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]

Wednesday, April 22, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): This is Wednesday, April 22, 1998, and we have three witnesses with us today, three members who are either new or have just been reappointed to the National Parole Board. These hearings are pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111 and are a review of order in council appointments.

I welcome Kathy Louis, who is a member of the National Parole Board from the Pacific region; Cindy Caudron, who is from the north; and Patricia Thériault from Montreal.

Did any of you have statements you wished to make or did you expect to come and answer questions?

A witness: The latter.

The Chair: All right. That's fine.

Mr. Ramsay, do you want to open, or Mr. Thompson?

So that you get the drill, basically government members sit on my right and opposition members on my left. We'll start with Mr. Thompson, and depending on what other questions people have, I won't set a time limit just now.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): That's good.

The Chair: We're going to keep in mind that these are public servants and we're going to be courteous and kind.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'm always courteous and I'm always kind and I'm very polite.

The Chair: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'm going to welcome the ladies and congratulate the two new ones. I've got some specific questions for the two new members that I'll get to in a few minutes.

However, I would like to start off immediately with a major concern of mine. I am not sure whether or not you are aware of the prison escape that happened in my riding recently, at Bowden Penitentiary, where two inmates were in ex-minimum security. One was on a day pass and one had very recently been denied parole because he was considered to be high risk by the parole board, yet he remained in minimum security outside the walls working in a garden and it was very easy for him to escape. He just left.

Consequently, there were members of the families of these two convicts who were extremely frightened. They learned about their escape through the media. They tracked it through the media. There was no response from any officials whatsoever.

The one thing that was brought to my attention that I'm really concerned about was that the National Parole Board placed conditions on parolees. In one of the cases, this fellow by the name of Kennedy who was on a day pass, the parole board placed conditions that if he was ever to be released on conditional release or whatever, the one condition they placed upon him was that he was not to have any contact with his wife or his victims, yet these very same people went to visit him. One of the girls was going to meet him at the Greyhound bus station at some point in time when he was on pass, at the inmate's request. In fact, they were doing everything the parole board had instructed them not to do. Yet that was part of the condition under which he would be out on day pass or whatever.

My question is this. When CSC goes ahead and does these things and allows these things and arranges these things, which are in direct conflict with the conditions set by the parole board, how do you feel about that happening? What would be your response to a prison official, or anyone else, who has actually set up some of the very things that the parole board said should not be allowed and made it a condition? Do you understand what I'm getting at?

The Chair: I'm wondering to whom you're addressing the question.

• 1540

Mr. Myron Thompson: I think I will address it to Kathy, first of all. She has the most experience, I understand. Then I might get some feelings from the others, if they care to respond.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Kathy J. Louis (Member, National Parole Board): First of all I want to say, as a decision maker on the National Parole Board, I feel terrible when those kinds of situations happen. I can tell you that when I make decisions on release, I look at all the information in front of me. I look at the police report, the crown counsel report, the defence counsel report—on occasion we have that information too—the court documents, the Correctional Service reports that are presented to the board for risk assessment purposes in doing the risk assessment on offenders.

When I release an offender, I am satisfied they are not going to reoffend based on the information I have in front of me. When they go out into the community and I have set conditions, I expect those conditions to be met. However CSC, in terms of parole officers, are not part of the board, they are part of the Correctional Service Canada and they do have standards. Maybe I can just say that as a decision maker I expect the conditions I impose on offenders to be carried out. I don't know if that satisfies your question.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I am pleased to hear you expect that. But when it doesn't occur, do you think there should be any action taken? For example, in Kennedy's case and Wannamaker, the other fellow who escaped with him, a Christmas social was taking place. It is a well-known fact that was presented to the parole committee members that one of them virtually assaulted, to some degree, one of the visitors who came to see Kennedy. The actual victims, to begin with, who were members of the family, were brought before the prisoners at a social during one of the visits.

Wannamaker was then punished and ostracized by the Correctional Service for having made advances to one of the daughters, who was the victim of the other one. Conditions were then set very strongly that this was never to happen, particularly when they were on release. It was pointed out plainly that Kennedy should have no contact with the ex-wife, no contact with the victims—it was pointed out by the board—upon conditional release. Yet some of these things were almost arranged by his advisers and case workers.

One of the girls was contacted by Kennedy himself and told that he had permission and was going to visit her and would like her to go to the bus station and he would meet her there, etc.

It seems there are poor communications between the two. You expect your decisions to be followed, but if they aren't, what action can you take?

Ms. Kathy Louis: If I may, Madam Chair, I am not at liberty to discuss personal cases such as have been mentioned.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Fine, I understand that. But I know it happens quite frequently and I know it has been a concern of board members.

Let's take it to a broader sense—

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault (Member, National Parole Board): I would like to clarify that the Board imposes specific conditions when it deems them to be reasonable and necessary to control risk. These conditions are then quite often violated. The Board generally collaborates with Correctional Services when it comes to surveillance of individuals who are on day parole, full parole or statutory release. Where Correctional Services becomes aware of a violation of its conditions, it generally brings the file back in front of the Board. Moreover, this is what the Board expects. At this point, the Board re-evaluates the risk factor following violation of the conditions. If the Board is of the opinion that the risk to society is no longer acceptable because the violation of conditions has increased the risk, it can then, without needing a recommendation from Correctional Services, automatically revoke the release that was granted to the inmate.

• 1545

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Okay, and then I assume that's what you feel should be done when there's a violation of these conditions.

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: Indeed.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: There was a Correctional Service Canada report put out—from 1987 to 1996—by the Solicitor General's office of the number of convictions and crimes that were committed by individuals while they were on conditional release. These were serious charges including murder, attempted murder, sex assault, major assault, down to other sensational assaults.

For the 10-year period, it went from 245 to 243, then to 250, then down to 235, 237, 226, up to 240 and in 1994-95 even higher, to 256. In 1995-96, there was a significant drop. Strangely enough, that was exactly the same year in which incarceration was very high. More people were in prison than ever before and fewer releases were made and there was a lot less crime, of course.

The fact is, there's a total of 2,097 new victims in the land at the hands of people who have been let out on conditional release. I believe that when we take violent offenders and put them on conditional release and the results are that high, it's too big a sacrifice to ask Canadians to pay to continue down this path of releasing violent offenders on conditional release.

Do you think that sacrifice is too high, when it results in 2,097 new victims, including 207 murdered? Is it too high a price to pay, to continue down that path and saying because we're 90% successful we should continue to release these individuals, when that's the kind of sacrifice we're making? It's not getting better. It stays pretty stable.

I ask any one of you who cares to answer—maybe all three of you—how you personally feel about that.

The Chair: Ms. Louis, do you want to start?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Maybe I can say that hindsight is always 20/20 and we can learn from these kinds of situations. In fact, we do learn from these kinds of incidents.

To reflect back on your previous question, Mr. Thompson, I understand CSC is conducting a review of that case you made reference to in your first question. For your information, I thought I'd share that with you.

Of course, one reoffence is always too many, and yet the laws of the country are such that there is a conditional release process that is integral to the criminal justice system in Canada. Parole is a means of reintegrating offenders back into the community. In fact, that protects the community and gives guidance and assistance to the offenders who are released but who, in fact, continue to serve their sentence in the community.

While the statistics you mentioned might be alarming— That concerns me as a member of the public. I represent the community, I am part of the community. So it's something I do not take lightly, as a decision maker. We apply the law, we apply the policies. When cases go wrong, there are case audits and investigations conducted. As I mentioned to you, CSC, on their own, conduct internal audits, which is apparently being done on the cases mentioned here.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I can assume, then, that your answer is no, it's not too big a sacrifice. I say that because in a 10-year span, even though we learn from our mistakes and we make changes, it doesn't get better. It isn't getting better.

What we're really saying is that we can look forward to these numbers of people being harmed by individuals let out of prison who are considered to be testy, in terms of their violence and what they have committed in the past, and that it's okay to continue down that path.

I really have a difficult time saying to Canadian people that this is the way it's going to be. We have these figures. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree, but I'd like to hear how the newcomers feel about that.

• 1550

Ms. Cindy Caudron (Member, National Parole Board): I have to tell you that I'm very much a newcomer; I'm eight days old. But I can certainly share with you that I, as well, prior to coming to the parole board, had a lot of skepticism in terms of what exactly they did do.

I come from the Northwest Territories. If I can call this an advantage— some may not see it that way. Down in the south, you have a lot of contact with politics on a different level and with statistical information. More than often, I've seen statistical information being presented representing Canada in which the Northwest Territories and our sister territory, the Yukon, have not been represented.

