PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 2, 1998

• 1556

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)): The meeting will come to order.

We apologize for the late start, but as you know, Mr. Charest had an announcement in the House and the various parties responded to it. So it's a fairly significant day in the affairs of our nation.

We're going to hear from the witnesses. We'll start with Mr. Desautels.

Mr. L. Denis Desautels (Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to present the results of the follow-up work we did on chapter 16 of our 1994 report on Correctional Service Canada and the custody of inmates.

I'm accompanied today by Dr. Maria Barrados and Mr. Robert Chen.

During 1994 and 1996, our office completed three other chapters on Correctional Service Canada, dealing with rehabilitation programs for offenders, the supervision of released offenders, and their reintegration back into society. These chapters will be followed up in the current year.

In our 1994 report, we made a number of observations and recommendations concerning the design and application of CSC's inmate security classification system and its management of inmate accommodation.

Upon holding a public hearing on our chapter, the public accounts committee issued in June 1995 a report to the House of Commons, with similar recommendations. In addition, the committee recommended that Correctional Service Canada find savings in headquarters costs. Later that fall, CSC submitted to the committee, through the Solicitor General, detailed action plans to implement these recommendations.

We're pleased to report that Correctional Service Canada has followed its action plan and has acted on all recommendations concerning inmate accommodation. It has used cost benefit analysis in evaluating future accommodation projects, dealt with double bunking by incorporating shared accommodation strategies in its accommodation planning, and appointed a full-time senior executive responsible for all accommodation-related functions.

[Translation]

However, the Correctional Service is again reviewing its inmate accommodation policy with respect to the use of "double bunking" and "shared accommodation"—both presently referred to as "double occupancy". Your Committee may wish to obtain from CSC a status report on this policy review and how the revised policy on double occupancy will affect inmate accommodation.

Our follow-up also looked at how CSC responded to the Committee's recommendation that if finds savings in costs for its national and five regional headquarters. Based on the figures provided by the Correctional Service, we found that the average headquarters cost per inmate had decreased. However, I feel that it is necessary to draw your attention to our conclusion in the chapter on the Reintegration of Offenders published in November 1996. In that chapter, we recommended that CSC strengthened its national headquarters in order to develop a management framework to better co-ordinate its reintegration activities.

With respect to security classification, the Correctional Service has carried out a number of activities in response to the recommendations of both our Office and the Public Accounts Committee. It has continued to emphasize the importance of always taking into consideration the risk to public safety when making decisions. It has also validated the custody rating scale confirming it is well designed; and it developed better information to assess the risk posed by underplacements.

• 1600

However, we still have two major concerns: the lack of monitoring of the extent of "overrides" of inmates' security classification and the delay and the development of a better-designed "reclassification" instrument.

[English]

Correctional Service Canada has ensured that the use of the custody rating system is mandatory for initial inmate security classification. However, the application of the reclassification guidelines during initial assessment has resulted in a high rate of overrides of about 26%. This is approximately twice what it should be and is a strong indication that additional training is needed in applying the scale.

At the time of our follow-up, Correctional Service Canada had not implemented, as recommended by the committee, a process to monitor regularly the extent of overrides and to provide additional training as needed. Correctional Service Canada told us that it would be able to report the number and reasons for overrides by December 1997, so your committee may wish to ask CSC about its progress in this area.

The action plans submitted to the public accounts committee state that CSC would create, by June 1996, a new reclassification instrument that is fully compatible with its initial classification instrument, the custody rating scale, and more quantitative in nature. Although a considerable amount of work has gone into its development, the new instrument was not operational at the time of our follow-up. Correctional Service Canada estimated that the new system would be in place for use by the end of 1998 at the earliest. Your committee may wish to obtain from CSC an update on the new instrument's progress, as well as an accounting for its delay.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while CSC's actions concerning security classification are positive, continued management attention is needed if Correctional Service is to further improve the objectivity of the security classification system.

I would also like to stress again the importance of a well-working objective classification system. Such a system is critical for minimizing the risk to public safety, ensuring safety in institutions, and reducing the operating costs of federal prisons.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I would be pleased to answer your committee's questions dealing with this follow-up.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Thank you.

Mr. Ingstrup.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service Canada): Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss with you today the results of the Auditor General's follow-up to his 1994 audit of the custody of inmates area.

I'd like to say as an opening comment that, as always, we are dealing here with good, constructive, helpful recommendations for which we would like to thank the Auditor General.

[Translation]

In 1994, the Auditor General challenged the Correctional Service to do a better job of managing the incarceration of federal inmates. The main recommendation centred on:

1. deficiencies in the design and implementation of CSC's security classification process;

2. CSC's need to have accurate and up-to-date information on inmates' classification and placement for cost management;

3. weaknesses in CSC's inmate accommodation planning; and

4. CSC's need to revise its long-range accommodation plan, given the fact that CSC had proposed to adopt a double-bunking and shared-accommodation policy.

In June 1995, the Public Accounts Committee issued a report to the House of Commons, making similar recommendations to those contained in the Auditor General's report, as well as recommending that CSC finds savings in headquarters costs.

CSC has carried out a number of activities in response to those recommendations, which were accepted in their entirety. Many of those recommendations have been achieved in full, others have been met in part and a few remain to be finalized.

• 1605

Here is a brief summary, and I welcome your questions in a few minutes.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform you of the measures that CSC has taken to date.

In response to the Auditor General's concerns regarding our security classification system, CSC has:

First, provided additional training on the Custody Rating Scale to parole officers;

Second, ensured that the Custody Rating Scale is used for all newly-sentenced federal offenders;

Third, developed a new reclassification tool, currently being field- tested;

Fourth, instituted managing of the quality of security classifications, including overrides; and

Finally, directed staff that, through active case management, the level of security required for the offender is to be reviewed on an ongoing basis rather than annually.

In addition, CSC has acted on all the recommendations pertaining to accommodation... Pardon me?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Excuse me, I wonder if you could maybe speed it up. You went four minutes and thirty seconds and we usually like to have the presentations last about eight minutes.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Okay. I'll do my very best.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Thank you.

[Translation]

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: We have acted on all recommendations pertaining to accommodation planning.

[English]

We have done cost benefit analyses. We have appointed an assistant commissioner responsible for this area, and we now have an integrated strategy for the double bunking.

Not all of the Auditor General's recommendations have been fully addressed. There's still work to be done, especially in the area of so-called overrides of the security classifications.

We now have the first monitoring report in place. It was after the Auditor General's report, but it was in place as of February 22, 1998. We have found that the scale does not totally reflect our reality. We have a scale that is geared toward a higher level of people in maximum security and fewer people in minimum security. We have also found a fairly large number of overrides.

We have found, for instance, that in over 50% of the time, when a person under this scale was supposed to go to a maximum security institution, the parole officer in charge sent this person to a lower security institution. That means either the scale is not calibrated as it should be or our staff is making bad decisions.

