve it, but no system has so far been able to avoid recidivism completely. We're committed, Madam Chair, to carrying out our part of that risk management with the utmost diligence and also in accordance with professional standards.

• 0955

We know that we will not reach 100%, but we are committed to coming as close as humanly possible. Each failure is a tragedy and it is felt to be a tragedy by us. We don't get indifferent. We don't become indifferent to these incidents, and those tragedies deserve very special attention. I welcome your attention to these cases and we understand and accept that they need to be seen in the light of day, to be held up for accountability and to fair assessment in the light of what is humanly possible, and we need to learn from them.

We did not do as well as we should have. We did not in all instances follow our own—and I think well-justified—policies and systems.

I know that in tragedies like this the questions the public has, and that the committee I think would have, are what happened; who was to blame; what action has been taken to hold the individuals accountable; what action has been or is being taken to protect us from similar incidents in the future and how can we ensure that this will not happen again?

I have tried, Madam Chair, to give you some indications of what we have done. I recognize that we have two hours for questions and discussion this morning and two hours this afternoon for an in camera discussion. I would like to assure the committee once again of our full and honest cooperation with you.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ingstrup.

Mr. Gibbs.

[Translation]

Mr. Willie Gibbs (Chairman, National Parole Board): Madam Chair, members of the Committee, the Commissioner has mentioned that we're here today to discuss two cases with tragic consequences. And he has provided you with an outline of key events and findings from these two investigations.

So I won't discuss these cases in detail at this point, I'll wait to answer your questions. But I would like to make a few opening remarks. I also want to thank you for inviting us to appear before you today to discuss two specific investigations conducted jointly by the Board and the Correctional Service of Canada.

As you know, the Board and CSC work as partners in delivering federal programs of corrections and conditional release. In our partnership, we have different responsibilities. Mr. Ingstrup has already touched on CSC's responsibility for case preparation and supervision in the community.

The Board's mandate, with information and recommendations from CSC, is to make decisions on the timing and conditions of release of offenders to the community.

I'm here today to discuss with you what happened in two cases that went bad and to go over with you how we investigated the circumstances of those incidents.

[English]

Unfortunately, in the business of corrections and conditional release these tragic events do occur, and although they are happening less and less, each one of them is of serious concern to us, as I'm sure they are to you.

Still, our first priority continues to be public safety, as it is clearly stated in our legislation. And we believe that public safety is best served when CSC and the board work together to share information and assess and manage risk in order to return offenders to the community at the most appropriate time in the sentence.

As you know, most offenders return to the community eventually, and a gradual return with appropriate structure and supervision is better than, as the expression goes, a cold turkey return after years of incarceration.

• 1000

For offenders to succeed, they need support in the community to help them make the transition from prison to living as law-abiding citizens. The longer they are incarcerated, the more difficult it is to maintain those community supports—family, friends, potential employers, and so on—which they really need when they get out, if they are to have a real chance of succeeding. But there are some instances when things go wrong, with grievous consequences, as we'll discuss today.

What's critical to us, though, is that we never let any factor become an excuse for tragedy. We must strive constantly to eliminate these dreadful incidents through the best possible policies, programs, work practices and training in risk assessment and risk management. We must also learn from any mistake we make and from our best practices. That's why we conduct investigations. I believe it's integral to the achievement of a high standard of excellence in our organization.

We want to identify what happened and determine what we need to do to minimize the possibility of these incidents occurring in the future. This is key to our commitment to ensuring the safety of our communities. That's the reason we always use the community participation of an outside investigator in our investigations, someone who does not work at either the National Parole Board or the Correctional Service of Canada. This member of our investigation team helps us look at the larger context, both in the community in question and from the criminal justice perspective.

There are those who will say that we shouldn't be investigating ourselves, because we can't be objective in our assessment of what happened. I disagree. Anyone who has read our joint investigation reports will see that the conclusion quite often includes strongly worded references to what went wrong.

[Translation]

We want that type of feedback, we welcome it. We want to know what happened and we want to take corrective action, where appropriate. Where we can, we will correct those areas where we need to act immediately to circumvent future issues like those identified in the reports.

Legislators have acknowledged the need for us to look at ourselves and our operations. Our legislation includes provisions for conducting investigations based on the recognition that organizations must monitor their performance, identify shortcomings and make improvements.

The public release of investigation reports ensures accountability not just within our agencies but to you, our elected officials, and the Canadian public.