I thought, before I came in contact with the parole board, that by working as a parole officer I would get these people out on release and then say, my God, what are these people doing? However, I do have to convey to you that every person I get out on a release was manageable in terms of the conditions that were set out by the parole board.

I certainly share your concerns. I agree with my colleague that one is one too many. I had a lot of questions when I came to the parole board about exactly how you come to this place of allowing people who have been ordered to incarceration to be released. I was very critical. My feeling at that time was that when somebody was ordered to life, then they should stay in jail forever and ever, and they should never come out. I can certainly tell you now that based on the last eight days that I've spent with the National Parole Board, looking at their extensive and intensive training package, on my part, my feeling certainly was due to a lack of education about what the National Parole Board bases its decisions, principles, and concern on for every Canadian out there.

Certainly, it has been brought across to me—this will be my feeling as well in terms of making decisions—that if I should release someone under conditions, then I had better be well prepared to have that person live next door to me and be in the same company as that of my own child. I certainly have found that very well supported. I certainly respect and feel confident as a Canadian citizen that the National Parole Board is exercising every avenue to ensure the safety of Canadians.

As my colleague said, it's too bad that we could not predict behaviour. Certainly that would put a whole different perspective on everything. But we can't do that. I certainly have learned in the last few days that they do exhaust every avenue that is made possible to them to ensure that their decisions are, first, to protect the Canadian people.

Mr. Myron Thompson: So then what you're saying to me is simply this. Even though these kinds of numbers show up on a yearly basis, it's not too big a sacrifice to ask the Canadian people to pay.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: I don't believe, sir, that the word “sacrifice”, if I may be so bold, is an appropriate word for me to choose to use in that statement. The National Parole—

Mr. Myron Thompson: Could you use your own word and make the same statement?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: What word would I use? I'm not even sure that I would look at using that statement at all. The National Parole Board does not intentionally release people with the understanding that there are going to be human lives sacrificed.

Mr. Myron Thompson: But that's what has happened. You agree with that. That's what's happening on a regular basis.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Sir, I will not take or use this sentence perhaps in the context you put that in.

• 1555

Mr. Myron Thompson: As a newcomer, you surely must have maybe some new ideas to bring forward that would make this decrease, get it down. You know, zero is the ideal number.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: And I think that's the wonderful thing about the National Parole Board.

Mr. Myron Thompson: So what kind of new ideas would you see forthcoming that would make the picture better and give confidence to the Canadian people that this system is the only way to go? The confidence isn't there right now—I think you would agree with that—in the public.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: That may be due in part to a lot of factors, such as the lack of education, which I said previously I had with respect to what processes the National Parole Board goes through to arrive at their decisions. I think the National Parole Board should be commended in terms of their recruitment and levels of qualification of Canadian people in a broad sense.

I've been a parole officer. I know how it is to be on the receiving end of many decisions that are made way up the ladder. I had to manage those cases to ensure that the people in my community and other communities in the north were provided with the best protection that was there. To date, I have not had one of my cases fail.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, can I move on to someone else? We'll come back to you, if you want.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, if you'll come back to me, I'd appreciate that.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

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

I'd like to ask Ms. Thériault and Ms. Caudron if they could describe the region that they will now be working in so that we can understand it. First, Ms. Thériault.

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: As for myself, I was appointed as a part-time member for the Quebec Region in June 1995, and since March 1998 I have been a full-time Board member for the Quebec Region. About 32 percent of the total incarcerated population is in Quebec. Is this the kind of information you want to know about the region?

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: That's about right. Thank you.

Ms. Caudron.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: I've been appointed as a part-time member to the prairies region, which will be the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'll address my next question to Ms. Caudron.

In the last 10 years, this committee has seen a number of unfortunate incidents involving escapes from custody from federal institutions, inmates released on parole from federal institutions, and inmates who don't come back. The parole board has been involved in some of those decisions. Are you familiar with any of those unfortunate cases that resulted in the deaths of innocent Canadians as a result of those unfortunate—

Ms. Cindy Caudron: No, I'm not.

Mr. Derek Lee: You're not. Okay. Then your experience in the field that relates to parole has been in the region that you described to us earlier, which is the northwest.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: It's only in the Northwest Territories and in only a specific region, as the territories vary from east to the west and north to south.

Mr. Derek Lee: In the course of your work, you will be dealing with individuals, some of whom spent the better part of their lives fooling people by pretending to themselves and others that they're something other than what they are or what they have been. Sometimes they pretend to be sons, parents, friends, employees, lovers, or various things. But some of them are also killers, for reasons that only they know. Or maybe they don't even know. Have you dealt with people like that?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Yes, as a parole officer, I have dealt with people who have been conning.

Mr. Derek Lee: Have you ever been fooled or been part of a team that was fooled?

• 1600

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Very early in my career when I was in the addictions field, yes, and that was a wonderful lesson. And I can only say to the fact that it involved someone going to a treatment centre— so it certainly didn't involve the safety or security of the person out on the street.

Mr. Derek Lee: How have you learned or how do you intend to deal with the problem of balancing the risk to Canadians and to these individuals themselves against the desire of the system to prepare the individuals for release and get them out so they can prepare themselves? How do you balance that risk? Because—and maybe you will agree—it's a very serious risk in some cases. I've often used the analogy of the parole board dealing with the human counterpart of nuclear fuel, as the nuclear agencies sometimes have to do. How do you balance that risk? Or have you learned to balance it?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: In my time as a child welfare worker, although it is a different area, we dealt with relatively the same components when we looked at returning children to their families, where there were risk levels and needs that had to be done, and certainly the National Parole Board has criteria that they lay out in examining risk and needs and ensuring through all the available information that the reintegration into the community will be such that they are law-abiding when they go ahead and do that.

Certainly in my experiences as a child welfare worker, working with families and also as a parole officer, I've had many people try to snow me and con me into believing a whole lot of other things that weren't really going on. And certainly in terms of risk assessment and that type of thing, based on my training in the last eight days, I have to say that the National Parole Board gives extensive training in that area in terms of all the factors we need to look at before consideration is given to anyone being released.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Ms. Thériault, in circumstances where inmates deliver up a good thing to the institution— sometimes they do that, for all kinds of reasons. They become goods guys for a day. They deliver up a commodity that's deemed by the institution to be good. As a parole board member, would you ever recognize that? Would you ever do a deal? Would you ever do a quid pro quo for an inmate?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: It is evident that there are inmates who are constantly trying to fool us. Inmates present us with changes that for them are important changes in terms of the risk they presented at the time of their incarceration. It is also obvious, as my colleague has just mentioned, that the Board has criteria for evaluating risk.

Despite an inmate's claim of good behaviour, we have an obligation to consult the documents that are sent to us by Correctional Services and the workers who are in contact with these people. I also must say that assessments by psychologists, psychiatrists, sexologists and criminologists are carried out in each case to see if the changes the inmate claims to have made are sufficient. Afterwards, during the hearing, we have an opportunity to ask the inmates questions to see how they have benefited from programs designed to make them change.

We can easily determine if the gains they are telling us about have been well integrated. We can also form an opinion based on questions asked during hearings to the sentence management officers who accompany the inmates and who are usually criminologists. These people are familiar with the inmates' daily lives and are able to tell us that one day's good behaviour is not enough.

• 1605

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: There are incidents verified on the parliamentary record of quasi-professionals within Corrections Canada— I don't recall whether it was the parole board or not. Perhaps not. These professionals have made errors, where they themselves have said good things about the inmates, sometimes because the inmates have said good things about the professionals. Then it gets into the inmate's record, the parole board reads it, and the parole board accepts it at face value. You yourself have just indicated you will read the work of criminologists, psychologists and psychiatrists, and you appear to accept that at face value.

You may want to reply. I've put it to you, but I really want to address the question to Ms. Louis about this. Feel free to comment.

But I may be running out of time as well.

The Chair: You're okay. Mr. Thompson had 16 minutes, which is something of a record here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. Then to you, I'm asking if you have ever showed any healthy skepticism in your work in the past? Have you always been Mr. Nice Guy? Are you prepared to question Corrections Canada officials and professionals and your colleagues at the board in order to protect the public? I'm asking that question.

And I'd like to ask it of Ms. Louis, who has a good long record with the parole board, but I'll ask Ms. Thériault first.

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: My primary interest as a member of the National Parole Board is to protect society. This is also the mission statement of the National Parole Board. As I have stated, the primary objective is to protect society while promoting rehabilitation of offenders.