We looked into that and found that the system as it is performs exceedingly well. To give you an example, in medium security in the last couple of years we have had 2% and 3% ratios of escapes, which is the lowest we've had in the last eight years. There were three escapes from medium security institutions in the last fiscal year and none of them belonged to the override group.

I can explain what happened to them afterwards.

The minimum security institutions have also had a very low level of escapes at 2.8%. This is the average over about the last three years, but it is way below what we have had over the last seven to eight years. As a matter of fact, we're down significantly in spite of the fact that we have 24% more people in minimum security institutions.

• 1610

When we look at those who are underrated and who escape from minimum security institutions—there were 17 of them—only one had been charged with a new offence, and that offence was a traffic violation.

Our conclusion is that the custody rating scale is off in the sense that it indicates a need for higher security than we really need, and that has been compensated for through the overrides by our staff. We don't think that is an acceptable way of doing business in the long term, and we agree with the Auditor General that we need to look at the scale again. We are doing it and we have developed a new instrument in that respect. That instrument will be tested and should be ready for implementation relatively soon.

Another important point is, if we do that we will have a vastly reduced number of overrides because staff will not have to override the scale in order to get to the right conclusions. The work is not finished completely, but, as I said, we are in the process of doing it.

[Translation]

The Auditor General also cited the need for a more quantitative reclassification instrument. We agreed. A new instrument has been developed and is currently being field-tested. I can promise you, Mr. Chairman, that full implementation will occur by the end of the year.

[English]

The difference between the reclassification scale and the custody scale is that the custody rating scale only looks at the past, whereas the reclassification scale also takes into account what is happening during the current incarceration.

Switching now to the area of accommodation policy, we believe double occupancy as a permanent occupation is not good corrections. It is not good corrections to have two people in the same cell or in the same room over the long term. The principle of single occupancy is also in keeping with the United Nations' standard minimum rules for the treatment of offenders, as well as the Canadian Criminal Justice Association standards.

We are looking now at a different way of accommodating our offenders, principally in single occupation, over the long term. Obviously we cannot do it overnight and we are not planning to launch any major construction project to get there. We hope that when we follow some of the other recommendations by the Auditor General we'll be able to see that the incarcerated portion of our offender population will be lower, and therefore the 25% double occupancy or double bunking will be reduced to a more acceptable level of upheaval—to be there for shorter periods of time.

The last point I want to touch on is the recommendation pertaining to national headquarters. It is true that when the Auditor General was looking at it we had reduced the national headquarters, but we have added some people to national headquarters since that time. The reason was that we—and when I say “we” I mean both the government and I—felt we needed a stronger national headquarters, particularly in the correctional area, in order to manage the service as one service and not as five or more services. We also think we are in tune with the Auditor General's desire to have a better handle on these things.

With these words, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to answer your questions to the extent possible.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Thank you very much. The first one will be Mr. Thompson.

• 1615

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Thank you.

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for your words. There are a number of things I want to get into in my eight minutes, so I'll go through them as quickly as I can and try to keep them short.

First, double bunking or double occupancy. I know there is a difference between the two. Do we have any double bunking now, or not?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Thompson, what we call double bunking means that there are two inmates in a cell that was constructed for one person. Then we have a number of cells that were actually constructed for two people, and that's what we call double occupancy. It's obviously a lot less worrisome than when you have double bunking.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Is there any double bunking, though? That was my question.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Oh yes.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I didn't see any in Kingston Penitentiary. Has that been eliminated there, or is that—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I can tell you exactly where they are. In Dorchester institution in the Atlantic region, one in five inmates are double bunked, two in a cell constructed for one. Quebec region has 3.5%; Ontario region has about 11%; in the prairie region it varies a little bit, around 20%, except for the two reception areas where we have over 70% double bunked in the reception areas. In the Pacific region it's about 24% or 25%.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Then I'd like to turn to Mr. Desautels and say I understand your recommendations. Double bunking is a cheaper way to go. In double occupancy, that's not the case. Is that right?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, we did not make specific recommendations as to whether or not they should double bunk or they should go to double occupancy. What we noted at the time was more that there was a disconnection between what the service was doing and what its official policy was calling for. We felt there was a need to clarify essentially what the department policy was and therefore determine whether or not that's what they wanted to do.

Mr. Myron Thompson: But there was a difference in the cost.

Mr. Denis Desautels: There are obviously cost consequences to that, but our remarks were not intended to suggest we should save costs by resorting to that.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify.

At Drumheller, Mr. Ingstrup, I saw the new construction, the newly constructed cells with occupancy for two. They looked quite comfortable and with quite a bit of room. The inmates I talked with were quite happy to be in a situation like that, yet you're saying it's very unwise to practice that. In just what way do you mean?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There are a number of ways, sir, in which it is not the best possible correctional way to go about it, although I have to say that double occupancy is, of course, a lot less problematic from our point of view than double bunking. Just the fact that you put two men, who don't necessarily like each other all that well, together in the same room—and they spend a lot of time there—can create quite a bit of tension. Also, it's a lot more difficult to get people to focus on their correctional objectives when they have people, maybe like-minded people, sitting in the same cell carrying on a conversation that is less conducive to good reintegration.

In terms of cost, we have to look at the short-term cost and the long-term cost. It is obvious that it's less costly to build cells for two people than to build two individual cells. But in the long term, we are losing some of that gain very quickly because it requires more staff when you have that kind of cell. At the end of the day, the savings are not really worth looking at, and I doubt that, correctionally, there are any savings.

On the other hand—and I would like to emphasize this—we're not planning to suddenly give up on all of this and start new reconstruction. That's not what we're talking about. We simply state that we don't think this is the way to go. So in the future we will not suggest to Treasury Board that we build double cells any more; we will try to manage our prison population better, according to the recommendations made by the Auditor General in some other reports. Through that we hope we will get down to a reasonable level of double occupancy and potentially get rid of double bunking altogether.

• 1620

Mr. Myron Thompson: On my recent visit to Kent Institution in British Columbia a couple of weeks ago, I had a chance to visit with and spend quite an amount of time with the ERT, the emergency response team, which is a very efficient group of people in that particular institution, very well equipped, and above all very well trained. I think they are in a situation in conjunction with the police where they are able to receive a lot of good things. I viewed the tapes of them in action and I found that there is a great regard for their activity and their placement by the inmates. When the ERT moves into place, the inmates know that these fellows and ladies know what they are doing and they know they had better beware.

But throughout the rest of the country, ERT people have resigned. They don't want any part of it. Their equipment is deplorable compared to what I saw in Kent, their training is nil, and there doesn't seem to be any action on the part of Corrections to look after the emergency response teams throughout the country to make them as good a unit as the one I saw in Kent.