Our appearance today continues that process of openness and accountability. I'm here today to answer your questions concerning the Board's role in the area of conditional release, both generally, and specific to the two cases we will be discussing. We're as concerned as you are about public safety and we want to do our part to mitigate against tragedies like those before us today from occurring in the future. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I think this time I'll start with Mr. MacKay, because Mr. MacKay started this process. We'll start with a ten-minute round. Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1005

I want to thank each and every one of you for being here today. I listened very carefully to your presentations, and I know you will endeavour to answer all the questions that are posed to you.

I agree with the theme of your opening remarks, and that is, can we and could we have prevented these tragedies?

If I can break it down into two separate issues, there seems to have been a lack of exchange of information, and in some instances it appears that certain personnel were not following policy. Then it begs the question: Is that policy sufficient to protect persons in the community?

I do want to ask a few specific questions—and I know we have limited time.

It appears to me from reading the report and collateral information that was made available that in the case of Raymond Russell the victim, Darlene Turnbull, was not aware that Mr. Russell had previously been convicted of a murder. Is that your understanding?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: My understanding, Mr. MacKay, is that conversations had taken place between Mr. Russell and Mrs. Turnbull, and also that conversations had taken place—that's my information—between the parole officer and Mrs. Turnbull prior to Mr. Russell moving into that room he had rented.

My information indicates to me that Mrs. Turnbull was aware that Mr. Russell had served a life sentence, but I cannot guarantee you that the words “he has committed a murder” had been conveyed to her. We don't have evidence of that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, to dwell on that for a moment, does it not seem unusual to you that somebody who was going to house an individual, was going to take them into their home, would not be made aware of the fact that the person who was in their home had previously committed a murder?

Further, should that be policy, and in this specific case, should the person who was supervising and having contact with Mrs. Turnbull not have made her aware?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We usually do that, and obviously, as my information goes, a conversation had taken place between the parole officer and Mrs. Turnbull before Mr. Russell moved in. It's very likely, it's possible, that full disclosure took place in that conversation. What I'm saying, Mr. MacKay, is that our report doesn't say there is clear evidence that was said, so I can't assure you more than this.

Mr. Peter MacKay: As a result of this, has there been instruction given to this individual who was supervising that the procedure was not followed?

I'm still not clear on whether you're telling me there is a procedure that says that in all cases where a person is housing somebody on parole convicted of a murder or a serious offence—and that will lead into my next line of questioning about the reference to sexual convictions.... Should the person not be made aware?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Instead of giving you an answer that is not accurate, let me come back to you this afternoon with the exact wording of that policy.

I do know it depends, obviously, on the circumstances. Often when things like this happen, the person who invites an offender—that he or she knows is an offender—will also know about the offence. But we do have conversations with people, and under normal circumstances I would think in a case like this the conversation should include the fact that he had committed a murder. But let me bring with me this afternoon the exact wording of the policy.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can you also bring with you, if it's available, a copy of the parole officer's report on this incident?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: If it's available, yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Are you aware that it will be available?

• 1010

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I can't tell you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect to the victim here, Darlene Turnbull, again it's my understanding from reading these reports and collateral information that at no time did the person supervising Raymond Russell visit her home. Is that correct?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, that's not my impression. My information is that indeed more than one visit took place at the home of Mrs. Turnbull while Mr. Russell was there.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And was the parole officer himself the one who conducted this home visit?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's my understanding.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Similarly, you referenced the fact that it was known by previous breaches of parole that when Mr. Russell was not employed he tended to fall back on his old ways and had been convicted previously of breaching parole. In this instance, was there an effort made by the parole officer to meet with his potential employer? And we know that this employment did not last very long.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, as a matter of fact he was not being employed, and mistakes were made in that context insofar as the National Parole Board had been adequately cautious and asked for a specific report if the employment thing fell through, and we did not inform the Parole Board. That's what their report says.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Why did that happen?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That was a mistake.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Was it the mistake on the part of your department not instructing that the parole officer—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —was required to do that, or did the parole officer not follow procedure?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It was the parole officer obviously not following the decision by the National Parole Board in that particular respect. A report to the Parole Board that Mr. Russell's employment prospect fell through was not submitted to the board although the board had asked for it.

That's what the investigation report is saying. And obviously in all of these cases we go carefully through the report afterwards to see what can we do to make sure these things do not happen in the future.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Ingstrup, is it your understanding that it was a strong indicator in psychological reports that Mr. Russell, when not employed, had the tendency to fall back on his previous criminal behaviour, whether by associates or whether by having time on his hands, and this information was available and could have been available to the parole officer?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, I think the information was available to the parole officer. But it's also true as I understand it that Mr. Russell throughout this whole process had a number of different jobs and some job changes that did not lead to recidivism.

