PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 25, 1999

• 1531

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)): Since we are not going to be taking any votes, we are going to start with our guests today: from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Maria Barrados and Ron Wolchuk, and from Correctional Service Canada, Ole Ingstrup, the commissioner.

The floor is yours, Maria.

Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing us this opportunity to present the results of our audit of Correctional Service of Canada, “Reintegration of Offenders”, chapter 1 of our 1999 report.

During 1994 and 1996 our office conducted three audits of areas related to the second of Correctional Service Canada's main responsibilities: the safe reintegration of offenders into the community. Included were audits of the institutional case management process, offender rehabilitation programs, and the supervision of released offenders. In April 1999 we concluded a follow-up and re-audit of key observations and recommendations made in the three previous audits.

I would like to begin by saying that the service has made a concerted effort to respond to many of our previous concerns and observations. We believe it has been moving in the right direction, as evidenced by some of the following improvements we have found.

It has strengthened its national headquarters organization, which provides overall direction and coordination for changes in the offender reintegration processes.

It has implemented a major initiative to streamline its reintegration operations, Operation Bypass. The objective of this initiative is to reduce duplication, consolidate offender reports, and strengthen communication and coordination throughout the process. Implementation in all regions had just begun at the time of our audit.

[Translation]

The Service has taken action in response to your Committee's recommendation concerning the Custody Rating Scale and has begun implementing the Security Reclassification Instrument.

A framework is now in place for evaluating the effectiveness of intervention programs. Some of the programs have been internationally accredited while others are in the process of independent review.

The Service has also increased its capability to acquire, organize and analyze performance data concerning several key aspects of offender reintegration. A new performance management tool—Action Indicators—for local managers and parole officers was to be implemented early this year.

However, notwithstanding the genuine effort that the Service has made to date, further improvement is needed in some key areas. While official offender documents have been arriving sooner, we found that about one quarter of the needed documents (police reports, judge's comments and the Post-Sentence Community Assessment) were still not received within the required timeframe. The lack of such information can affect the quality of rehabilitation planning, slow the process of preparing offenders for parole and affect the quality of National Parole Board release decisions.

Timely case preparation to meet the offender's first parole eligibility date is most critical when the offender is serving a short sentence. While we found some improvement in timeliness, Correctional Service data indicated that essential time standards were still not being met for the completion of the initial offender assessment at intake, the correctional plan and rehabilitation programs. Mr. Chairman, your committee may wish to enquire on the progress made particularly as a result of the implementation of Operation Bypass.

• 1535

[English]

While the service continued to spend a significant portion of its rehabilitation program expenditures on employment programs in areas such as prison industries, vocational training, education and institutional services, it lacked a clear operational strategy with which to manage and fund these programs in relation to their cost-effectiveness.

We also found problems concerning the quality control of offender reintegration reports sent to the National Parole Board. While the service had established policy concerning responsibility for quality control, both compliance with policy and the level of report quality were below expectations.

In 1994 we observed that, among other things, the average time available for direct face-to-face supervision of offenders in the community varied widely across district and local offices. In 1998 we found that there were still problems in achieving the approved standards for frequency of contact with offenders.

In conclusion, we found that since 1996 Correctional Service Canada has done an increasingly better job to prepare offenders to reintegration into society. With key initiatives such as Operation Bypass and now a new workload formula in the community just emerging, the change process is not yet complete; challenges remain and more improvement is still required. We believe the biggest challenge facing the service is the implementation of these planned improvements and change across all five regions.

That concludes my opening statement. We'll be pleased to answer your committee's questions concerning this audit.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

Mr. Wolchuk, would you like to add anything?

Mr. Ron Wolchuk (Principal, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): No, Mr. Chairman, not at this time.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Okay.

Mr. Ingstrup, the floor is yours.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today about the most recent report from the Auditor General on Correctional Service Canada. As you know, we have a number of reports we are still working on.

[Translation]

This report is, in fact, a follow up and re-audit of key observations from earlier work by the Auditor General done in 1994 and 1996 on the reintegration of offenders, rehabilitation programs and supervision of released offenders. It is, in short, a check up on whether we did we said we would do and whether it has led to improvements.