In terms of dollars, I would say that the money spent at the front end to train these people in the fashion that they are in Kent would really save a lot of dollars at the other end, in terms of how they can prevent riots and in terms of a lot of the good work they do. I'd like you to respond to that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have, I'm sure, a very fine team in Kent Institution, as we have fine teams in many of our other institutions. I talked to the team that we have now in Kingston Penitentiary, and although they were involved in all kinds of undesirable things at one point in history, they have really shaped up. They have been through very good training, they are now working with mediators, and the result is very good.

I would argue that you may be able to find places here and there where training has not been delivered up to the last minute, but we have a training plan for these people and it is being audited like anything else. If there are areas where we are falling short, then we should be doing something about it, and I'm quite prepared to take action. We'll go back and look at what it means and let you know exactly what the situation is.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Are you aware of those who have resigned or quit or folded up?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No.

Mr. Myron Thompson: You should be aware of them, because this is happening. I'd like you to check into that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Sure. There are people resigning all the time. One of the—

Mr. Myron Thompson: I meant as a unit.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes. That doesn't happen on a regular basis, but there are people who did not like...and we have to be tough on these things. There were people at one point who thought that if they had to follow the law very strictly, as directed by Judge Arbour and as directed, I guess, by members of Parliament, it could be difficult to be there. They didn't want to live under that kind of pressure. That's their choice.

In my view, there is absolutely no doubt that a team of that nature must follow the laws of the land as set out by Parliament, and they do that. People who are there now, it seems to me, are quite happy being there. It's a voluntary thing. They can resign whenever they want to. We're not short of members.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Well, I—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Thank you. You're over your time now. We will get back to you on the next round.

Monsieur Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): I would like to return to paragraph 35.71 of the Auditor General's report dealing with the number of overrides. A validation study carried out by the CSC noted an override rate of 26%, and estimated that only about half of the overrides were for legitimate reasons. In your presentation today, you have told us that the override rate is still 25%. What percentage of the 25% is for valid reasons? Is it still half?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, all the overrides are legitimate. We did not find any illegitimate overrides. However, we believe that 25% is too high. It should be pointed out that this instrument is only one of the tools that we use for determining inmates' security classification. There is always a subjective factor related to the person who is there and conducts the assessment interviews. This has always been our objective.

• 1625

The normal rate of overrides should be about 15%. So we are exceeding this objective by about 10%. We are currently adjusting the instrument to ensure that there will be a greater coordination between what we are doing and the outcome of the classification system.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Ingstrup, paragraph 35.71 of the Auditor General's report reads as follows:

35.71 In 1996, Correction Service completed a validation study of the Custody Rating Scale that confirmed that the scale is well designed. The same study noted a 26% override rate and estimated that only about half of the overrides were for legitimate reasons.

This is what the study confirmed. Today you are telling me that there are no illegitimate reasons. Legitimate reasons does not seem to have the same meaning for you as for the Auditor General. I would first ask the Auditor General to define what he means by legitimate or illegitimate reasons. Then I would like to hear your comments.

Mr. Denis Desautels: I would ask Ms. Barrados to answer Mr. Laurin's question.

Ms. Maria Barrados (Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): The study referred to in this paragraph was carried out by CSC. The information that Mr. Ingstrup is giving the Committee is new. It reflects a change of position if you will. The observation in the report was based upon the facts as we noted them at the time of the audit.

Mr. René Laurin: Am I to understand that if you were drafting your report today you would not say that half of the overrides are illegitimate?

Ms. Maria Barrados: No. Mr. Ingstrup has disclosed new information. If we were to undertake a new audit today, we would have to look at a new issue.

Mr. René Laurin: But to what new information are you referring? I don't see it.

Ms. Maria Barrados: It is the information that he told us during his presentation, namely the CSC's decision to undertake a new review of the scale and to adopt a different approach.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Ingstrup, since the parole officers always have some discretionary power, how many of the 25% of overrides are not the consequence of a discretionary decision?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: All the decisions are the result of a discretionary decision by the person who is doing the classification. The difference that we are talking about today occurred when the CSC gave researchers the objective of developing a classification system, and we specified that we wished to have a tool that would make it possible to distribute the inmates in the following fashion: 15% in minimum security institutions, 73% in medium security institutions and 12% in maximum security institutions. That was the basis of the classification system.

We realized that we could safely and securely accommodate a greater number of inmates in medium and minimum security institutions. We noted that the number of escapes is lower than in the last ten years.

• 1630

These results were achieved while 27% of inmates were housed in minimum security institutions, 68% in minimum security institutions and barely 5% in maximum security institutions. This worked very well for three years, and we are currently recalibrating the instrument to reflect this reality. As soon as the adjustment is made, we hope that the number of overrides will be minimal.

Mr. René Laurin: In the case of the exercise of discretionary power by the officers, does a single officer make a discretionary decision, or does this involve a committee of two or three?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: At the present time, Mr. Chairman, an officer is primarily responsible for the classification. However we have provided that the parole officer's supervisor must cosign the final classification. Thus the responsibility is shared by two levels.

Mr. René Laurin: Could you give me an example of how such a discretionary decision is made?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: I could give you several examples. Take the example of an inmate who needs to be protected from other inmates. This type of protection may exists in a medium security institution, but if it is deemed that there is no risk of escape, this protection could be provided in an institution with a lower security classification.

There are many other examples. If we expect there to be a very short time between when an inmate arrives in an institution and the time when he will automatically be released, that is for mandatory parole, the risk of escape is probably very very low. There are other similar cases.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Thank you. I have a number of questions. I welcome all the witnesses. I ask you to keep your answers as short as I will try to keep my questions.

Originally this report we are examining now was based on an original Auditor General report of 1994, chapters 16 and 16.73. I'll quote directly:

If Correctional Service implements this new strategy of double bunking and shared accommodation it could avoid spending large sums of capital funds constructing new prisons in the future.

Further in that paragraph it's talking about double bunking since the 1980s:

This has allowed Correctional Service to avoid a potential expenditure of about $240 million in one-time future capital costs and to reduce operating expenses by about $60 million annually.

And further in that paragraph it says:

...for each inmate double bunked, the Service can avoid a one-time construction cost of $150,000 and realize an annual saving in operating expenses of $38,000.

Is that your report? Can you just verify chapter 16.73?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's part of a section dealing with the potential for cost avoidance.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Yes, that's what I wanted to clarify.

Now I would ask the corrections people to give me the dimensions of a single bunking accommodation that has been converted for double bunking. What's the cell size?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I can't give you exactly the square footage, but it's about one and a half times what a normal cell would be for a single inmate.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: No, I'm talking about the single cell that has just added a double bunk. Have you enlarged the cell size?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No. That's why I use the words “double bunk”, because we simply put a bunk bed in.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: And what are the dimensions of that space, please?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think it's about seven square metres.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: In that you have two bunks?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think that is it, but I can give you the exact number.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: All right. Is it very small or very large?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It's very small.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Are there two beds and a toilet facility in that?