But there is no doubt, Mr. MacKay, that there was an obligation on our part to inform the Parole Board and it did not happen. So we're obviously taking corrective action.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In this case, can you tell us what the fate of the parole officer in question has been as a result?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I cannot. This is one of the things we will have to discuss this afternoon.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's fine.

I alluded to this earlier in my question, and again I suggest to you that there was information—and it was information again readily available—with respect to Mr. Russell's previous conviction for an offence involving a sexual component. Mr. Russell continually downplayed this in interviews, and once more I suggest to you that this information was not made available to either the parole officer or Miss Turnbull in this case.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There is some truth to that. What I would say is that the information, as I understand the report, was not all that readily available.

As a matter of fact I understand that the parole officer, or the system, the service, did make an attempt to get full information about the case back in 1982, which is the one I guess we're talking about. They were not successful in obtaining that information at the time. If I view that situation in the light of today's policies, then I would say they were not, we were not, persistent enough in getting that information.

• 1015

What has happened is that over the years, Madam Chair, we have done a lot of work in attempting to improve the information-collection side of our house. I would argue that our system is a lot better today than it was at the time. There's no doubt about that.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that we now have written agreements with police forces, crown prosecutors, judges, and provinces to get information. I think there's a clear understanding on the part of our parole officers, and institutional people as well, that this is very important. If you compare files today to those of 10 or 15 years ago, there's no comparison.

Is that a guarantee that we will always have all the information on file? No, it isn't. There are still incidents in which it's just not possible to get the information.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This is not one of those incidents, I suggest; this information was available.

I do appreciate that we're coming at this from a 20/20 hindsight perspective. I fully appreciate that. But the overall theme here is that a ramification of the breakdown in communication or a lack of information exchange on this level is tragic: it's life and death. We've seen this demonstrated here.

Is it matter of diligence? Is it a matter of training these parole officers? Or is it a matter of simply having this information mandatorily exchanged?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think it's a matter of all three, but it's definitely a matter of the mandatory nature of information collection. We imposed on our officers—this started in 1994—a much heavier burden of ensuring that information is collected.

In 1994, Correctional Service Canada renewed what we call its intake assessment process. I can give you the documents about it if you're interested in seeing it. But you will clearly see that gathering information pertaining to previous offences has a completely different profile from what it had years ago.

It's my sincere conviction that we will get more information in the vast majority of cases. If we don't get it right away, particularly in serious cases, we will display a lot more vigilance in getting that information than the service did before, quite frankly.

The Chair: We're at about 13 minutes now, but I've added your name to the bottom of the list. Mr. Thompson, 10 minutes.

Mr. Myron Thompson: First, I would like to talk in general regarding the statistics of the reports you folks put out. This is a ten-year report, from 1987-96. I see that for the first nine years of that ten-year span, everything was rather stable in terms of the number of serious offences committed while on conditional release. In 1994-95 there was a high peak of 256. In 1995-96 we went down to 165, which was a significant drop.

I am wondering whether you people have the statistics for 1996-97.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: The total is 195.

Mr. Myron Thompson: It's back up a few.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: It's back up a bit. This particular fiscal year, the projection is in between 165 and 195. It has come down a little bit.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Chair, at some point in time, I'd like to have them table the latest statistics for our benefit.

The Chair: Do we have something in writing available?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: It's in here, too. This is the report that was tabled in Parliament last fall.

The Chair: The annual report. Okay.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you.

Gentlemen, when I look at the statistics, what I'm looking at over the span of time is approximately 2,100 Canadians who have been seriously offended by persons who were out on conditional release, including 206 lives that were lost over that period of time. With 2,100 victims I'm looking at thousands more in terms of family members and friends and a community of contacts who suffer a great deal because of these various things happening.

• 1020

Mr. Ingstrup, I appreciate your wanting to take the full blame. You said the CSC was responsible for these last two cases; you're holding yourself accountable. Don't beat yourself up too badly, sir, because Parliament is the one that makes the rules and regulations that you have to follow. Is that not correct?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's the way I see it.

Mr. Myron Thompson: That's the way I see them too. Perhaps the Parliament and the government of the day that is setting the rules and regulations that it's required to follow need to take a good look at what they're doing as well. It's time to stop playing Russian roulette with the Canadian public in regard to individuals. These two cases are just another example of that.