Allow me to rephrase what I said earlier about the Board not necessarily accepting all the recommendations that are made by Correctional Services, no more than the Board necessarily shares the opinion of the specialists and workers whose reports it keeps on file and notes during hearings. These documents are documents like any others.

As I just stressed, the Board has criteria for evaluating risk and it makes its decisions after doing a risk assessment based on accurate, convincing and relevant information.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Ms. Louis, you have experience in this field. Ninety-five per cent of what comes in the front door as data about the inmates is accurate. I'm going to guess, based on my personal experience—I've seen a bit of it—that there's 5% that's not accurate, and then there's the scary part, which is the 10% you never see because no one has the guts to put it on paper, or it falls out of the file as a favour or through inadvertence. How do you, as a parole board member, incorporate that additional risk into the decisions you make about release of inmates?

Ms. Kathy Louis: First of all, I think that's a good question and I'd like to answer it. I study it from the file information. I study the entire volume. I know the case as I know it on paper. The hearing, then, is an opportunity for me to be able to further assess what I have read about the offender. And we do that by applying the law, applying the criteria according to the law and the risk assessment decision policies.

But I want to share with you the fact that over the years the parole board has developed excellent risk assessment decision policies. Over and above that, there have been an awful lot of forensic psychiatric and psychological research tools that have been incorporated into our decision policies.

In applying those policies and applying those tools, the actuarial risk scores— for example, the psychopathy checklist indicates the kinds of alarms I should consider when I look at certain scores of offenders. There is also the SIR scale, which is general statistical information that indicates recidivism. That is another tool.

• 1610

Those are just two of several tools we use, always keeping in mind in decision making that the protection of society is the paramount consideration I have to be responsible for as a decision maker.

Mr. Derek Lee: I have one short question for Ms. Thériault, just for clarification.

In your resumé you note your citizenship as French Canadian. Are you a citizen of France as well? Are you a dual citizen?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: I am a Canadian citizen.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

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

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. I know it's a courageous thing to come forward and hold yourselves up to scrutiny.

I've heard at least two of you now remark that protection of society is the primary concern you would place on your mandate. I suppose much like police officers, who are at the entry gate of the justice system, you are the guardians at the gate that is there to protect all Canadians when it comes time to decide who is going to be released.

Ms. Louis, as a backgrounder, I would tell you that this committee has been examining the case of Raymond Russell, a convicted killer. While on early release from the National Parole Board in British Columbia, he murdered a woman by the name of Darlene Turnbull.

You're familiar with the case, because in your capacity as regional vice-chair of the National Parole Board for the Pacific region, I believe you were interviewed by the board of investigation into the Russell case. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about that specifically, if you don't mind.

Evidence before this committee suggested that Ms. Turnbull did not know that Raymond Russell was a convicted killer when she let him into her home. As a member of the parole board, do you not feel that for somebody in Ms. Turnbull's situation, whether she be a landlady, a potential employer, a potential lover, or a person who is going to be in close contact with somebody like Mr. Russell, information should always be provided, and provided personally and specifically, to somebody in that type of jeopardy?

The Chair: Before you answer, Ms. Louis—and I'm not trying to interfere with the process; I want to know the answers as well—I'm concerned to know whether you're a respondent in any lawsuit at this point or anything like that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Fair question.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Can I check?

The Chair: If you want to consult counsel, I'm sure no one objects.

Ms. Kathy Louis: I would prefer not to answer.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You would prefer not to answer. Well, let me ask you a general question with respect to that.

Mr. Derek Lee: On a point of order, Madam Chair—

The Chair: I thought that might generate one. Go ahead.

Mr. Derek Lee: The witness has invited us to accept her decision not to answer. I'm prepared to accept that, but not because she would not be obliged to answer if we required her to. There is general existing immunity for all parliamentary depositions, verbal and otherwise. If she believes her answer might impair a position, outside of Parliament, in court, the committee of course has the option, since the immunity is already accorded, of simply requiring that her answer not be published, and the answer be kept in camera. That is one option we could follow.

The other option, of course, is to simply walk from the question, as we appear to be doing now. It's up to Mr. MacKay. If the answer to the question is not necessary to our need here, then we can walk from it.

So as a point of order, I would ask Mr. MacKay—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Was that legal counsel for Mr. MacKay?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Derek Lee: No, I'm asking Mr. MacKay to decide whether or not he believes we should have the answer. If he believes we can walk from it, then as one member I accept that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: First, I would like to know, in response to the question from the chair, whether there is a lawsuit pending or potentially pending.

Ms. Kathy Louis: My understanding is that there could be.

• 1615

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, and I respect the position you're in, and I don't want to embarrass you—

The Chair: Been there, done that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —but I've seen enough of the legal system to know.

Perhaps what I can do then, Madam Chair, and I thank you for that intervention, Mr. Lee—

The Chair: Mr. Lee is our resident expert on these matters. He's been down this road before. My intervention was just to make sure that our witnesses are comfortable and that we're all aware of what the sensitivities are here.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It was a very timely intervention, Madam Chair.

Perhaps what I would do, then, is rephrase the question in a more general way. Again, before you answer, if you want to consult or if you choose not to answer, I can respect that.

With respect to the National Parole Board and the placing of conditions on parolees, which sometimes requires special reports from CSC, the board presumably expects those conditions are going to be met. These are specific conditions aimed at rehabilitation and to address recidivism: conditions of non-association, non-consumption of alcohol and drugs, alcohol prohibitions, things of that nature. The decisions about assessment of management risk are based, I would assume, on the fact that the offender fully understands the conditions that are placed on them prior to their release.

My question is, does it not undermine the National Parole Board's work when CSC employees in the field do not enforce such conditions? What efforts are made to ensure that those at the ground level, those in the field, are fully apprised of these conditions that are placed on the persons whom they are watching? What emphasis is placed on ensuring that those in the field know that those have to be adhered to, upon pain of a person being brought back to prison?

Ms. Kathy Louis: First of all, in a situation like that the board is in fact informed. The board receives a report and the board takes a vote. The board can in fact go straight to revocation or take a no-action decision on a case like that.

I should inform you that what we've done is we have had, in fact, a joint training session with the front-line workers and the parole board members. This is an ongoing process in terms of trying to become much more professional, more expert in the prediction of human behaviour. You yourself are aware that this is not an exact science, but every possibility is put in place to have the checks and balances in there.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I've asked you a very wordy question. The bottom line is whether you feel comfortable that there is a sufficient exchange of information between the various players. Do you feel there is room for improvement in that process of exchange of information? I personally feel there is.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Mr. MacKay, I have to agree with you. There is always room for improvement, as I just indicated. Predicting human behaviour is not an exact science. Given what I already shared with you on the kinds of prediction tools we have acquired over time from different professionals who have provided us with the training and the tools as decision makers, this is all part and parcel of trying to become much more expert in doing risk assessment and predicting human behaviour.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The earlier question that I asked you in a specific sense I want to rephrase in a general way. Do you feel that members of the public, those who may have incidental contact or who may have planned contact with a person on early release— what further efforts can be made, or what significant efforts should be made to ensure that they are apprised of the person with whom they may be coming into contact?

Ms. Kathy Louis: I think you're almost getting me to answer your first question. What I'd like to say to you is that the board in fact requires that there be collateral contact checks made, that people out in the community whom the offender lists as being a community supportive person— this kind of information is provided to the board. This is an area we can continue to be better informed on and to request that kind of information so that we know what is in front of us when we make a decision.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You say “collateral checks”, and I'd like to flesh that out a bit. Are you talking about a letter? Are you talking about direct contact with a parole officer?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Direct contact.

• 1620

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm not trying to put you on the hook here, but in a situation where the person has already had contact with a parolee and they've received some background information that, in many cases, isn't accurate, if the person in the community doesn't make specific inquiries, is there a full disclosure of the background of a parolee when that contact takes place between a parole officer and a person in the community? Is there a full interview? Is there a full disclosure of the person's background and the fact they are a violent offender?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Usually community assessments are conducted by the parole supervisors who make face-to-face contact with these people who are in the community. In fact, Cindy just mentioned she was a parole officer, and I think she can further address this issue, because I'm sure she must have conducted these kinds of investigations.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Certainly. Ms. Caudron, do you want to address that question?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Yes. When working on the front line, when the parole board is looking at releasing someone into the community, a community assessment is ordered. Where I come from it impacts a little differently, so I'll try to explain both of them to you.

The way it's set out at this point is a community assessment goes to collateral contacts that are identified by the offender as people they want us to talk to in order to gain historical information and relationship information. We look at employment information, personality information and all those kinds of factors.