• 1635

Commr Ole Ingstrup: In some of them, we have.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Okay.

You've already given the percentages, so we won't review that.

As you put people in a double bunking situation, do you always increase your staffing requirements to be proportionate to the number of inmates?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Well, that's what we try to do. We have some norms for it, but there is a limit. We have so many staff to play with. We try to do it, and that is what is in our general—

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I know it's in the plan. Is it done?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It is usually done. I cannot tell you that it is done in all cases, because you'll probably be able to find something else.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: All right. I'll say right now that I'm very happy you're abandoning double bunking. I'm absolutely opposed to it. I think it's bad for corrections and I think it's a false economy. I absolutely do not agree that there are any savings with double bunking.

As you put people in overcrowded prisons, do you always have the facilities or the financial resources to proportionally increase the programming resources needed by the inmates?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have been quite lucky over the last number of years, and I'm talking about the last ten years, to be able to actually reprofile our budget. So a lot of resources have been invested in programs and program people. But we are at this point in time looking at the other side, the front-line staff, and obviously there's a need there too, especially when you see a growing population in our institutions.

Fortunately, at this point in time, Mr. Chair and Madam, we are seeing a prison population that is yielding a bit. We hope also to be able to add to that by taking the Auditor General's recommendations more seriously in terms of getting on with programming. We're trying to apply a more systematic approach.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: How often do prisoners get a parole hearing now? Is it once a year?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think it is normally once a year, except for some cases, where it's once every two years.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: When you do your risk assessments for transferring individuals from, say, maximum to medium to minimum security, is one of the criteria perhaps that somebody should complete an anger management course or...?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, it is, and that can lead to over-classification in some cases, where people could go to minimum but we would like them to finish a program, so they will stay until that's done.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: So if you don't have sufficient resources in-house and they don't get the program, then it's likely to delay their movement out of one level of security to a lower level of security.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Not only that, but it's also likely to delay parole.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: What's the annual cost per year when you keep somebody incarcerated?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It's $50,000 a person, on average.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I would submit to you that double bunking, if you don't have the resources and you don't have the programming, in actual fact contains your prison population in a status situation instead of moving the flow forward, and therefore could actually increase. So it's not just the capital or infrastructure costs. Ultimately you could be holding people in the system, and there's that annualized cost.

My question to the Auditor General is, when you made your statement in 1994, did you consider that?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I believe we did. I think when we read all of what we had to say about the cost implications of double bunking or shared accommodations, we do recognize quite carefully that some of the cost being avoided is a one-time construction cost, for example, and we do state that there are operating costs that could be saved as well.

If you keep on, we do say that there is, in paragraph 16.75, of course a need to proceed with caution. Then we go on and present the other side of the—

Mrs. Sue Barnes: That's not my point, though. My point is you've given a definite savings per year in your statement. My question to you is, did you—and I'll call them soft costs—factor in the increased costs due to the violence in an institution? Did you factor in the delay in the programming? Did you factor in that when you double bunk you don't automatically...?

I've been in prisons where they didn't automatically increase their programming. I've talked to inmate groups where they tell me they can't get the programming so they can't move down the row, they're not going to meet the parole board, and it's another year or whatever the time period.

Did you factor that in? I'm not trying to assess fault; I'm just trying to get it straight here, because it's very misleading to people if you say this system is cheaper.

• 1640

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make our position quite clear here. If it wasn't clear enough then, let me try to clarify it again.

We're not advocating going to double bunking or shared accommodation. We were stating, when we were looking at accommodation in that particular chapter, what was being done at the time and what the cost implications were. We tried, I hope, to show both sides of this particular decision, and the ultimate objective here was to demonstrate the dichotomy between what was being done in the official policy of Correctional Service Canada.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I understood that point. It's the other point that's not clear.

Mr. Denis Desautels: In terms of the other implications, we looked at other implications dealing with the reintegration efforts and the rehabilitation efforts in subsequent work we've done. I believe these other audits we've done, both in 1994 and 1996, did in fact reflect the factors that had to be considered in making some of these decisions in terms of custody.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Thank you, Mrs. Barnes.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Chairman, if I may just add to it, I would like to say that the 25% double bunking thing was actually Correctional Service Canada's policy at the time. It wasn't imposed on us by anybody, and I have to take co-responsibility for changing that. So it has not been imposed on us by anybody.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Thank you.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ingstrup, I was interested in some of the comments that were made in your dialogue with Mr. Laurin, and I would like to pick up on that, if I may.

In discussing overrides, I believe you said that over 50% of the time those who were supposed to be in maximum security were actually transferred to either medium or minimum security. There's a fair cost difference in supervising those in maximum security and those in less security, either medium or minimum. What is it, eight employees to monitor ten inmates in maximum, or something like that?

Is there some sense of the cost of supervising inmates involved as one of the factors in these overrides that would cause this override to push from maximum to medium or minimum?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, sir, cost is not a factor at all in this. Although when you look at it long term there is a significant cost difference, I think one shouldn't forget that a maximum security institution that works at 80% or 90% is almost as expensive as one that runs at 100%.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: In your budgeting, then, you must have some means of estimating what your costs will be so that you have some idea of how many are going to be overrides. The overrides are going to take them from maximum to a lower category. Is that correct?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: This is one of the things that the Auditor General has pointed out: we haven't been all that good at doing that. But we are doing it now. We've been working with Treasury Board to develop some formula so that the custody rating scale can be integrated in the development of the long-term accommodation planning, and it will be there in a general sense from year 1999-2000. It's there partially now.

The reason we are where we are at now is that when experienced parole officers in the institutions look at these inmates, they are saying to themselves that this is too high a classification for a person like him. They find a lot of reasons why this person isn't the prototype person around whom the custody rating scale has been developed. And they were right in some sense, because the system works very well as it is right now, but it does inspire or invite us to revisit the custody rating scale, which is, in a way, too conservative.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Let me press on a bit, then. If you're keeping track of the dollars and there is no anticipation beforehand of the overrides bringing a lower classification, what happens to the money that was budgeted for maximum security when in fact half of them have gone down to a lower classification?

• 1645

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We don't budget on the basis of the classification scale alone; we budget on the basis of the way in which reality unfolds. That means we take the degree of overrides we have documented here into account when we do our planning?

The only thing we are doing is looking at moving the custody rating scale closer to reality, instead of trying to force our staff to use a scale that is not the best scale in the world.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: There's just one other aspect I want to touch on with overrides before my time is finished.

In shaping the new tool for the overrides and the reclassification, I'm not sure...it was my understanding that there is a tool that is either being developed or has been developed, but not tested yet. Yet in your comments it seemed to me that perhaps that had happened. Can you clarify that for me?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, I'm sorry about that. It was because I responded maybe a little too quickly to the chair's suggestion of speeding up my presentation.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: The question I want to ask is, when is that tool going to be ready to be used? When is it going to be finished?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The first tool we're going to talk about, the recalibration of the custody ratings scheme, should be ready sometime this year. The reclassification tool that takes the actual sentence and behaviour during the actual sentence into account is being tested now, and, as I promised earlier in the meeting, it is to be implemented fully across the nation before the end of this year.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Okay, if that—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)): Sorry, Mr. Mayfield, you're over your time.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Not by much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Pagtakhan, please.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation. I apologize for being late.