[English]

If I can start with a brief summary, I would say that I am pleased with the report but in no way delighted with the findings. I am pleased because after a very thorough and very comprehensive review the Auditor General has some positive things to say about our work, but also some not so positive things.

[Translation]

In his earlier findings, the Auditor General noted "systematic weaknesses in the Service's management of its reintegration activities" and "inconsistent practices and results across the five regions of the Service".

[English]

In the particular report we're discussing today, the Auditor General says we have made a concerted effort to respond to his recommendations, and he believes we are now moving in the right direction. He points out that we have begun substantive improvements in offender intake assessment and have increased our efforts to prepare offenders for parole hearings in a timely manner. The timeliness was a significant issue, and it still is an issue.

• 1540

The Auditor General acknowledges that spending on reintegration has increased, that information on cost has improved, that our organization's ability to provide national direction has been strengthened, and that our rehabilitation programs are now subject to accreditation by independent international experts. He also points out that our performance information has improved, and the Auditor General has in other fora pointed to CSC as a positive example of an organization moving toward management for results.

[Translation]

I also view as positive the Auditor General's analysis in this report of the number of offences committed by offenders while in the community and under Correctional Service Supervision. The Auditor General's staff have noted a significant 37% decrease in offender revocations for new offences in the period 1993-94 to 1997-98. Equally important is the decline in revocations for violent offences from 210 to 161 over the same period of time. To me these numbers suggest that our efforts of reintegration are moving in the right direction.

[English]

All this is good to hear, but it is not enough, and we really realize that in a very serious manner. As the Auditor General has said, we have begun, but we must continue our efforts. We agree. He points also to five areas where clearly more improvement is needed, and the Auditor General is right. We must do better in at least the following areas.

The first area is the more timely acquisition of official documents for offender assessment, although I want to add here that it's not totally within our area of responsibility. We cannot compile that information, but we can certainly work with our partners to get it more quickly.

The second area is more timely casework preparation for parole hearings. We agree that more work needs to be done.

Thirdly, we need a clear operational strategy for employment programs. We agree, and we're working in that direction.

Fourthly, we need better-quality reintegration reports for the National Parole Board. We are improving, but more needs to be done; there's no doubt about that.

Also, we agree with the fifth point, about better adherence to national standards for frequency of contact with offenders in the community. I should mention here that CSC has decided to make higher levels of compliance one of our corporate objectives, an objective to which everybody must contribute.

As I said, the Auditor General is right, and since receiving this report we have taken steps toward improvement in those areas. In some cases we have already some positive results. Let me just mention that we have improved in the timeliness of acquisition of information on offenders from our partners in the justice system. We have also improved the time available for programs and case preparation, and we have improved the balance between institutional and community programs.

[Translation]

The Auditor General gave us nine recommendations, which we accept. However time is short today, Mr. Chairman, so I will not go into detail here. It is my hope that in the course of a good discussion with this Committee, I can share with you what we have done and will continue to do to respond to this report.

[English]

Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge formally and sincerely not only the good working relationship we have with the Auditor General's office, but also the good product that came out of this latest audit.

Thank you very much.

• 1545

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much, Mr. Ingstrup.

Before we begin, I would suggest to my colleagues and our witnesses that we keep the questions and answers pinpointed. This way we can have a frank discussion and move away from the preamble that may or may not fit what we are trying to achieve here.

We'll start with Mr. Thompson for eight minutes.

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

Welcome, Ole and people from the Auditor General's office. It's a pleasure to have you here. I will be pointed, and I'm sure the honourable commissioner will be pointed as well.

The Auditor General's report outlines a number of problems with our current system, as you've mentioned. So my question to you, Mr. Commissioner, is why are you feeling it's necessary now to have a priority to spend $50 million on an international institute for corrections when our own system is rife with problems? If other countries, I would suggest to you, want to learn how Canada treats its inmates, why are we paying for this education? Why isn't it on their dime?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's easy to respond to. We have no such plans.

Mr. Myron Thompson: We'll do some further checking into that. That's not the way I hear it, but we will follow up on that. Thank you for that pointed answer.