We are not governed to look only at the people the offender identifies. I certainly never looked only at those. I thought, I don't want to see only the people you want me to talk to.

Mr. Peter MacKay: They'd have a vested interest in giving you certain names.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Exactly. I certainly know my other colleagues who work in the field do exactly the same thing. They go outside the realms of the identified collateral contacts to talk to other community members who know the offender, in order to get both sides of the information.

Let's face it, if they're identifying a collateral contact we'll more than likely get positive information, however that person may feel about the offender. We'll get positive information because that information is shared with the offender.

The other thing I know and have experienced myself is something the parole board has allowed in the Northwest Territories. When you are looking at returning someone into the community who has done a violent offence, it impacts the whole community. So I'm not really interested in the specific collateral contacts they've identified or the additional five or ten I may go out to see, because the whole community is impacted on that level.

I wasn't really sure whether the parole board was going to let me hold a releasing circle. I called it a support team and, to tell you the truth, didn't even know they had something for that at the parole board until my last eight days here. It allowed us, in a small community, to have people sit on a team. The collateral contacts historically have been interviewed on an individual basis, so they're not done collectively.

I pulled them together collectively and involved other people in the community, such as the chief, the alcohol and drug worker, members of the family, and elders who spent time with the offender. I sat them down and did my community assessment at that time. Information came from this team in terms of recommendations that perhaps the parole board would want to consider in terms of things the offender could do when they came back.

Of course, that was clarified, because those two criteria—recommendations of things to pay back to the community—are not what the parole board is about. It ensures safeguards are put there, such as abstention orders and prohibition from owning a gun, so we're made aware of that.

• 1625

I discussed with the chief. I said, I don't know if they're going to let us do this, submit a community assessment that's done in the context of a group.

So that was sent to the people who were above me, and eventually it came back and they said, yes, you can go ahead and do that; we'll see what the report looks like, and then we'll get back to you. So we did. It went to them, and it came back.

The thing that was able to provide to those communities in the north is that there wasn't only one person doing supervision. It was a number of people who also provided support to that person, and in fact it worked out very well. That's applicable to small communities and may not be applicable to all communities, but they certainly were flexible in the sense of allowing that to happen.

So that type of collateral or that community assessment is then forwarded ahead in order to give the board a very clear picture of exactly what this offender is coming back into, because quite frankly, up in the north we just don't have the psychologists, halfway houses, and whatever. So it gives them a clear picture about exactly what each community has and also an information base that comes from people other than the offender and the things that they do while the person is incarcerated.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to come back to the information exchange, and I appreciate your answer. I come from a small community too, in Nova Scotia, so I know what you're talking about. They consider experts anybody from out of town with a briefcase.

The Chair: I think I'm going to visit more often.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Come on down.

I'd like to get an opinion from any or all of the panel members on the move that has been initiated by some police in smaller communities that I'm aware of, where upon the release of an offender, police officers chose to have information sessions or make public, either through posters or literally advertising, the fact that a sexual predator or offender was being released into their community. I would like to get your opinion on that decision and where in your opinion the parole board would play a role in that decision.

Ms. Kathy Lewis: I have a mixed opinion about that, and it's not necessarily that of the board; that is, my fear in that kind of a case. With these kinds of offenders, they are probably cases serving very definite sentences. Their sentence is going to come to an end at some point, and as long as they're in the community, there is some measure of accountability, of responsibility for supervising that offender. If there is that kind of publicity by the police, that offender could go underground and we may not know were he is, and in fact, he may reoffend without anyone ever knowing about it.

That would be my fear. As I said, this is not the position of the board, but that's my personal fear in the situations such as you've described.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The accountability is what I'm concerned about here. I realize there's also the fear that has been expressed of vigilantism when that occurs, when the police make it known that a sex offender may be living next door to you.

But again, back to the bottom line, in my opinion people in the community have a right to know that and to know the risk that may exist. I'm not completely comfortable or advocating this advertising process, but I wonder if the board has contemplated that and what role they should play in making people aware as to who may be living next door to them.

Ms. Kathy Lewis: I guess if it's a requirement in law, we will do it. At this time, there is not that requirement.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's a good answer.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Just so you know, that's about 19 minutes.

I know. I'll get back to you, Myron.

Can we go to Mr. Telegdi, who I know is going to be so brief?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't be setting any new records.

Let me say I looked over the resumés, and I'm quite confident in the abilities displayed there.

• 1630

I guess the whole issue of protection of society is a bit open-ended to the extent that obviously, if you keep somebody incarcerated and don't let them out to the point in time at which we're legally able to do that, there's a minimal risk to society. I guess the risk comes in once that individual gets out. Now we somehow have to reintegrate that person into the community. So if we choose not to give parole, then we might not have the ability to do the reintegration.

Of the cases we examined, particularly bothersome to us were the Russell and Michael Hector cases. What really struck me in the Michael Hector case was the lackadaisical approach taken not in terms of the release but in terms of the supervision that took place. The individual would come in to see the probation officer once every two weeks, and then, after a period of time, once a month. There would be no verification done by the parole officer on the information the parolee supplied him with.

To what extent can you demand that the different people you parole have a parole plan, a release plan? To what extent can you do any follow-up to see if that's being followed?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Madam Chair, this is a case similar to the first question. I really feel I'm not at liberty to discuss personal cases.

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me make it very general. You grant parole on the basis of a parole plan that comes in front of you. To what extent can you make sure that parole plan is going to be followed? Can you, to any degree, or is your job done once you've granted parole?

Ms. Kathy Louis: I indicated earlier the kind of information that's in front of us when we review the file, study the file information, and then interview the offender. There are in fact release plans presented if there's a recommendation for release. So the parole board is aware of where that offender is going, according to the information in front of us. Perhaps further information could be elicited through the interview we have with the offender. So we are aware of the release plan.

What we may not be aware of immediately is when the release plan falls apart once we have released that offender. Normally, in that kind of case, the board should immediately be made aware, because we have the option, if that release is not feasible, of terminating that decision.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Is there an obligation on the part of the parole officer to report back to the board, saying this person who's now released on parole, which was under the power of the parole board, is not complying? Do they have to do it? Does the parole officer have to put that forward?

Ms. Kathy Louis: The parole officer should inform the board in situations like that, but really, that's the responsibility of the Correctional Service, and I'm not here to defend what they do. I am aware that they do have standards of supervision. I am aware of the kind of information they're required to submit to the parole board.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I guess, Madam Chair, I would feel a little ripped off, being a parole officer, if when I released somebody the release plan was not followed and that person ended up being in trouble with the law again.

Let me jump to another case. There was a situation involving two cases in Kitchener-Waterloo in the early eighties, I believe. One case, which was home-grown, was rather notorious. It involved a professor at the University of Waterloo who was sexual predator of an incredible number of young people. Anyway, he went through the system; he became incarcerated. When the time came for him to come out, in his release he was ordered to stay away from the regional municipality of Waterloo.

• 1635

Around the time, unbeknownst to the members of the Kitchener community, an offender was released who also was a sexual predator, and this case took place in the prairies and he was sent to Kitchener. Nobody knew about him. He ended up marrying a woman in Kitchener. That woman had a 14-year-old daughter. Once he was released, over the course of a year he ended up raping his step-daughter, killing her, burning down the house.

The point I'm trying to get at is that it seems to me that, like any community, we would be better off to get that sex offender back who was told not to come back to the Waterloo region. If he came back to the Waterloo region and he started hanging around the elementary schools, then we know that an order for him to stay away from those places could be enforced because people knew about him. And, of course, in the case of the other fellow, it would have been much better if he was back in the community where people knew about him.

I can appreciate we don't want vigilante justice. The only person we protect when we have an individual who's really a risk to the community is that person. We don't protect the community. We protect the offender.

Do you have any problems at the present time on the cases you hear in terms of sending people back to their home community where they are known, with perhaps some support group, versus telling them they can't go back to their home community?

Ms. Kathy Louis: No, in fact, offenders do go back to their own communities. I have released offenders who have returned to their home communities. In some areas there are not always the resources available, such as halfway houses where they can reside. That is one of the concerns. If, in fact, they're coming from a geographical area where there is no halfway house available, then they're likely going to go to an area where there are the checks and balances of close supervision, of implementing additional conditions that the board has imposed in a case like this.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me rephrase it. Is there a case where you can tell offenders they can go back to their home community?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Yes, in fact, as I said earlier, I have granted releases of offenders going back to their communities.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, have you ever said on the board that you cannot— I'm not saying you cannot.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Yes. Not to return to their community? That is very, very rare, though.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Do you appreciate the danger that I'm saying there is?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I would much rather have the offender whom I know and the community knows than have somebody we don't know, particularly if it's a high-risk individual believed to be a predator.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Perhaps I can share this with you. Given the kind of risk assessment and training we have been provided with and what we know about the kinds of sex offenders— we are in fact aware that there are three kinds of sex offenders. I don't know how many in the room are aware of that. That is as a result, again, of all the forensic psychiatrists and psychologists who have provided all this information for us and the university researchers and academics who help us in these areas.