The Auditor General referred to the dichotomy that sometimes exists or had existed between policy and program delivery and operations. Is that still the case?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm not too sure I understand exactly what you're referring to. If it is a question, the old question of compliance with policy, then obviously we, like other organizations, have some problems from time to time; people don't always do what they're supposed to do. We have taken some serious steps to rectify that, but our audits do show us that from time to time we do not have full compliance.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In fact, I was struck by your concluding statement as printed, that since your return, it was the government's desire and a personal desire to have less disparity.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Is it ever a conflict, that the staff of the correctional service institution would have his personal desire to override, if I may use the term, government policy?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, that's what I mean. But you can imagine, sir, with five regions, a certain culture can develop in one region that is different from the one that develops in another region. Suddenly, after a while, you can see statistically a difference between what happens in one region and what happens in another region.

We have the regions there to make sure they take care of the needs of the local institutions, and that may happen in different ways. The less reporting system and monitoring you have from national headquarters, the more likely it is to happen. That doesn't mean one region is better or worse than the other; it just means they happen to go in two different directions.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You indicated that it is your dual desire, if I may say it, to have less disparity in correctional operations nationwide.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: That could be interpreted, of course, in one of two ways. In other words, less disparity may mean having the operation at the very lowest minimum in terms of quality, or at the very highest minimum. What is it really?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I thank you for your question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify this.

• 1650

What it means, basically, is that if one takes an offender and drops that individual in one region, that offender should by and large be subject to the same kind of treatment as he or she would be subject to somewhere else.

You know, all policies have some kind of flexibility. One region may end up at one end of the scale and the other region at another. It doesn't mean they are against the policies; it's just that they behave differently.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On the point about the need to have accurate and up-to-date information on inmate classification and placement for cost management, I would take it that at least one value we derive from that up-to-date information on classification is cost management. Are there any other values?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: In having the information? Obviously, it's one of the monitoring tools to help us see if there's a uniform way of applying our security scale from one end of the country to the other, and to see if some particular tendencies develop in one place that we don't know of somewhere else.

What we would like to do, sir, is have a management system in place that enables the local managers to do as much as they can. On the other hand, we need to know what it is they do. If they take off in the wrong direction, we will have to be able to correct it.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Then perhaps—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Sorry, Mr. Pagtakhan, that's your time.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to ask a question further to the point you were making with respect to the new reclassification system. I think I heard you say it's being tested now. I wondered if you were convinced that you were on track in terms of that new reclassification system or instrument you're using.

We noted as a committee that this was recommended back in 1994, and it wasn't implemented. Can you give us some level of assurance that in fact it will be this time?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Sir, I'm as concerned about this as you are, maybe even more so, because I am accountable for this. I met yesterday with the people responsible for this. I asked them the same questions: “Are we on track? Can I promise the committee tomorrow that by the end of this year it will be in place?”

Interestingly enough, I don't have a great desire to come back and give you the same story next year. They promised me it would happen, and I will follow that carefully.

Mr. Lynn Myers: And you're promising us today.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I also had a question with respect to some of the cost savings you've had over the last number of years. I wondered if you could restate the cost per inmate, and further, if there are additional economies of scale that you could see in the system.

As well, I was interested recently in seeing that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario are looking at some form of privatization. I wondered if that has ever been looked at or studied or if you were dealing with, in any way or any form, parts of the process to be privatized.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I can give you information about the offender cost. I'm giving you round figures here, although I can give you very detailed information, if you wish.

Normally, maximum security institutions are at the level of well over $60,000 a year. Medium security institutions are around $45,000 to $50,000. That's also what we see in minimum security institutions.

Institutions for women are particularly expensive. Treatment of sex offenders in special institutions, psychiatric institutions inside or outside CSC, are incredibly expensive. On the other hand, they are very effective programs, so they save us a lot of money and a lot of lives in the long run.

So much about that; we'll give you some good references.

As far as privatization is concerned, I think the New Brunswick government backed down from that idea as they got into a closer study of that. I would say we are not, at this point in time, contemplating anything that looks like full privatization of the service or full privatization of any individual institution.

Mind you, we're talking about nuances here. My budget is about $1.2 billion. About 10% of my budget, or $120 million, will go to non-public service activities like suppliers and maintenance people, and we have a huge and very valuable working relationship with over 160 halfway houses that are run by private halfway house operators like the John Howard Society, the Salvation Army, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and what have you. So it is a degree of nuance.

• 1655

In my personal view, there are a number of very serious questions that will have to be addressed before an organization goes into privatization. One thing that I would imagine one has to think carefully about is what this would do to the whole concept of state. If the most powerful intrusions into citizens' lives are being privatized, does it do something to the very concept of state? It's not up to me to answer that question, but I would suggest that this is one of the questions one has to think carefully about.

There's no doubt that, in the United States, there are individual institutions that are run very well by private operators. There's absolutely no doubt about it. We see it in England as well. But I think Correctional Service Canada can more than compete with such institutions, because it's not just a question of cost. It's also a question of what we do inside.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Time's up, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'm going to be really quick with my questions, so, Ole, you be really quick with your answers. Four minutes go by awfully fast.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's not a good deal.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Inmate committees throughout the country have been asked what they see as the big problem. First, too many of the people who are in there are uneducated and they're illiterate. Second, they have no training skills whatsoever in terms of being able to do a good day's work. Third, some have serious addictions to drugs in particular and to alcohol. Yet their complaint is that the concentration is so heavily on cognitive skills that these other areas are weakened because of that. Have you ever heard of the program whereby you incorporate cognitive skills into other programs to achieve both measures, subsequently saving a lot of time and energy? They say cognitive skills by themselves make up a game they know how to play.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'll be as brief as I can. I'm sure they know how to play the game, but it doesn't matter, because at the same time, they relapse less into crime than they otherwise would. We have the cold facts for that. But you are right, the cognitive skills training alone won't do it.

By the way, we do have addiction programs, both for drugs and alcohol, and we do combine them with cognitive skills training.

It's obvious that you're right when you say we should be doing more in terms of education, and we will. We should also be doing more in giving people good skills for after their release, and we will do that. I have ordered Correctional Service Canada to look at an expanded mandate in that respect.

Mr. Myron Thompson: There's no doubt about it, the cost of crime is more expensive than the cost of incarceration and rehabilitation.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Myron Thompson: So let's do a good job of it. I think everybody would agree with that.