Mr. Commissioner, I have been bombarded, as you well know, by guards at the Edmonton maximum penitentiary who are furious that their weapons that are made available when escorting inmates have been taken away. They need weapons and bullet-proof vests. They would like to have unmarked vehicles to transport prisoners from one place to another. They're dealing with dangerous gang members, and they feel they're being armed with only their bare hands. They're very frightened, the whole lot of them. I'm going to ask you, sir, what do you propose to do when one of these officers or a member of the public is injured as a result of this policy?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We're looking, sir, at this point in time at our whole performance in the area of security. We're working with some good partners in Great Britain. They're very good in the security area. There are no definitive conclusions on what the future policy in these areas should be. What we expect to have at one of our next executive committee meetings is a good discussion based on a report that has just been produced by a task force on these areas.

With regard to weapons, I would like to say that weapons, especially when they are in the community, can be a very mixed blessing. Very often our officers—and I'm not making any general statement here—are working under very difficult circumstances and also under circumstances where the use of weapons can be extremely tricky, such as in a hospital setting or a court room. Also, one has to look at the track record. We have not had situations that I can recall where things would have gone terribly wrong had they not had weapons. We're looking at it in a serious manner, and obviously the fact that some of our officers feel it's important to have them plays a role in our thinking.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Of course I'm not referring to hospitals or anything like that; I'm talking about escorting prisoners from one place to another. They've had several encounters, as you're well aware. I also received the same report you received from Chris Price on my visit there. I think it would be a good idea if we corresponded back and forth. Rather than leak documents all the time, let's keep each other informed.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'd be happy to do that.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'd appreciate that. This is very serious in their minds, and I would suggest strongly that you take initiatives to protect our guards while escorting inmates and for the sake of the public as well.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'd like to ask also about a dangerous offender who serves his full sentence and is released on a warrant expiry. He's treated as a new offender rather than a recidivist if he should commit another crime. I believe that's correct. Once a warrant expiry has happened, if he commits another crime, he's treated as a new offender, not a recidivist. I would suggest that's cooking the books. It's not declaring the full truth to the public. If an offender serves his full sentence and then commits a crime, he also is a recidivist and should be included in the rates.

• 1550

I'm having a real tough time understanding the reports I'm getting from your office. You're well aware of the 10-year report we got for 1987-97. We discussed that with you and Mr. Willie Gibbs at a committee meeting I was at in the last term. That report said that 232 people had been murdered over a 10-year period. Then we get a report saying that only 37 were murdered, and another report said it was 57 or 58. It's all jumbled up. The true picture of exactly what's happening in that area is not being relayed to the public. I would suggest, sir, that the department should do a better job of informing the public and members of Parliament of what the true picture is. I have reports from your office that are very difficult to put together and to make any sense out of.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I share with you, Mr. Thompson, the importance of not only sharing information with the public but also getting information out in such a way that people can understand it.

In terms of getting information out, I want to tell you that we, more than any other system I know of, put whatever information we have on the Internet. Even our own inquiries, as long as it's not a matter of security, are put on the Internet, and we have 1.2 million to 4 million hits a year. So it's not as if it doesn't get out there.

In terms of recidivism, it is a very tricky thing. We measure recidivism in a number of different ways. We measure, for instance, on an annual basis how many of the people we have under our supervision commit new offences. We also measure how many of the people we have under our supervision commit new offences during their supervision period. Then we have another type of recidivism measurement that is a lot more tricky to deal with, and that's those who are no longer related to us because they are not under our supervision but who commit offences after their warrant expiry date. Whenever we publish these recidivism numbers, we specify as clearly as we can what we are talking about. But I would agree with you that it's not an easy thing to read.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): You have about 51 seconds left.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Okay. I have a lot more questions. I'll wait for another turn.

I will finish with this one. It's not that I agree with the purchase of aircraft, Mr. Commissioner, but last week I had an aircraft broker give me a list of 14 used Pilatus aircraft available in Canada, and this list came to me 24 hours after one of your officials, a Mr. Bélanger, I believe, stated in a document that there were no used planes in Canada and that you had to have a new one. We're talking about $4 million versus $2 million. It looks to me, sir, as if there's a real waste of some money there and that there was not an extensive effort on the part of your department to determine whether indeed there were used aircraft. I'd really like to know whether this aircraft will be used for transporting individual convicts from one place to another. Is it going to be used by your department? Knowing you have a pilot's licence, I'll even have to ask you, sir, if you will be flying this aircraft.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Time out. Think about it until the next round.

Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Good afternoon, Ms. Barrados and gentlemen. I would like to thank you for coming to meet with us.

I would like to ask the Commissioner a question. If it were appropriate, I would request that the officials from the Auditor General's Office leave the room, but I will not do so. I would have liked to have been sitting in your office, Mr. Commissioner, when you received the Auditor General's report. I'm inclined to think that your reaction would have been much stronger than the words you spoke here, today. You admit that there are some systematic weaknesses in the area of management and service delivery and you have made a concerted effort to improve the situation.

This act of contrition you make at the end of your statement really interests me. You said that you had problems and that now you were on the right track. Where are you today? How serious were your problems? How far do you want to go in order to resolve the five issues raised by the Auditor General?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: If I said that I supported the recommendations made by the Auditor General, it's because I felt that we could implement them and because there's always room for improvement.

• 1555

The issues raised by the Auditor General deal with aspects that are of particular interest to the management of the Correctional Service. We were already aware that we were not able to deliver certain services by the deadline. For example, there were delays in preparing the offender intake assessments. A few years ago, our time line was scarcely 19 days, whereas today, four years down the road, we now have a time line of nearly 100 days in order to ensure that offenders participate in social reintegration programs. We are therefore making rapid progress in the right direction. It would be difficult to describe the ideal situation. We do recognize, as did the Auditor General, that we have to allow enough time so that the offenders are able to participate in the programs.

[English]

Another thing I could point to is the information we are getting from other colleagues in the justice system. Three or four years ago, about 40%, 50%, or 55% of the information would be there within the 56 days that the Auditor General thinks is a reasonable time. Today we are up at between 80% and 85% of the information being in on time. We are trying to set tougher standards and get the information in faster.

We are working, for instance, on an integrated strategy for employment. CORCAN, which is the special operating agency for industry, is now going to be responsible for the whole area of employment so that we can get a cohesive and comprehensive strategy for employment.

I could go through all the areas if you want. We are making that kind of progress in all the areas. We'll never be there in terms of process. With 12,000 employees, there will always be some people who are not doing exactly what we had hoped for. But we are also training, for instance, supervisors in quality control. We're putting on a course in quality control that will start within the next couple of months, so that the supervisors will be better able to control the quality of reports and that kind of thing. That's what is behind my words that we are making progress.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: Does the Auditor General have to intervene to get the ball rolling or do you do things on your own initiative?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, his intervention isn't necessary, although his reports do help us. The Auditor General identifies our shortcomings, which is something that we already do. We are trying to improve our performance in many other areas.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman, we talked about rhetoric earlier on. Could we now talk about what is done in practice?

I get very worried when I hear, on the news, as was the case last week, that in the Montreal region, we're about to grant full parole to a criminal who has a very lengthy criminal record and who is now in a medium-security penitentiary. The people in the region almost feel as though they should arm themselves in case he comes back. Most of them are saying that this man is not ready to leave prison and be paroled. Is your assessment system bulletproof, if I can use that word? How many dangerous offenders slip through cracks of your system and present a risk for your average citizen, like you and me?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The case management process is an ongoing one which begins with an offender intake assessment, when the case management team studies all available information: police reports, judge's observations, community assessments, psychological and psychiatric assessments, etc.. After this assessment is completed, and we do consider the risk that the offender will present should he be paroled, we prepare a correctional plan indicating the program in which the offender will have to participate in an effort to minimize this risk.

• 1600

Towards the end of the sentence or before the parole eligibility date, we are usually obliged to prepare a report for the National Parole Board, which has policies that clearly identify the conditions that the offender must meet in order to be granted parole.

It is our job to draw a comparison between criteria established by the Board and all of the information available to us. After examining the facts presented in the report, the National Parole Board—and not the Correctional Service—will make a decision.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Perron, your time is up.