There are in fact individuals who can be managed well. For example, there are the incest offenders. The ones who become more difficult to manage could be those who in fact are not necessarily cured: the homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles. Then there are the rapists—the serial rapists, the sexual assaulters, those kinds of cases. We have learned over the years that there are in fact those three types of offenders.

• 1640

This is information that we didn't always have. This is information that is a result of all the training the board has undertaken. In fact, we have one of our trainers, our senior trainer, Jean Sutton, with us today as our resource person.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, I'm just going to pass this on to Mr. Ramsay now.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming here today. Kathy Louis, I've waited a long time to be able to put you on the spot.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chair: She's not afraid of you.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Neither are we.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd like to address all three of you.

You have an ominous responsibility, because when we looked at the stats, and if the stats hold true for those who have committed murder who are on conditional release, if they hold true for the last year we have statistics for, 1995-96, 15 people are going to be murdered by people on conditional release. So your responsibility, when you're evaluating the application for parole, is enormous. And when you make a mistake, someone dies. I'm referring only to the murder cases.

I've looked through your resumés and not one of you has taken a course in clairvoyance.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: And I say that in jest, because that's almost what you need for these figures to get down to zero.

When you make a mistake— the last hope the uninformed victim has is the hope that the parole officer will see whether or not that individual is showing signs of moving off the narrow track.

I want to follow up on what Mr. MacKay asked and I want to be very clear on it. It's a straightforward question and I want an answer for it.

Perhaps, Kathy, with your experience— and I'm grateful for your experience, because we need to understand what's happening and we need to understand the problems that you face on the board. You've been there for 20 years.

If someone is released and they're going to live in my home, will I be notified of that person's criminal record, to the fullest? Will I be notified?

Ms. Kathy Louis: I'm informed and I am aware that there is a balance with respect to the privacy rights of the individual.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Then are you saying that constitutionally you cannot inform me that I might have a former murderer harboured in my home, that I am renting a room to someone who has murdered someone? Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Would you just repeat your question, please?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: If the privacy rights deny you the right to inform me that the individual I'm renting a room to in my home has been convicted of a murder, I want to know that. Is that what your answer was?

Ms. Kathy Louis: There would have been a community assessment done on you—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Why?

Ms. Kathy Louis: —because if in fact the individual who is a murderer and is out on release is living in your residence, there would have been a community assessment done.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But that's not—

Ms. Kathy Louis: So you would have been aware.

The Chair: I think what Jack wants to know is whether, as the landlord, he would be told by someone that this person who is moving in is on parole for murder. Is that what you want to know, Jack?

• 1645

Mr. Jack Ramsay: That's right. I want to know that I am renting a room to someone who's been convicted of murder. Would I be advised of that?

Ms. Kathy Louis: If there is an act or authority that would allow us to do that, you would be advised of that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Is there an act or an authority that allows you to do that?

Ms. Kathy Louis: At the present time, because of the privacy issues, my understanding is no.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I thank you for giving this information to the committee, because it is very important information. We're saying the system we have set up in this country will allow for the release of violent offenders and they can move about society and take up habitation, and neither you nor anyone within our legal system can inform those people living next to them that they have been convicted of a criminal offence.

Ms. Kathy Louis: I guess, Mr. Ramsay, I want to say that as a decision maker I don't release violent offenders when I make decisions.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But, Kathy, that's not my question. My question is, do you have the authority? Do you know if the parole officer has the authority? If you don't know the answer, that's fine, just say you don't know, because we'll be asking someone this question. Do you know whether the parole officer has the authority to inform a landlord whether or not that person has been convicted of a criminal offence?

Ms. Kathy Louis: I will err on the side of caution and say I don't know.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

The Chair: Can I just jump in?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Sure.

The Chair: I'll see if I can help you. I'm afraid we're confusing your role and the role of the parole officer. But let's just say you have someone you're inclined to release and you're trying to build up what conditions would be there. I don't know if I'm right or wrong, but why would there be anything stopping Kathy Louis from making an order that says “I'm going to release Jack Ramsay”?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: She would never release me.

The Chair: I'm going to release this wild-eyed Myron Thompson here, then.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Please release me.

The Chair: Please release me, let me go. One condition will be that Myron Thompson must tell anyone who rents him a room or anyone who employs him that he's a convicted murderer. Could you do that? Do you think you could do that? Would you see any reason to do it?

Ms. Kathy Louis: I think if there were a law that would back me up to do it, yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think the question is whether there would be any reason not to do it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I think it's the duty and responsibility of someone within the parole system to advise people, who may be in jeopardy, of this person's record, if the parole board has made a wrong decision about this individual. If that is not the case it places you, as members of the board, in a more precarious situation, because if you make a mistake—and we know the board has made mistakes and they're honest mistakes—and realize that even the individual—

I'm the landlord and the person comes in. I'm giving him room and board and he's paying for it or someone's paying for it. If I don't know that this person could be a danger to me and I am not alert to the signs—this chap didn't come in until 2 a.m. and I smelled liquor on his breath and so on—I would not become concerned, certainly not as concerned as if I knew this person was on parole for a violent offence, particularly murder.

So as board members, if you are not aware this information is passed on to the employer by the parole officer or someone in authority, then it makes things much tougher for you. It just astounds me to realize you're functioning under those conditions, where you have to honestly believe that with everyone you let out there isn't the slimmest chance, and yet you know statistically there is always a chance, and as had been stated here, you cannot judge and predict human behaviour.

• 1650

If we cannot warn people, or caution them, or at least give them the information that would allow them to protect themselves if they see something amiss that they could report to the parole officer involved, if that's the case—

But I don't want to belabour that. You've given me your answer to that. We'll carry that forward to perhaps Mr. Ingstrup or Willie Gibbs, and ask them about that, because that answers Mr. MacKay's earlier question, as far as I'm concerned.

I want to get on to another point, but do you have something you'd like to add?

Ms. Kathy Louis: I might suggest that this type of question might be better directed to the Correctional Service. They are the ones who do parole supervision. I'm a decision maker. Yes, I do want to be involved when things go wrong, but in terms of supervising and managing the case, that is not my role. That is the role of Correctional Service Canada.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I understand, but the fact that you are not aware as to whether or not, when this person moves in beside an innocent individual, that person is going to be made aware of this person's record places more of a burden upon you as a member of the parole board.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

I want to ask you—

The Chair: Excuse me, but you might want to take a look later at subsection 25(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. Thank you.

I attended an international symposium on penology, and I heard some pretty good briefs there. All the people there were talking about getting more people out of prison. The individual who made a presentation from the State of Utah pointed out that their parole system is supported broadly across their state by the people, which is something we don't find evident here in Canada. Nevertheless, when he explained their system I saw why.

There, when someone has applied for parole and has passed all the criteria, they have that individual enter into a contract with conditions. If that individual violates one of the conditions of the contract, they immediately pull him back in.

We don't even have within this country the authority for police officers to arrest a parolee when the police see him violating the conditions of his parole. They can't even conduct an arrest.

In trying to improve the system, in trying to bring the fifteen murders down closer to zero, what would you think of that kind of a system? There's a clear agreement between the authorities and the parolee that he will be in at a certain time; he'll stay out of the bars; he'll stay away from drinking; and he'll stay away from playgrounds, or whatever it might be. Would you favour that type of system? In case you make a mistake, that individual may be caught by the parole officer, because they see signs that he is getting off track. What would you think of that?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: Should Ms. Louis respond to this?

When we grant an inmate a form of release while imposing specific conditions on that inmate, it's a little as if the inmate were signing a contract with the Parole Board and Correctional Services. The inmate is released but has to respect certain conditions. Afterwards, we supervise the individual in the community and, if the individual does not respect the conditions that were imposed, Correctional Services will have the statutory obligation to report the violation of the specific conditions to the Board. And even if there is no violation of specific conditions, if we perceive that the offender who has been released is demonstrating behaviour that changes the risk assessment that was done at the time of release, Correctional Services, with which we work in partnership within the penal system, will have the statutory obligation to reappear before the Board, which will then have to reevaluate the risk that the individual poses to society.