On ERT, I'd encourage you to go around and look at exactly how they differ. Go to Warkworth, where they have not been successful at all in setting up a good ERT. Part of the problem is that they're isolated from other institutions and can't draw like other places and areas can. They need help. If they want to set up a good ERT, they need to have some help. I'd encourage you to do that.

The last point I'm going to make with you today is on something that I found to be just extremely strange when I went to a parole hearing in Bowden. The inmate was asking for escorted leaves, but they denied him those leaves. I talked to the case workers afterwards and I was told that the biggest problem they had with letting this person out is that he will never survive on the outside. There are people out there who want to kill him because he owes an $80,000 drug debt after being in the penitentiary for fourteen years. How can an inmate end up in debt to the tune of $80,000 on the inside? Can you explain that to me?

• 1700

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Some people on the inside, sir, have a tendency to dramatize. Whether this is true or not, I couldn't tell. I have no idea about the individual case. But it is obvious, Mr. Thompson, that our institutions have drugs. We are quite successful in getting the number of people involved in that down, but it will still be there. These people come in with heavy drug and alcohol problems.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Are you addressing organized crime at the same time?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We're doing what we can inside, but, as you know, this is not just a question of corrections; this is a question of a broader sense.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Exactly, yes.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I want to say, though, that as you have seen, one of the main objectives of my minister, Mr. Scott, is organized crime and another one is effective corrections. Obviously, the commissioner of the RCMP and I are working together in this area.

Mr. Myron Thompson: One is interfering with the other right now, as I understand it, according to him. Organized crime interferes with good corrections.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Obviously there are problems there.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Thompson, you are over your time. Thank you.

I think you have forgotten one of the biggest factors, mental illness.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: Let's have short questions and short answers, please.

As for overrides, you have said that if you recalibrate the cut-off levels, the number of overrides will probably be reduced. The current percentage is 25%. What is your objective?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: According to the international standards, a 15% override rate is acceptable.

Mr. René Laurin: When do you think you will achieve this level?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: We will implement it as soon as possible this year. That is what I promised.

Mr. René Laurin: Good. You said that you have drawn up a list of reasons that justify overriding the scale. Is it a very detailed list?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: We can give you a copy of the list. I have it with me.

Mr. René Laurin: I don't want you to read the whole thing out. I have only four minutes and would be short of time.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: I could give you...

Mr. René Laurin: You gave me an example, that of prisoner protection. I suppose that there could be an override for going to the infirmary, or for similar reasons.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: There could be a deportation order. Some people are within 5% of a lower security classification. There are other factors as well.

Mr. René Laurin: How many reasons are there on your list?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: There are about ten, I think.

Mr. René Laurin: About ten reasons. By using his discretionary power, could an officer override the scale for a reason other than those on the list?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: There is a group called "others", but the officer must explain in writing why he overrode the scale, and the supervisor must approve it. In the control system in Ottawa, we will see whether this group is growing.

Mr. René Laurin: So, in the case of an override for a discretionary reason, the system has a mechanism that allows a supervisor to judge whether the override was granted for valid reasons or not.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely.

Mr. René Laurin: Is it possible under the system for an officer to use his discretionary power to grant favours to a prisoner without being accountable to anybody?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: We don't usually talk about favours, but there are rights and options set out in our policies. All of our policies comprise a discretionary element, because we are working in the real world. This means that our rules cannot be too rigid.

Mr. René Laurin: That's fine. So, that could happen.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: It could happen, because there is always a subjective element of discretion. But I would like to tell you that the results to date have been extraordinary.

Mr. René Laurin: Good. My last question. A new prison for women was inaugurated in Joliette a year ago.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: I would like to know whether since the opening, not the official opening because there wasn't one since this riding is not represented by a Liberal MP, but the unofficial opening, the operation of this prison complies with the national standards for management, security, etc.

• 1705

I would like to have your comments on this.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: I have the impression that Joliette Institution is functioning very well. I visited this institution a few weeks ago, and I spoke with the employees, the management and also some inmates. It seems to me that the system is working in accordance with the mission of that institution. Generally speaking, it operates the same way as the institutions in Edmonton and Kitchener.

Mr. René Laurin: Have there been any escapes, to date, from the Joliette prison?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: Not that I know.

Mr. René Laurin: There have been no escapes?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: I do not think so.

Ms. Lynn Balice (Director, Ministerial Liaison, CSC): I think not.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: No.

Mr. René Laurin: That's fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: These overrides are something I'm having difficulty understanding. From a layman's point of view, I'm really concerned about them, because it's not just the classification of getting from maximum to minimum, for whatever reason. It's when I see people released from prison who have not conformed to the expectations of those who are doing the classification, and we see violence and further criminal activity.

In my own personal dealings as a member of Parliament, I'm aware of an individual who received a dangerous offender judgment and was sent to prison. The people who were responsible for him tell me what a model prisoner he's been. He's gone through all the courses and will likely have to be released because of this, but they are reasonably confident he will reoffend. I can't tell you how many dozens of young people he has destroyed and hurt for the rest of their lives. This is my concern about this classification system.

I would like to know why we have 50%, as you have stated, of overrides and yet as I read the Auditor General's report, it was my understanding that we are at about 26%. When we talk about that with his people, they say at 15% or 20% there should be a trigger mechanism that kicks in for a management review, because it seems as though the initial classification, when the person goes into custody, is being overridden in a rather arbitrary way, without reference to clear guidelines.

I would like to know why, when there's a method of classifying people when they go into prison, this can simply be overridden by someone's judgment, without referring necessarily to some guidelines or instrument. It seems to me it's far too subjective and the consequences are far too great. I'd like an answer to that. Can you tell me why that is?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'd be glad to. On the first question about the security classification and release, I want to point out the security classification scale is not being used for the assessment of offenders at the time they go out. There is a whole different set of tools that is being used. We can talk about that, but it has nothing to do with the classification tools.

Second, there are people who are dangerous offenders who are absolute model inmates, but that doesn't mean they will get out. If we judge that they are dangerous at the time they go outside, they can be model inmates as much as they want, but it doesn't matter. What matters is the risk they represent to the community. In the case of dangerous offenders, it's obvious it's never an issue that they have to be released, because they have indeterminate sentences.

On the third question you raised—and I hope the Auditor General will correct me if I'm wrong here—the Auditor General is really saying the service has a system in place, and then it does something else to the tune of 26%, and that makes no sense. We agree.

• 1710

We are looking at the discrepancy caused by discretionary powers on the part of parole officers, and we ask ourselves: is it the scale that ought to be changed because it doesn't reflect good corrections? Or is it our people who are not applying the scale well enough?

Our conclusion is that it's the scale that's not as good as it should be. That's why we're changing the scale. Once we change the scale, we expect that the discrepancy will be lower.

When it comes to your last question, I have to say, sir, that we realize we are talking about people who can represent a significant danger. The system as it is today, with the discrepancy between the scale and the actual outcome of parole officers' activities, has led us to a very, very high level of safety and security. So the system is working well.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Well, we read about the consequences in papers, nevertheless.