Mr. Gilles Perron: It was so interesting.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Mac Harb): You have already had eight minutes and two seconds.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman, two seconds!

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. MacKay.

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

Panel, we're very thankful for your presence here. I'm going to try to go through this quickly too. It's a very frustrating process, because we have so little time.

Mr. Ingstrup, you referred in your remarks to not being completely pleased with the Auditor General's report. That's a good sign. It certainly acknowledges that there is ample room for improvement within the service.

You have said, and I think everyone acknowledges, that predicting human behaviour is certainly not an exact science. But I'm sure you would also acknowledge that the stakes are extremely high in the line of work that you and those working in your department encounter, and the margin of error is very crucial when mistakes occur.

There's obviously a great deal of concern about the budgetary restrictions your department is under and your ability to deliver services in correction, which leads to priority decisions being made as to where money is being spent. So for my first question, I want to follow up on an area that was opened by my colleague from the Reform.

Your department will be taking delivery of an airplane at a cost of $4 million. The simple question is, in times of such fiscal restraint, is it prudent to be making this purchase when apparently other aircraft were available at half the price? What restrictions will apply to the use of that aircraft? What is the exact purpose?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would be happy to explain what this is all about.

We have for years and years—and when I say “we”, I mean the Correctional Service of Canada—used the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's aircraft for all kinds of different transportation purposes. At one point in time it was clear that it was difficult for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to continue to take care of the transportation of inmates the way they had done, because they have other operational pressures to look at. So the commissioner of the RCMP and I talked about ways in which we could solve the problem.

We found that the best way of solving the problem would be that we add an aircraft to their fleet so that it could be serviced by them. Therefore we had to buy an aircraft compatible with what they have so that the price wouldn't go up in their service and maintenance area and so that pilots from the RCMP could fly the aircraft.

• 1605

Mr. Peter MacKay: How many do they currently have?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't know exactly how many they have. I really don't.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And they have the same type of aircraft?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, they do. They have several of them.

They have several types, but these are the ones they are buying nowadays, and one of the reasons for that is it's a very effective and also very efficient aircraft. It's effective because it can go down in areas where a lot of other aircraft cannot go down, on very short runways. The other thing is the overall operating cost of that particular aircraft is a little more than $2 per mile, and this is not statutory miles but nautical miles, which is 1,852 metres and not the 1,600 or so. It takes seven individuals, which means travel detail is a lot less expensive and a lot more flexible than with a lot of other aircraft and other modes of transportation.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can I ask you a question about the efficiency side of things? I'm taking you at your word on this issue, but I'm led to believe this particular type of aircraft has no long-range capacity. It's a single-engine plane, and there are safety concerns about certain parts of the country, particularly northern Ontario, and the distance this plane can fly.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, frankly there are no concerns.

I just happen to know a little bit about this particular aircraft. I don't know all the details, but I can tell you we have a very solid business plan and a good memorandum of understanding with the Mounties.

In terms of the operation of this particular aircraft, I saw a review prior to us purchasing the aircraft that said this single-engine plane is not only recommended by all the people who fly it but also has 74 million collective hours of operation without mechanical failure, which is a pretty good safety record. It also has a very high level of ability to glide.

Don't forget that when we get these—they're built in Switzerland—the pilots are actually flying them across the Atlantic.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's how they deliver them?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's how they deliver them. So I see it as very safe. But obviously it's not an aircraft you'd ever dream of using trans-Atlantic, because it doesn't have the kind of speed that is normally convenient.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And I understand this will be available to both the RCMP and the Correctional Service of Canada, you personally, and the commissioner of the RCMP?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: And anybody else. For instance, if we go on a trip, as I do next week, to the heads of corrections meeting, this one will be filled up with employees of the service who have to be at that meeting. It's a lot less expensive than if you go with commercial aircraft.