When I look at Russell's background and I take a look at some of the things that were said about him, obviously this individual was never considered a low-risk candidate. He was also sentenced to life for murder. Why would a person like Russell be considered for parole?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm now going by memory, but you have the report that Mr. Russell was released on day parole after his full parole eligibility date. He was on what has been reported as compliant day parole for almost three years. So when he reached the point of parole he was actually 14 years into the sentence. Obviously, sir, when a judge decides that parole eligibility is after 10 years we have an obligation to consider the person. When I look at this particular case I cannot say that the service or for that matter the National Parole Board rushed to get that individual out.

Madam Chair, I don't know if I may comment on Mr. Thompson's viewpoint. That is of course a very valid viewpoint. There are people in the Canadian public who are being victimized by individuals who come one way or the other out of the federal or provincial correctional system.

I'd like to mention one thing, because often we find that the perception is that it is a very large proportion. We did a very thorough study a few years back, so the numbers are not completely up to date, but it is still very interesting. Statistics Canada told us that in 1991 a total of 2,950,000 Criminal Code and federal drug offences were investigated by the police. It was very close to three million.

Of these incidents, we looked into how many of those were related to offenders who had left the federal system. The result of that is that 11 of every 10,000 violent offences, including murders, were related to people who came from our system. And 9,989 had nothing to do with people associated with the prison system. Two out of ten thousand property offences were related to our people. They had committed them, that was clear. Ten out of ten thousand drug offences and five out of every ten thousand sexual offences.

So they are there, you're absolutely right, Mr. Thompson; there is no doubt about it. When you look at it within the prime picture, as I tried to demonstrate here, it's not quite as high as many people would think.

• 1025

Mr. Myron Thompson: I would suggest to you that the public doesn't view it quite in the same light, and I think you'd agree with that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Myron Thompson: The victims are of course the biggest concern. We don't want victims. If I look at the factors regarding Mr. Russell, who was considered to be emotionally unstable, there was serious drug and alcohol abuse, and there was no evidence of being cured of any of these things. He showed little remorse towards victims throughout the period of time. He was violent and impulsive and it appears to me that there are so many factors that once again I'm going to ask you why he would be considered for parole.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I can only try to imagine what led to the decision. Russell had never committed anything violent throughout the more than ten years that he spent in prisons. While he was on day parole for almost three years he never broke any conditions. We tested him according to our information on a regular basis. We did urine testing to see if we could find any traces of drugs and alcohol. We never did, according to the information we have.

Does that mean we can just disregard him in terms of danger? Absolutely not. And some mistakes were made. I want to just make sure you understand that he was a person who we followed very carefully and who did not give us any indications of what was about to happen.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. MacKay pursued the question in regard to the knowledge that Ms. Turnbull had. I'm also curious, because a prospective employer by the name of Mr. Strickland who was going to employ Mr. Russell indicated he had no knowledge of the history of this individual whatsoever, and yet he was going to be placed in his employ. He had the understanding that he was nothing more than a car thief. Are you aware of that?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I am. Mr. Thompson, I have information that is very different from your information. My information is that we have talked to that employer. According to a document I have in front of me here, he has told our people that he did indeed know that Mr. Russell was sentenced for what he was sentenced for.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Chair, perhaps I could table a letter from Mr. Strickland that I received in response to that.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you. I was going to do that, because I also have a copy of the letter Mr. MacKay is referring to, and there's certainly no indication of that whatsoever. In fact, it's just the opposite. So that needs to be tabled.

The Chair: If you have a copy of it, why don't you table it?

Mr. Myron Thompson: I certainly will.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I only have this information and I would be quite prepared to table that as well. I could read from it, Madam Chair. This is some way down in the text here, where he says he asked one of his employees, and I quote:

I asked if his wife had met Mr. Russell and knew his history. I am not clear if he said if they met or not but did indicate that she was open to having him work there. I asked him if he knew what Mr. Russell was serving time for and he indicated he did.

I am not saying that your information is wrong. I am quoting the information I have. I'm quite prepared—

Mr. Myron Thompson: Obviously that's what Russell told him.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It goes on to say:

I asked if he'd like to know more and he declined (“no”) stating he knew enough from Mr. Russell and that everyone deserves a second chance.

That's the document I have.

Mr. Myron Thompson: We have a personal letter and that will all sort itself out, I would assume, over the hearings.

The Chair: Let's just hold on for a minute. We have a letter here that was circulated to members of Parliament. Is that correct, Mr. MacKay?

I don't think all members received it, but Mr. MacKay has given me a copy that we will accept as a tabled document and we'll get copies available for everyone. We'll get one for you too, Mr. Ingstrup.