A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would like to request of the witnesses, if we may, documentation on the classification system and the reclassification system for the committee to study.

I must say that I find this a little hard to grasp. I would like to have a look at it. Could we have that tabled with the committee, please?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Certainly.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We can do it right away. In anticipation of a demand like that, we could have them here. We would be happy to—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: That's wonderful. Thank you.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No problem. I would be glad to talk about them as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Pagtakhan, please.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

From the start of the sentence to the time of release, various chapters happen in terms of the timeframe. Whatever timeframe it is following the jail term, my question relates to the following.

First, at the time of release, how many did you find out later on were truly corrected and how many were falsely corrected?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, we can give you the latest number we have. It's a large sample: 71,000.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'd like the proportions.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Out of 71,000, 18% committed a new offence while still under our supervision. That is, to the best of my knowledge, one of the best percentages you can find anywhere.

But it differs at different levels.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, before you go to that, the 18% who were falsely corrected committed another offence. If we assume that even a different offence is also a false correction, how many could you have predicted?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We could not have predicted them, because what we did was—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, that's okay. Never mind “because”. The question is, are you attempting to find out the risk factors?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay. What to date can you tell the committee as to the risk factors that you could have identified that were not identified?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't think I could do that. What I can do is tell you that we have what we call risk prediction tools for the community, not only through the parole process but also when people are out in the community.

Obviously this is not an exact science. It's something that we have developed, but I can tell you that the program we have in place is being copied all over the place.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: As a consequence of continuing experience, have there been any modifications of approach?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes. We are constantly modifying our approach.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: And those are documented in your performance appraisal that the Auditor General could look into in the future?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, they are—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Then how do you know that indeed it is being done to the best of our ability in the best way possible?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Well, the only way is if I could maybe have an opportunity to sit down with you and show you what we are doing. We can have a description of what we are doing and how we are going about it. We'd be glad to provide you with that.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Now, many factors were mentioned: illiteracy, non-education, drugs, and debt. Of course, you alluded to staffing, and we have not paid attention to that.

Is staffing a problem? It's not so much the number but the quality of the continuing education that people provide to them. In other words, in any school, if you have 50 pupils failing, you review the teacher as well. Do we apply that guideline? Do we evaluate the performance for this?

• 1715

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, we do.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: What percentage would need continuing education?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't have any numbers. I couldn't give you any numbers that would be—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Any estimates?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Pagtakhan, you're over your time.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Maybe the chair would—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Go ahead.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How can we improve the system? In other words, is there a regular program of continuing professional education for the staff?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Do staff avail themselves of continuing education?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Are those who are found to have deficiencies the ones who go for development or are those with deficiencies the ones who do not like to go for development?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Chair, I prepare as well as I can, but I didn't think we would go down that alley today so I don't have that information.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm sorry. I just thought that—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would be happy to look into it and provide you with the best information we have.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The last question then, Mr. Chair, relates to the—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): You're well over your time now. I'll try to get back to you.

Mr. Mayfield was next, but Mr. Thompson's here.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I have one quick question. Getting back to Kent Institution, evidently they cleared a unit of inmates and are preparing to receive people who are violating parole or violating conditional release or whatever. They're going to bring them back into this unit. Are you aware of that?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have, I understand, a unit at Kent that is going to be used for temporary detainees.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Okay. That would be, I understand, from a week to two weeks or somewhere in that area. The purpose of it is to bring them in for a renewal of anger management courses, possibly, or some cognitive skill courses.

The institution has budgeted and paid for $10,000 worth of televisions for this unit. The response to my concern was, “We need to have the televisions because that's the only babysitter we have”. That's the response from management of the institution: we have to do something with them in their time, so we'll be working two or three hours on cognitive skills or renewal. Does that make sense? You're spending money buying televisions to babysit a bunch of parolees. Please tell me how that's going to rehabilitate or help anybody stay away from ever returning to prison again. What kind of a constructive program is that?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: If you're really interested in our answer to it, it is of course that it's part of modern life. People follow what is happening in society. They're going to go back to society. We wouldn't like them to go back not knowing what is going on. Is that a babysitter or is it not a babysitter? I think you can always—

Mr. Myron Thompson: Your people said it was.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's possible. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's my view. I think that being informed of what happens in society gets very close to being a human right.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Two hours of constructive work in 22 hours includes some sleep and television? Come on!

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Maximum security—

Mr. Myron Thompson: Why aren't you setting up some kind of a constructive program that allows them eight hours of sleep, maybe eight hours of good, constructive work, and then some time for television and relaxation and keeping up with the news, like the rest of society does?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We're actually looking at exactly that, because, like you, I don't like to see people idle in institutions. But it's a huge problem to find work for offenders that does not interfere with private interests, that can still deliver things.... It's easy to make a statement that people should work, but it's a lot more difficult to find the work for them. We are working very hard at it.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Addictions and education and other major problems—you even agreed with that. What's wrong with some education? What's wrong with some additional work on an addiction?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's very true.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Then why aren't you doing that, and why are they saying they're only going to do this one little thing and the rest of the time they're going to have television?

• 1720

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would be surprised if that is really going to be the program, but I'll ask the people out there.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I hope you will. That'll be good.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Andrew Telegdi): Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Mayfield, you got out of turn because you weren't here.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: That's quite all right.

Mr. Chairman, I asked for the classification and reclassification systems, and I would like that, but I would also like to be sure that it includes the new work you're doing too. Would it include that as well?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We will make sure you get the information we have on this, so you will see exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: In my first round of questioning I wasn't entirely sure what I was hearing about—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up before I forget, with all respect I would also request that the reply to my questions be detailed in writing to the committee. Thank you.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe this time I'd like to direct my questions to the Auditor General and his staff, if I could, because as I understand setting up a budget, you have an idea of how much money you've got to spend and then you have an idea of how you're going to spend it. As I listened to the commissioner, I think I heard him say that none of this classification or reclassification is done with an eye on the budget or the cost, but I do not understand how the classification can be done totally separate from looking at the cost.

Knowing the reality of finances, if we're running short of money, or running very close to the line, it would make sense to me—at least business sense—to reclassify so that it costs less to look after some of these people.

Do you have an instance or any suggestion of where that may be happening in the prison system?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Two quick things in response to the question.

Clearly, how inmates are classified will have a consequence on the type of accommodation that is required, and that has a consequence on costs. It's a thing that follows through logically. But perhaps the commissioner could explain the basis for the judgment on what the proportions should be in the classification custody rating scale. My understanding is more limited than his, but my understanding is that part of that is the kind of accommodation that is available, the type of inmates in the institutions, and as well, considerations on policy. That's the key thing. It is what the combination is.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Sir, could you fill in the gaps, please?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely. I'd be happy to do that, sir. In the Corrections and Conditional Release Act there is a section 4. Section 4 directs us to use the least restrictive course of action compatible with public safety. That means you should not put one single person in a maximum security institution if they could be in a medium, or one single in a medium if they could serve safely in a minimum. That is not only very good corrections. It's also good economy, because usually the higher levels of security are more expensive than the lower levels of security. So, obviously, in the overall combination of correctional philosophy and budgeting, you do have the two things moving in parallel.