• 1655

We can therefore say that this is a contract that the individual signs with Correctional Services and the Board upon release.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay: To what extent is that happening? How many people on parole are being called back because of a violation of their parole? We hear exactly the opposite. We hear that these guys are in the bar, they're not supposed to be drinking. And they're sitting in the bar because the parole officer has too heavy a workload or whatever, and they're violating the conditions of their parole on a daily basis. They're out of their area, some of them, and still they are not pulled back. So if those conditions are there and they're not being enforced, then no wonder these statistics are there.

When the signs are there that the individual ought not to be where he is—that is, inside a bar or even outside of his cell—the proper action is not being taken. So what we're looking for is a system that will allow for the parole of these people while at the same time in every possible way enhancing the safety of society. But if our parole people are not going to move when they see a violation of the parole conditions, as they do in the state of Utah, then of course we're going to have these problems. If a person has a drinking problem and their condition of parole is not to drink, and they're sitting in a bar and the parole officer who becomes aware of it does not take corrective action and pull that person back in as a result of a parole violation, then it's no wonder we're having problems in this country with some of our parolees.

So if I could ask Cindy, who has experience in the area of parole, that question, perhaps she could help us with it.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: I don't want to speak all that much for the parole officer's place, because certainly that's not my position here. However, I would like to help you in that area.

The parole officer is obligated without any discretion on their part to report any infractions, any breaches, directly to their supervisor. I certainly have had people who have come in to report to me and smelled of alcohol, and I make one phone call and they are revoked like that. It isn't a hum and haw over the telephone about what we are going to do with you. This is also true for the police officers I've worked with, because they're given the same informations we are in terms of who is on parole and who is not. By “not” I don't mean who is outside, otherwise they'd have a whole list of people.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Are the police officers given the conditions of parole as well?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Yes, they are.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: And so if they find breaching they are also obligated to report that to the parole board; and I have never experienced where there hasn't been a revocation done immediately. And then the parolees are reassessed at that time as to whether we can continue to have them back in the community, and a decision is made at that level.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Would you have any objection to peace officers having the authority to arrest a parolee they find violating conditions of their parole? Would you have any concern about that?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: The way the law stands right now, it may not be how it is in—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But we could change the law. Would you like to see that law changed?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: I would have to have a little bit more information than eight days on the National Parole Board.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: As an ex-probation and parole officer, how would you feel about that?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: I can't base that on anything, give you an answer saying, yes, that would be wonderful, because in my view the RCMP in the way they've conducted themselves have been very expeditious in reporting that. So to what advantage that would be, I'm not sure.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: And whenever you've reported— you don't have the power to revoke, but it's your supervisor who has the power to revoke a person—

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So parole officers don't have that power. They have to report it to a supervisor.

• 1700

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Yes, and we have access to those supervisors 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Let me assure you, as soon as we see somebody doing that, we report it immediately. We know exactly where that person is, from the moment we see the infraction happening.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What is the process? You hear about a parole violation, and you report it to your supervisor. What then? If the supervisor wants to revoke the parole, who apprehends the individual?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: The RCMP.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you contact the parolee and say, look, you have to come back in because we're revoking your parole, or do you turn it over to a law enforcement officer?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: That depends on the person. You know, do you want to tell them we're coming to pick them up, and have them run away?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay, so you wouldn't make it a practice of simply saying, listen, you were in the bar the other night, a violation of your parole; report in.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: I want to make sure I'm not catching myself, too, in the trap here—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: We don't want to trap you.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: —of representing the Correctional Service, because I don't think that's fair to them, and certainly I feel like I'm being put on the spot all of a sudden to be representing them.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: From your own past experiences—that's all we're asking, and that's all we can expect.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: What happens is we contact the RCMP while the paperwork is faxed immediately, because they all have fax machines or access to them, and that authority is given out, in my experience, while the police are en route to pick up the person.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay, I've had my turn.

The Chair: Ms. Louis would like to say something.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay, for your information, many offenders are returned to prison for violating additional conditions, for example, abstention conditions and being in drinking establishments. They're brought back to prison, and there are statistics or data available for that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: For the record—and I won't refer to the names of the cases—we have studied cases in this committee where there appears to be evidence that there were red flags going up and they were not recognized, or if they were seen, they were ignored.

Because there are mistakes being made, decisions that are wrong, by the parole board, the last line of defence is our parole officers, who are supposed to be making some kind of weekly or semi-weekly contact with individuals. They're our last hope that they will see someone is getting off-track. They will catch the mistakes that get through the parole board level. So this is why I'm so very interested in this area.

I'll say this, and this is a question you have to ask yourselves. If you look at January 1 and you say, well, there are going to be 15 people murdered and it's going to be because of decisions we have made and these people have filtered through, they've conned us, or simply they look good and they do these bad things, that is an enormous price to pay, and that was what Mr. Thompson was saying.

I would have an awfully hard time saying that I'm asking society to pay that price in order to keep on with the good that you are doing. That's an awful price to pay. So if we can reduce that price by the kind of system that the Utah parole system has, by making sure that these people, if they get off track at all, if they violate any particle of their agreement, are brought in, then I think we're getting on the right track. With the greatest respect, I don't think that's what we have in Canada today.

That's all I'll say.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Grose has a question.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Thériault, I was fascinated with your citizenship—fascinated, not annoyed. If I were to put down my blended citizenship, I don't think I could get it all on one line, so you're very fortunate.

That having been said, I'm not going to lumber you three ladies with the law. You had no part in making it; you work within it.

I come at this from a completely different angle than anyone else in this room. I could have 50 points of view that I would like you to give me an answer to, but we'll restrict it to one because I ask a question and get out of here.

I think it was you, Ms. Thériault, who said that when reviewing an applicant for parole, you go back to the judge and the crown and their comments. That bothered me a bit, because at the time the individual was sentenced, the judge, with advice from the crown, gave an appropriate sentence for the crime that was committed, knowing full well when the parole date would be. If you go back and look at the judge's comments and the crown's comments, then you're, in effect, resentencing the individual.

• 1705

I don't think that's your function. I think your function begins when that inmate walks through the front door of the institution. From then on, you judge as best you can—believe me, it's difficult—on what he does in there and how he behaves. You try to get inside his head. Other than living with him, you'll never get exactly what that individual has changed into, if he's the same thing, or if he's worse.

It's a very difficult job. It's a judgment call. You make judgment calls. You can have a far better average on your judgment calls than I do on mine.

I'd like to know how all three of you feel about this going back and resentencing the individual.

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: We are not in fact imposing a new sentence on the person. The judge imposes the sentence and the punishment runs its course until the period, let's say, of eligibility. It is only when the eligibility period begins that rehabilitation starts.

If my colleagues and I at the Board look as far back as the comments by the judge and the Crown Attorney, this shows that these are very important to us in the assessment we must make of the criteria and risk factors, to see where our inmate is at in terms of understanding the offence. It is important that he have questioned himself and that he have understood the reasons that led him to commit such acts. As long as an individual is incapable of identifying the reasons for his actions, we feel that the individual has not worked on the factors that led him to commit this act, and the Board therefore feels that progress has not been made, that the risk factors are still present, and that the risk that was present at the time he was incarcerated has therefore not been reduced. We therefore consider this individual to constitute an unacceptable risk to society.

Awareness for this individual is something very important. He must be capable of empathy vis-à-vis the victims and also be able to identify the reasons for his being incarcerated a few years earlier. Through the comments of the judge and the Crown Attorney, we can get some sense of what has been happening and confront the inmate with the facts, because it must of course be said that there are offenders who deny the facts for a very long time.

The judge's comments may also provide information that is addressed directly to the Parole Board and that can be used by members of the Board who will have to pick a release date for this or that individual. For instance, we can see that psychiatric treatment or detoxification is suggested for this or that individual prior to release. This is why we go back to the comments of the judge and Crown Attorney.

[English]

Mr. Ivan Grose: What worried me was this. Suppose a fellow had a ten-year sentence. Say he served five years, and then was eligible for parole. He had a good record in the five years. The psychiatrist and psychologist said he turned around.

Say you, in your interview, found him to be reasonably receptive. I agree with you that you should go back and look at the original sentencing to see what he did. They're all innocent, of course, because they didn't commit that crime. I don't want you to say that this guy was a bad dude and you think he needs more time. I don't think that's your function.

I think your function is to look at the sentence. Whether you consider it inappropriate or not, it was appropriate at the time in the judge's mind. I don't think you're in the business of extending sentences.