• 1030

Mr. Thompson, you're at about 12 minutes. Shall I stick you on the bottom of the list?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Can I have one last short one?

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'd like to ask Mr. Gibbs a question, because I didn't get to this. He's talking about community supporters and support and how important that is. I'd like to know to what extent the parole board makes people knowledgeable about the individuals who are coming into their presence.

Second, I have a statement regarding Hector that says that despite the use of a gun during the robberies he was convicted of, the National Parole Board did not consider offender Hector a violent offender because he never actually fired the gun. Is that true?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes, it's true. When it happened that the two board members who voted on his case—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, I want to know whether I heard this correctly. Two board members are the ones who voted on this gentleman with this background?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes, there were two who voted on his day parole and two who voted later on his full parole.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: So there were four board members. The four of them were under the impression that this was a non-violent offence.

They were mistaken, all of them. We instructed not only those four members, but all the members across the land, that armed robbery, whether a gun is fired or just loaded, is under schedule one of the act and it's a violent offence. Therefore, they were corrected because of that.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you. Thank you for your kindness, Madam Chair.

The Chair: That's fine. Mrs. Finestone, do you want to lead off here?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I must say to Mr. Gibbs that I've been listening with a great deal of interest to the information that's being shared with us.

Mr. Gibbs, is it a fact that the National Parole Board agreed with the recommendation and is committed to ensuring that the results of investigation reports...? I'll read from your own recommendations:

NPB is committed to ensuring that the results of investigation reports are distributed widely within the organization. Currently, NPB distributes twenty-eight copies of each investigation report within the Regions and National Office. All reports are made available in both official languages.

—this is all very impressive—

A copy of the executive summary of each report is provided to all Board members through the Regional Vice-Chairpersons and the Vice-Chairperson, Appeal Division. A copy of the complete report is available to any Board member who wishes

—I underscore this—

to read the results in detail. In addition, Regional Directors receive a copy of each report, including an executive summary, and provide access to the report for staff members who wish to review its contents.

I'd like to ask you something, Mr. Gibbs. You are an order-in-council appointment?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do you believe that when you undertake an oath to carry out the task that's been assigned to you or any other member of that board, you can complete your task effectively, efficiently, and in the interest of the general public by having reports made available? And if you wish, you'll read it, and if you don't wish, you won't read it. You have a very enlightened approach to your responsibilities, so it's a voluntary undertaking.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: In the previous information that you gave us, it's all correct. There are 28 reports, and all regional offices get a report.

What each board member gets is an executive summary, the findings, and the recommendations vis-à-vis all cases. Each report, as you know, is fairly thick, and so on, so as long as they read the gist of the findings and recommendations in order to learn from mistakes and so on, we're satisfied with that.

• 1035

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I find that quite amazing, Mr. Gibbs. I find it absolutely astonishing. How many cases would a Parole Board order-in-council person have to read in the course of a month, on average?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Of this nature?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes, of this nature.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: It wouldn't be one a month. It would be—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It wouldn't be one a month. Would it be too taxing to expect them to read the entire report from all sources available—corrections, the parole officers, the correctional officers, the psychological testing and everything else? Do you think it would be a terribly onerous task? How many pages would they have to read in the course of the month?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: There would be one report approximately every two months. As I say, they have—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: And they get paid, what—every week, every month? On call?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I can't answer that.

You've seen the two reports. You know how many pages they are. In my view, if they get the main issues that are raised, the results, the findings, and recommendation, it is sufficient.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I find that totally inappropriate, Mr. Gibbs. I find it to be an utter disgrace. Knowing some of the people who have been on the parole boards, I would suggest there must be some very conscientious ones and some very lazy ones. And some of those are responsible for some of the very serious matters we are looking at. The well-being of our society was jeopardized by lazy, incompetent...and no demand for a full reading and a full understanding of the case.

I don't know anything about this kind of work, but I just read the case, and with just the casual information that I have here, it seems that anyone in their right mind would know that you had to do a better understanding of the case before you put them out on parole.

Yes, I truly believe that you have an obligation and there is an ability to put people into society and return them to everyday life. But that is conditional on the case and the circumstances of the particular individual. If it is in our purview to help people to get back, and it isn't a pure science, and you have to have caution and care—fine. Then you have to be doubly cautious and doubly careful before you put them out, and at least have the obligation to read and understand and question the case.