What I was saying earlier, sir, was that the individual parole officer will not say, “Look, I think this guy should be in a maximum security institution, but I could save a few dollars so I will move him to a medium security one.” That does not happen. But in the overall planning, in the overall implementation of the act of Parliament, obviously we try to use a least restrictive course of action, which is also good for the economy.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: What I have difficulty understanding is how someone can be classified to a maximum security facility.... We're hearing that the rehabilitation program is not that great and yet 50% of those people are being reclassified to lower security levels. That is astounding to me.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, but that's also not what is happening. What we are saying is—

• 1725

Mr. Philip Mayfield: That's what you said is happening over 50% of the time.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No. What I was saying was that when you have the result of the classification scale that says this individual should go to maximum security, in about 50% of these cases the parole officers and their supervisors use their discretion and decide that maximum security is not needed for these particular individuals. They can be dealt with in medium security institutions. They therefore don't go to maximum, they go to medium security. It's not a reclassification issue; it's a placement and classification issue.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: So the initial classification tool is not correct then.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's exactly what we are saying. The tool gives too much of an indication to a higher security level than is needed. We base that judgment on the enormous success that we have in both medium and minimum security institutions. That success shows that a lower classification system is totally compatible with public safety.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'm going to ask the witnesses if they would be good enough to give us until ten minutes past the half-hour. I know it's unusual, but we were late. That wasn't your fault, and it wasn't our fault either. I would appreciate it, and I guarantee you that you're out of here at 5.40 p.m.

Mr. Laurin, could you ask questions that require a yes or a no?

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, I only have two short questions.

[Translation]

The classification scale is a reclassification instrument that you will implement by December 31, 1998. You say that it will be based on the principle of objectivity. However, you are saying that you will not move the parole officer's discretionary power. How can these two things be reconciled? I am waiting for a reply.

I have another short question. In 1994, the Auditor General asked you to develop these instruments, but they will not be ready until December 31, 1998. Why has this taken so long? These are my two questions.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: To answer your first question, which I prefer, the classification system is an aid. It is not the final answer. It is not a rigid system. It is a tool to help our parole officers make a good decision. However, there always has to be a professional assessment. What we need is a combination of the facts, objective instruments, and the judgement of an experienced professional.

The problem that we are experiencing at the present time, and which was pointed out by the Auditor General, is that there is too great a gap between the two. This is what we are now solving.

As for your second question, the only thing that I can tell you, Mr. Laurin, is that I regret that it has taken so long. Now, we are working very hard to...

Mr. René Laurin: How do you explain that it is taking so long?

Mr. Ole Ingstrup: I have not carried out a detailed analysis of how it happened, but it happened. We are working as hard as we can and I can assure you that we will have a good system by the end of the year. But this is not acceptable, and I regret that we were not able to perform better.

Mr. René Laurin: You have nothing to say in your defence? You have no reason to give us.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: I could probably find reasons, but I prefer simply to apologize, on behalf of CSC, for not having worked more quickly.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. Pagtakhan, one question.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Firstly, I would like to commend you for your forthrightness. It's certainly a good sign of leadership.

My question relates to your statement that double occupancy is inappropriate as permanent accommodations. Presumably that's in light of the United Nations minimum standards and Canadian Criminal Justice Association standards, and the reason for this is that the ability to reintegrate into the community would not be good. How long ago was that the basis for such a standard? How long ago was it studied?

• 1730

My question is, has the study that formed the basis for such standards been re-examined? In other words, does it remain valid today?

I'm thinking of the possibility of a positive mentor. If your room-mate is already a good model, it might in fact be fruitful and positive. So to say, hook, line, and sinker, that double occupancy is not good.... Are there custodies where this is a valid consideration at this time?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Sir, I think there are cases where people would be better off if they were in a double occupancy situation. What I'm talking about is that as a general rule we should not build our system on the assumption that it is good for everybody to be with somebody else. There are all kinds of studies on these things.

I am a strong advocate of not having that as a general rule, with exceptions, because all the correctional systems I have a high degree of respect for think that using the United Nations standard minimum rules is in itself a good idea and is better corrections. I've talked to people who are professionals in the business. My own background is in corrections. I've been there longer than most prisoners. I have seen how it is in single occupancy and in double occupancy. By and large, I don't find it's good.

At the end of the day, though, it's a personal judgment.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: One short comment, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): No.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Just a comment.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'm sorry, but we had a deal.

Mr. Ingstrup, I'm going to break one of my own rules. I don't think the chairman should ask questions, but I got shanghaied into this job. These will be snappy questions and I would like snappy answers.

Is a parole officer what used to be called a classification officer? I always thought parole officers were at the end of the sentence, when the inmate was released on parole.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right. It was like that before we called them case management officers.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Fair enough.

Do you have any dormitories?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, we do.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): How do you count beds in there?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: In large numbers, sir.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Then the figures you have given us do not truly reflect the situation.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We do have some dormitories still. Again, if we're talking about people who are going through very quickly, for a very short period of time, I think there's limited damage to them, and we can live with that. But if you are talking about people who are there for a long time, it's not good.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Okay.

No new building plans?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We do have plans to add to some of our institutions, but that is not at the front burner. Fortunately, we are seeing a yielding population, so we're not keen on building more.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Oh, gee, I wouldn't count on it.

I was wondering, why you would review double bunking when there's no place to put them anyway.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have a lot of opportunities, sir, to reduce the inmate population at this point in time. If you look at the Auditor General's other report, he has pointed out time and again that if we could speed up the reintegration process, we could empty a lot of cells.

Just to give you one example—a very strong example, in my view—if we could, at this point in time, get our offenders back to society one month earlier, on average, per year served—and that's not a revolution; it's just one month per year—we would free up a thousand cells right there.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

I thank all the witnesses for their patience.

Auditor General, you would like to sum up?

Mr. Denis Desautels: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I know we're all looking at the clock.

Generally, I can say we're quite pleased with the action taken by the correctional service and what's been indicated today.

We of course would welcome clarification of the policy on shared accommodations. As I said earlier, we'll do a follow-up on other issues raised in our 1994 and 1996 reports later on this year. We will include in that follow-up some of the issues raised today, such as the changes to the custody ratings system and the reclassification tools.

I think we were given evidence that this should happen soon, but we'll incorporate that in the follow-up we plan to do for other matters this year.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you very much.

Again, I thank you all and appreciate your patience. I think we really got into some meat today. Sometimes we get squishy stuff.

We are adjourned.