But your answer to me was very satisfactory. Knowing what the fellow did and what the circumstances were at the time of the trial, I have no problem with that. If he's denying it when he comes up for parole, then I'm with you: don't let him out, because nothing has happened; he's just the same as when he came in.

It was that worry. I like the way you're looking at it. I was just afraid that— I assumed the other two ladies would agree fairly much with that, and I'm satisfied with the answer.

• 1710

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Lee, you had a brief question.

Mr. Derek Lee: Our witnesses will understand that our committee is being skeptical procedurally here. It was the committee's view that we should be reviewing, on a spot basis, appointments to the parole board because there have been weaknesses in the past. We feel that's what we have to do from a parliamentary function. So you are the lucky few who are spot checked. It's not of course your job here now to be an apologist for the legislation or the policies, and we understand that. I'm going to ask you a question that doesn't ask you to do that. I'm looking here for an attitude or some perceptions on your part.

If there is a release on parole—of course, they happen all the time—let's say a problem develops on the release. I guess you're saying that Corrections Canada, which supervises the parole, becomes aware of it.

I'll go to Ms. Thériault for the first question on this. What happens when there's a conspicuously serious breach of parole conditions?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: Could you please make your question more specific?

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: What happens from either the parole board or Corrections Canada when there is an egregious breach of a parole condition? What happens in relation to that inmate, that parolee?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: As we said earlier, the offender can be suspended and returned to prison. Afterwards, when the Board reviews the offender's file, this person's release can be revoked.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: So you say that the inmate or parolee can be revoked. What causes that to happen? I'm looking at your knowledge of the procedure. What causes the inmate to be brought back into custody?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: From the moment that the risk to society is no longer acceptable, this offender's release can be revoked. After the violation of conditions, or even if there has been no violation of conditions, or after behaviour that suggests disintegration or a return to criminal behaviour, the offender's release can be revoked by the Board, which will have reviewed his file, and which will have full power to re-evaluate the risk that the offender represents to society. The Board's primary role, moreover, is assessing the risk that offenders pose to society.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm not hitting the nail on the head in my questioning here. I want you to tell me what specifically happens when the parole board revokes the parole. The day it revokes the parole, what happens to the parolee?

The Chair: Ms. Louis has been trying to answer, so perhaps she can—

Mr. Derek Lee: All right. Let's go with Ms. Louis.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Go ahead and refer to someone else, if you want someone else.

Mr. Derek Lee: We're reviewing all the appointments and I'm looking for perceptions here.

The Chair: Oh, sorry.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm looking for the appropriate attitude for assessing the risk to society. Perhaps I'll be really direct. How do you get your parolee back into custody?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: When the person is suspended, he or she is returned to the penitentiary. From there on, Correctional Services exercises its prerogatives over the inmate.

• 1715

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Excuse me. How do you get the parolee back into custody? That is my question. I'm not asking what happens after he is brought back into custody, but how do we get him back into custody?

Ms. Kathy Louis: By way of suspension warrants—sorry, apprehension.

Mr. Derek Lee: All right. I'll continue this with Ms. Louis.

You say that by way of a suspension warrant you get him back into custody.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Apprehension.

Mr. Derek Lee: Does the paper go out and do this?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Execute the warrant and the offender is brought back to prison.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. You've indicated your answer using an intransitive verb. Who does this?

Ms. Kathy Louis: The RCMP.

Mr. Derek Lee: Do they do this everywhere in the country?

Ms. Kathy Louis: As far as I know. Different police and authorities do it.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. How does it come about that they do that? How do you know they will do that when you crank out the piece of paper that is called a suspension warrant?

Ms. Kathy Louis: There are working relationships established between the Correctional Service Canada, the parole supervision side of corrections, who have a close working relationship with the police forces across the country.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. Does the parole board not have such a relationship, then?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Well, we have. I do a lot of public relations with police. I do a lot of training with them.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. Can you tell me specifically, then, how the inmate or the parolee comes back into custody after you issue your piece of paper?

Ms. Kathy Louis: It's not my piece of paper, but it is delegated authority that the parole officer has who then suspends the offender, the inmate, the parolee, and the warrant is executed by way of a police authority.

The parolee, if I may, is brought back into prison at that stage.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. What causes— and I'm asking for your perceptions. Ms. Thériault, what causes the police to execute this warrant?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: The person at Correctional Services who was informed of the violation alerts the police. Correctional Services issues the suspension warrant. The police are alerted and they go to pick up the individual at the half-way house and then the person is incarcerated.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: What you are all telling me is that your job is done as soon as you crank out the piece of paper, that the parolee is out there, maybe undertaking mayhem, but your job is done when the piece of paper is issued and you have no further linkage in the apprehension process. Is that correct?

Ms. Kathy Louis: Not necessarily. I have on occasion gone straight to revocation when I have seen a case, a post-suspension report brought to my attention and I'm reviewing the case and I have enough information to go on to directly revoke. That is authority I can exercise and I have done it.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Ms. Caudron, do you realize that if one of your parolees has his or her parole suspended and he or she is in Toronto and the warrant is communicated to what is now the city of Toronto police, that is merely one communication of hundreds that come in every hour to that police force, including reports of burglaries and fires, robberies, arson, attempted murder, rape and so on? Do you realize that your piece of paper, your communication, might not receive prompt response in many parts of the country?

Ms. Cindy Caudron: I can only base this on my experience. Of course, as you know, I have never sat on the board yet, but I can certainly convey to you that I have had my supervisors call the RCMP and call me to ensure that that process has happened.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, I hate to—

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm virtually completed. I think I got reasonable answers. Ms. Louis wanted to add something.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Kathy Louis: May I just add, Mr. Lee, that this is why I think it is so important to have good working relationships between the different components throughout the criminal justice system, to have the openness of working together and to be sharing information back and forth. I hope you understand that. I think this is something the board has worked hard on doing and communicating to the various police forces across the country.

• 1720

The Chair: Thank you.

We have just a few minutes left and we have someone waiting to use our room at 5.30 p.m. I know Mr. MacKay, Mr. Telegdi and Mr. Thompson all want to ask questions. Mr. Thompson has been very patient, so I'm going to go to him first and he's going to share his time.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'll be brief. I'm going to change gears completely. When I was first elected, along with many of my colleagues, there was one concern we always had, and that was patronage appointments. It's a big concern of ours. And I don't need to tell you that when Willie Gibbs came in and announced he had a new selection process that was de-politicized, it was good news to a lot of us.

Unfortunately, in the last few days it may not be holding true, as I look at the appointment of Elizabeth McKall and her connections to the Liberal Party. I'm not going to question her credentials or anything; I'm not worried about that. I am concerned that the appointment did take place in a city of 800,000 and she was the one selected.

So I'm going to ask the two new members two questions. How did you learn about the job? And what process did you go through in filing your application?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: Personally, I saw an notice in the official Gazette. I sent my curriculum vitae and a covering letter. Next I went through very a rigorous selection process that consisted, among other things, of going before a three-person committee that grilled me for two hours after having looked over my curriculum vitae and previous work experience. That's how I learned about the position on the Board.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you. Ms Caudron.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: Mine is much the same as that of my colleague. I was told by a colleague of mine in the field that there had been an advertisement. I think it was in the Globe and Mail, if I remember correctly. My colleague told me they were accepting resumés or that kind of thing for consideration for an appointment. I did mine up, along with a covering letter, and sent it in.

As well, I went through a very long interview process and a written test, if I may use that word, which was discussed with me afterwards with respect to how I arrived at my decisions.

I was also challenged in terms of a case scenario as to whether I would deny or whether I would grant, that kind of thing. And the person who happened to ask me that, who was sitting on the interview team, which consisted of four people, was the vice-chair for the prairie region. He said to me, “I'm the vice-chair and I'm saying we let him go.” My response was, “Frankly, I don't care who you are. My decision is that I don't have enough information and I need to have more.”

I tell you that to show you that there is a demonstration to do checks and balances, to ensure that I was not going to be persuaded in my decisions by my fellow board members or by anyone, outside of the information given to me. I am making an independent decision. In that context, I believe he was testing me to see if I had enough backbone, regardless of whether he was the chair, to say to him, “That doesn't matter if that's what you want to do”.

It was an extensive interview, which went through my experience, my perceptions, my abilities to answer questions quickly, my credentials and my work history, and was much the same as that of my colleague.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. MacKay, a brief question. We only have a couple of minutes and there are two other people.

• 1725

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'd like to follow up on Mr. Thompson's question. Mine is specifically to Ms. Thériault.