With that in mind, I really would like to know whether a signed process is in place, Mr. Ingstrup. If your correctional officers go in, and they're supervising, and they're working with a parole board person or with the John Howard Society, if the information has been shared that this person used a gun, or committed a murder, or whatever the person did according to the information that's in there and could be a danger to the public, is there some kind of a signed undertaking? Is there a signature so that the man who was going to hire him or the woman who was going to house him has—and your officers have—in writing an understanding, so that you don't have to have the kinds of questions Mr. MacKay had to put to you? Are there no signed documents anywhere?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The signed document is an implied signature in the sense that parole officers put information on file. Since it is their file, there is no doubt whose information it is. We don't have a policy in place that everything has to be signed in the traditional manner, but there's no doubt either where the information comes from and who is responsible for it.

Mrs. Finestone, I just have a feeling that maybe there's a misunderstanding about the reading thing. To the best of my knowledge, it's not optional for board members—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It says it right here, sir.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: —or for my members to read the individual file that you go through. It's the investigation files where managers will take care of ensuring that board members, I would guess, and certainly our members, are aware of the facts and of what has to be done. These are two different types of reports.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Ingstrup, I wasn't asking you.... These are public servants. These are at-large appointments under the interests of whatever.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I appreciate that.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'd like to understand something else. The conversations are recorded at will, and you have people you hire to do some of this supervision. Yet in one of the cases you said in your report that the John Howard person was fired. Why would you fire a John Howard worker who didn't have the privilege of half the information he needed to do his job in the first place? Why was he fired? And why would you then go and sign a contract with another private sector service? On what grounds did you do this?

• 1040

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Well, Madam Chair and Mrs. Finestone, let me try to explain to you what happened up there. We did not fire any member of the John Howard Society—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I read it somewhere, and I—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Since that individual who supervised Mr. Hector was the only person at the John Howard Society who did work for us at that time, we terminated the contract. Why did we terminate the contract? Because the person did not meet the standards that were stipulated in the contract. This means in terms of his knowledge about CSC's two supervision standards. His way of undertaking supervision was not carried out in accordance with the contractual obligations. Therefore, the contract was terminated.

The reason we have another person doing supervisory work up there is that this person has been doing supervisory work for us for a long time, and has done excellent work. Reviews of that individual's work have revealed that there is absolutely no problem in that individual's way of supervising.

So the way I see it is that very responsible management decisions were made, a contract was broken, and the contract was terminated. Another contract is audited, it is doing fine, so it is continued.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Ingstrup, you're talking about one individual within the John Howard Society. I have great respect for the John Howard Society, as I do for the Elizabeth Fry Society. When I see the name of the society used, and the person with whom you had the contract used, in terms of the John Howard Society, and you terminate the John Howard Society, as opposed to the individual, it bothers me. That's what I heard. I may have misheard. I don't think I misread, but I think I misheard.

And then you go to another contractor, a private sector contractor, instead of working out why the John Howard person.... I don't know that person, and I don't know Thunder Bay, so it has nothing to do with that; it's a matter of principle.

You were equally, if not more, at fault as this person who was supervising, because you didn't give him enough information. You don't even have written records on the basis of which you go and then supervise.

I just feel that when we have a group, a non-governmental organization, that has a fine record across this country not being given the opportunity.... As a matter of fact, I want to hear from the John Howard Society. To have a contract terminated without grounds, and then who you hired.... I don't know, who did you hire? What kind of replacement was it, and why didn't you hire them in the first place if they were so marvellous? Why did you give the contract to the John Howard Society?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mrs. Finestone, I'd like to say a couple of things.

We have several contracts with the John Howard Society. We have the utmost respect for the John Howard Society. As a matter of fact, we could not do our supervision job as well as we do without the John Howard Society. They play a significant role, and they do a superb job in the vast majority of cases. As in our own area, Mrs. Finestone, the John Howard Society has cases that go wrong, too, and we deal with them.

What I said in my opening remarks—and I think I emphasized this—is I'm not talking about the John Howard Society in general. I was talking about the John Howard Society in Thunder Bay. As I understand it, at the time the John Howard Society Thunder Bay consisted of one person, namely the one who supervised these people.

Who is the other person who supervised? That is an interesting thing in this context, someone with whom we now have a contract. It seems that it works excellently, both according to our experience and according to the audit. That person is a woman who used to be the executive director of the John Howard Society, has now retired, but has done excellent work for us over the years.

• 1045

So this is not at all a question of trying to put guilt on the John Howard Society. And you're absolutely right, Mrs. Finestone, we had our share of faults in that case, which is also very clearly outlined in the report. We did not give the John Howard Society all the information they wanted. We did approve of certain practices that we should not have approved.

So it's not a question of trying to unload responsibility on John Howard. And I would really hope that this committee understands the degree to which we are indebted to the John Howard Society and its activities.

By the way, if I may mention this, we are also indebted to other voluntary organizations: the St. Leonard's Society, and I could mention a lot more.

We have over 150 halfway houses that are operated very well under contract to CSC by voluntary and not-for-profit organizations. We could not survive.... And we should also not forget that this sector originates a lot of the progressive and safe things that are happening in corrections.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you. Quite frankly, Mr. Ingstrup, I think that what I was looking for was exactly that, and I feel very strongly about that.

I just want to know if there is a difference in the contract price. Having one who insults the past officer at Thunder Bay who was the director, and then wasn't, and is now on contract, is there a significant difference in the amount of money you would have paid in normal cases to John Howard for a supervisory contract, as opposed to the other private sector? You've mentioned private sector contracts a number of times.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: To the best of my knowledge, the price is pretty standardized. If there are any significant variances, I'll let you know this afternoon. We'll look into it between now and then.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Finestone.

Just on a question of process and time, apparently the government operations committee is coming in at 11 o'clock, so we're a little boxed in. So I'm going to go to smaller rounds of about five minutes. I'll go to Mr. Ramsay, and if we can be as brief as possible, it will allow all our colleagues to participate.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I just want to make a comment to follow up on the area of competence Mrs. Finestone covered quite adequately.

We have heard testimony this morning about this particular area, and specifically that four board members did not know that armed robbery was considered a violent offence. What are they doing on the board if they don't know that armed robbery is considered to be a violent offence? So I speak about the competence.

I want to get to a specific issue. You can respond to that, but I want to get to a specific issue. I only have five minutes. The issue is the Russell case.

Russell developed a relationship with a lady in April 1995. It was a very close relationship, because it appeared that he was spending so much time with this woman that it was interfering with his job-hunting efforts. In January 1996, seven or eight months later, that relationship broke up.

I want to know whether at the time the relationship broke up that lady was contacted to determine why, from her side of the story, the relationship broke up.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I guess the question is to me.

What we know from the report is that the board of investigation pointed out that the supervisor did not interview Mr. Russell's ex-girlfriend. The board says—and I agree with the board—that this was a missed opportunity to get more information about Mr. Russell.

The board does not say that the supervisor was in violation of policies, but in terms of judgment, I think the board is right. Certainly in hindsight, it would have been a good opportunity, and it was not pursued.

• 1050

Mr. Jack Ramsay: The information members of this committee have received is that this relationship broke up on almost a violent note. This lady had to get three of her male friends into her home to ensure that this individual, Mr. Russell, vacated the premises and didn't come back. I don't know whether this is accurate or not.

What I want to know from you is whether or not this lady, whose name is scratched out in the report I've read, was contacted by the investigators who investigated this matter after the murder of Darlene Turnbull.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, she was contacted, Mr. Ramsay. In the unvetted report you will see this afternoon, you will maybe have a better description than what is available in what you have of what actually happened during the break-up of the relationship.

She was talked to by the board members, but not by the supervisor.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Was there any indication that Mr. Russell exhibited any violence towards this lady with whom he had that relationship? Was she afraid of him? Is there any indication of that within the report?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: As I recall, it was not sort of a matter-of-fact negotiation: we each go our way. There was some shouting and pushing around, but it's not my recollection that there was any kind of attack by Mr. Russell or anything. There may have been some pushing, but no attack that looks like a murder attempt, or serious, violent attempt.

On the other hand, it was not a cold, matter-of-fact, break-up situation that was described by the board. This afternoon you will get the full information that the board has obtained from that particular individual.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay. Maybe we can pursue that a little more this afternoon.

I'll go to Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Madame Chair.

I have two questions specifically. First, is it not a policy within national parole or corrections not to parole somebody into an area they came from if they happen to be a sexual offender?

I can tell you, we had cases where we had sexual offenders who started in our area and were specifically told they could not go back to that community for parole. I can provide you with the names, and what have you. We also had cases in our area where our community received sexual offenders from other communities. We knew absolutely nothing about that, and it resulted in rape, murder, and everything else within our community.

As a matter of policy, I'd much rather have the offender from my community back—I know the offender, and the community knows the offender—than to have somebody nobody knows. There are also some good reasons for it, including the fact that the individual probably has some level of support.

Let me turn to my second question. I used to do bail supervision. We used to do it for virtually peanuts. I'd look at the supervision caseload carried by the Thunder Bay office. It was between 28 and 38 cases.