I note in your CV, which was provided to the committee as well— and I'm not questioning your credentials at all; in fact, I'm very impressed with your credentials as a part-time member of the parole board, firstly, and as counsel to the Sûreté du Québec, and your legal profession and private practice.

However, I can't help but notice that attached to your CV is a separate page, entitled “Political Experience”. I note that from 1976 to 1993, when your political involvements seem to cease, you have listed provincial and federal election campaigns in which you were involved.

First, were these all Liberal campaigns that you were involved in? Why did you feel it was necessary to attach this to your CV? Were you asked to attach this to your CV? And do you feel that this is a necessary and appropriate consideration in the hiring practices of the National Parole Board?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: Looking at my curriculum vitae, you will notice that before becoming a member of the Parole Board, I was trained as a lawyer. I also had affiliations with political parties. My participation in previous electorial campaigns, as mentioned in my curriculum vitae, consisted primarily of working as a legal counsel during referendums, and working during provincial and federal elections to train deputy returning officers, clerks and scrutineers and also to work in polling stations on election day.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: Parties? You indicated parties. Which parties?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: The Liberal Party.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: Do you think it's an appropriate consideration? Do you think this is something that should be included in a resumé to an apolitical board like the National Parole Board?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: I think that it was rather my qualifications and experience that were evaluated when I was chosen to become a member of the National Parole Board. The curriculum vitae you have in your hands is a curriculum vitae that I had prepared at a time when I was applying for jobs. However, I have never set aside the political affiliations I might have had and I do not think that whether or not I was a member of a party was relevant at this point to an appointment I received three years ago.

I have already explained that I was a part-time Board member in 1995 and that I was appointed a full-time Board member in March 1998. At that time, I submitted an application to the Parole Board for a full-time position. The performance evaluations that had been made by the Regional Vice-President were taken into account. Among other things, the role of the Regional Vice-President is to evaluate the Board members who work in the region.

I can tell you that the evaluations I received during my two years as part-time Board member rated my work as being "entirely satisfactory". I do not think I was necessarily hired by the Board because of my political background. However, I do not wish to deny them, nor can I. I did this work as a legal counsel because I was a lawyer, and I do not think I was hired by the Board solely on the strength of my political background.

• 1730

As you can see in my curriculum vitae, I think I have accomplished and achieved many other things.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's why I prefaced my remarks—

The Chair: Mr. MacKay—

Mr. Peter MacKay: —by saying that I do believe you're qualified. I'm not questioning the qualifications. The question is more about the appropriateness of an attachment such as this.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, we're finished here. We have two more people who want to ask quick questions.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Chair, whenever we deal with a difficult issue like this, I think it's important to realize that in all probability, if any of us in this room are going to be victims of homicide, then chances are it will happen in our own home, and chances are it will happen from our own spouse. I think it's important to point that out. I don't want Canadians going out there saying that people are being murdered left, right, and centre. We have a relatively safe society.

You have the difficult problem of dealing with difficult people. Sometimes you make a decision, and it's a good decision, but a case plan falls apart. Somebody who had a job now doesn't have a job, or someone who had a support group now doesn't, or they go through a divorce. Situations change.

I guess the only thing I would say is, keep an eye on the plan. If the release plan is not being followed, make sure you get feedback, and you can react accordingly.

That's all, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Ramsay, I'm going to give you the last word. You wanted to ask a question.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you for that, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the members for appearing. I want to make one point and then ask you a question.

Regardless of the mistakes that members of the parole board make, I don't know what accountability there is for the consequences of error. I want to put that on the record.

I'd also like to ask you how you feel about appearing before this committee. Do you think it was a worthwhile exercise? Certainly I have gained an awful lot from it, but I often wonder whether we should not have devised a system— Before you were appointed, would you have considered appearing before a committee, perhaps on a short list of nominees?

Nevertheless, you have been appointed to the board, and now I'd like to know how you feel about this experience. Was it a beneficial experience for you folks?

The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: I would first of all like to thank the committee for inviting me. The Board's mission statement talks a great deal about transparency, integrity and also accountability. I think that the fact that I have appeared before you today does indeed enable us to promote these various characteristics that are ascribed to the mission.

I think that it is also very important that you, the elected officials, hear the viewpoint of the Board members who must, on a daily basis, apply the laws that are passed.

I also think that my colleagues and I on the Board are human beings ourselves just the same and that we are also part of Canadian society and are concerned with the work and responsibilities that we have as members of the Parole Board. I can also tell you that every time a member makes a decision, he or she makes it after having obtained the maximum information and after having made the most honest possible assessment of the risk according to the legal criteria.

• 1735

As for myself, if I had been invited here before being appointed, I could not really have talked to you about my experience with parole. I was not a parole officer but a lawyer. Therefore, I think it would have been much more difficult for me to answer your questions if you had received me here prior to my appointment.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Thériault: Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Cindy Caudron: This has been a very good experience. It's caused me additional stress—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Cindy Caudron: —because when I found out, I thought, I don't even have a pencil yet from the National Parole Board and what do you mean I'm going before the standing committee? But I've certainly found it to be an educational experience, because I certainly had some misconceptions about what exactly this was going to be all about, as well. I would assume your questions are not any different from those of the common person out on the street, because they also don't have the information or the access to the information we have, which I'm learning as I go along.

Several weeks ago, prior to getting my binders and all of that kind of thing, I was sort of left in the dark about what exactly this was all about. So it's been good for me to be able to come here and listen to your questions because I'm sure it won't be the only time I will be asked those questions or about different perspectives from the people I live with, even my own family, for that matter.

As to whether it should be done prior to our appointment, I can certainly agree with my colleague that I probably wouldn't have had all that much to share with you because I didn't know anything about the parole board. I may well have sat right beside you and said “Yes, I wonder the same things” when you asked your questions.

It has been very important to me that I have been immersed extensively with my trainers and fellow colleagues in the field about what exactly the National Parole Board is, what it represents, what we do, the responsibility we are charged with, and our accountability to the Canadian people. I think you have represented many questions other people have.

Of course, now it's all over I think I was a little more stressed out than I really needed to be, and I appreciate your sensitivity in some of the questions you asked, because I certainly had visions of something much different. But I want to thank you for the opportunity. It was educational and certainly a good experience, especially coming from where I come from in the Northwest Territories. I can go back and say “Well, they do ask questions. The same kind of questions you would ask, they ask.”

So it's been very beneficial to me, as I hope it has been for you as well. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Louis, you've been here before, I think.

Ms. Kathy Louis: Years ago I appeared before the standing committee with the chairman of the day. This was about 1983 and he was being asked questions about aboriginal offenders and aboriginal issues, so I appeared before him. But it was not in this room.

The Chair: It isn't usually in this room. It's kind of a weird room.

Ms. Kathy Louis: I want to thank the committee members for inviting us to appear before you. I also feel it's been an educational experience for me. In all my years on the board I have not had that opportunity.

I want to share with you, though, that years ago, before I was appointed to the board, I was interviewed by the then chairman of the day, the vice-chair and a senior board member. My name was apparently in the hopper with 19 other names and I've never been politically affiliated or a member of any party, so I was the one who was selected.

• 1740

I have a challenging job. I invite you to come and observe parole hearings and to learn the process more, because it really is a learning experience. I believe it shows that the board is accountable, transparent, open, and I believe the law allowed for that when the changes came in 1992 in terms of allowing observers, allowing victim notification, etc.

I want to go back to Jack Ramsay's earlier point about whether or not we would notify him as a landlord. We're constrained currently by the law. We can do the victim notification now, but outside of this there is not that leverage. It's something you might be aware of as parliamentarians who make the laws.

I also want to share something very personal that you as parliamentarians, as committee members, ought to be made aware of. As a decision maker—you've read my resumé—I do come with experience. I do a lot of training with different components of the criminal justice system.

We were able to institute a process that was sensitive to aboriginal offenders and the elder-assisted parole hearings. Again, I invite you to come and observe that process. It is a bit different. It is an inclusive process, and there could be in fact victim participation inclusiveness in that kind of a process. In other words, what I'm saying is there would be an allowance for victims to be participants.

And I want to share with you that I am a victim. My family has been a victim of a murder. In 1983 I had a sister who was murdered, and it's one of the assault murders.

The Chair: Thank you all very much. This was a special process triggered by your appointment, but we're undertaking a review now of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that will be kicked off at the end of next week, so we may run into you again. I know for sure that we will be attending parole board hearings in our process. I'm glad to hear about the special hearings, the special arrangements for aboriginal offenders, because that would really interest all board members.

So thank you all. I'm sorry you were stressed, but that's okay. Stresses are our second name here.

We'll adjourn this meeting.