You know, if they're incarcerated, 30 cases at $50,000 a year per case comes out to some pretty big dollars. I don't see the resources in terms of manpower going to it. I see an area director who is supervising people on parole. That individual has 17 of them? I don't conceivably see how that person can effectively do supervision.

• 1055

Also, I look at the infrequency of visits to that person. It was once a week, then once every two weeks, then once a month. There is a total lack of any kind of verification as to whether that individual is working and what is happening to his financial situation. I just find it totally unbelievable.

Now, you mentioned that the John Howard Society person didn't have the qualifications. Well, surely to God, before that person is doing any supervision, the Correctional Service of Canada would have been there making sure that this individual does meet that qualification they're looking for.

As a person who has done supervision before, I just find that in terms of case work, this is incredibly lax on both cases. I look at the provincial situation, and I know that in some cases they have probation officers who are handling 100 to 140 people to supervise in the province of Ontario. They do nothing more than virtually marking off when they report in.

I really would like to get a better understanding of this. If somebody is going to be working with 17 cases, what kind of supervision can they realistically do?

The Chair: Mr. Gibbs.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Madam Chair, I'd like to deal with the first question vis-à-vis National Parole Board policy on releasing certain offenders, and where.

By and large, when a person is deemed to be fit or ready to be released, they are released in the community where they come from. On occasion, depending on the case...and depending on the two cases in particular we're talking about, they both started with day paroles. So it depends on whether there's a community correctional centre, or a community-release residential centre in that particular community.

So on occasion we release people in communities where they don't come from originally, but we do not have a strict policy that they have to return to their community or otherwise.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Telegdi, I want to speak to the second question. I can go into details this afternoon, but not now. I can just say to you that in this particular John Howard Society Thunder Bay situation, the supervisor did not lack qualifications, and I can document that this afternoon. He lacked attention to the policies in front of him. That also happened on our side. So again, it's not a question of blaming just the John Howard Society.

The second question you raised was about verification. No, enough was not done. As I said in my opening remarks, not only did the John Howard Society supervisor not collect collateral information, but our area manager approved of that. None of that should have happened. So there was a mistake. It's not the policy that was wrong; it was the application that was lacking.

The most important of your questions is really the question of resources. I would like to say that in every case you could ask for more resources. But relative to its population in the community, the Correctional Service of Canada has the largest investment in community resources of any correctional service anywhere in the world that I know of.

Even at the time we are talking about here, the supervisor had a lot to do, and this may be one of the reasons that not all the work was done. There were 17 under supervision. This individual was well below what is considered the best possible standards, namely one parole officer to 25 parolees.

So I would.... I'm not taking exception to what you are saying. It's an issue we have discussed, of course, very carefully. But I would like to say that if there's any correctional service that has invested in what I would call relapse prevention—starting with programs in institutions, management of cases in preparation for the board, and supervision and programs in the community—it is the Correctional Service of Canada. I know of no other correctional service that spends 25% of its budget on trying to ensure that society is as well protected as possible in the transition between institutions and the community.

• 1100

Thank you very much.

The Chair: I'm going maintain the list I have, so we'll get back to this this afternoon.

Colleagues, can I suggest to you that we come here and get started promptly at 3 o'clock? We're going to have a vote at somewhere around 5 o'clock or 5.30, and I want to be able to maximize the amount of time we have. I can see we have question after question ongoing.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Chair, with respect to the motion that I put forward that I've agreed to delay to this afternoon with respect to these binders, I wonder if we could get some indication whether we're going to be given an opportunity to look at those binders. I know they're being referred to throughout the evidence.

The Chair: Can you and I talk about that? I have some fundamental problems with that as chair, of simply ordering that documents willy-nilly be produced.

My guess is they've speculated that these questions might be asked, and if they're asked, these are the answers, and that sort of thing. Frankly, I don't think that's any of our business, but I do think having particular documents tabled as we go along may in fact be.

So I think we should discuss what kinds of papers you want. I'm not saying no to you; I'm saying I want to be a little clear on what you say, because if it's to have a fishing expedition in the files that are present in the room, I would not be inclined to rule that it's acceptable. So why don't we talk about it?

They're not going to leave anything for you—I can tell you that—because I think the agreement is that we'll look at the documents in camera with a closed room.

Mr. Ingstrup.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I want to know, Madam Chair, should we be here with the unvetted reports at 3 o'clock, or would you rather that we come earlier? How would you like to do that this afternoon?

The Chair: I want people to move back here as quickly as possible at 3 o'clock, so it may be 3.05. But if you could be here with those reports at 3 o'clock, that would be helpful.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We certainly will.

The Chair: Okay. We're adjourned.