Another thing that is of great advantage to us is that in the memorandum of understanding about this famous aircraft, there is an agreement that we have access to their aircraft also in other parts of the country so that we can always put a package together that is the least costly.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So at the purchase cost of $4 million—and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand the approximate travel budget for the Correctional Service is $1 million—this is going to at least take, in simple math, four years to pay for itself. I suspect that's not going to include maintenance and it's not going to include other factors.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Look, Mr. MacKay, if you want to see the business plan... I don't know the business plan inside out. I did not put that together. I asked for one, and if it weren't a good one, we wouldn't have done it. Here's what we consider a very solid business plan, and I'm happy to share it, as we shared it with one of your colleagues a week or two ago.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect to the Attorney General's expressed concerns here today about the timeliness of delivery of programs, the timeliness of assessment when there's an intake with inmates in our federal penitentiaries, and programs generally within the Correctional Service, can you tell us what incentives and disincentives are in place or built into the system to encourage participation in the programs in our current system?

• 1610

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There are a number of very strong incentives. I would think one of them is that if people represent any kind of risk that could be dealt with through a program, we will not recommend them for day parole or full parole or anything else early in their sentence without their having completed one of these programs and our having had a chance to assess whether these programs actually are likely to have an effect.

Here again, as you yourself said, it's not an exact science; it's to the best of our knowledge.

So there are incentives, yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Ms. Barrados. We met quite recently in conjunction with our committee meetings. I'm pleased to meet you, Mr. Ingstrup.

I was very interested in the last report prepared by the Auditor General, the one that was released in April, 1999, as well as the report that he had published in 1995-94. My knowledge of the Correctional Service is modest. The little knowledge that I have been able to glean pertains primarily to the intervention programs aimed at getting the offenders reintegrated into the community once they have been released. These programs also include a component designed to reduce recidivism.

I'm very concerned that the reports used by the National Parole Board to make decisions once one sixth of the sentence has been served are often inadequate, even missing at times. I am happy, however, to note that the Auditor General has noted some improvements, although he did indicate that the situation still leaves much to be desired. What other efforts do you intend to make as far as this is concerned?

I'm also worried that, according to the Auditor General's Report, the percentage of statutory releases, which occur once two thirds of a sentence has been served, continues to rise, whereas the number of releases on parole, which occurs once one third of the sentence is served, is declining. Do you know the reason for this? What factors are contributing to this imbalance?

As a supplementary question, I would like to ask you whether the National Parole Board has the legal authority to impose certain conditions on an offender who has been granted statutory release after serving two thirds of his sentence. Are we not really talking about a statutory release over which the Board has no say? Does the law compel the Correctional Service to release an offender once he has served two thirds of his sentence, the only condition being that he must report to a police station every 15 days or at some other interval, and meet with his parole officer until the prescribed time has elapsed? Do you have the authority to order an offender to participate in intervention programs?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you, Ms. Jennings. Mr. Chairman, there are two main questions.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: First of all, you asked me what we were doing in order to prepare higher quality reports by the deadlines.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: What other steps do you intend to take?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: First of all, we asked all our managers, right across Canada, to give priority to this aspect.

• 1615

Secondly, we are doing follow-up work by conducting audits throughout Canada. These audits are currently underway, and we hope to obtain the initial results at the start of 2000. We have also decided to take steps to ensure that the files are well prepared and presented in a timely fashion.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Since you have come out and stated that this aspect is a priority, do you bear it in mind in evaluating the performance of your senior managers?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Could a senior manager be demoted because he has not been able to fulfil this responsibility?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Could he be penalized?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely. During our recent strategic planning session, all of the senior managers were clearly in agreement that we should approach this responsibility much more seriously than we have in the past.

It must not be forgotten that at times the various documents, reports and files do not accurately reflect reality. Often we have done good rehabilitation work, although it is not reflected in the files.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but that is secondary.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: If the documents forwarded to you by the court and the police departments are late in arriving, you have no control over these delays and it is clear that the Correctional Service is in no position to draft or present reports in a timely fashion. Your defence is clear-cut since you have only to show that you submitted a request to the police department or to the court clerk and that it took you three months to get an answer. However, if you have the documents and the reports are not produced by the deadline, you should, in my opinion, severely penalize your employees.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Exactly.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: In addition, if your employees do respect the deadlines but produce reports with inadequate content, they should be penalized then as well.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You have said that this is a criterion you use in evaluating performance of the entire staff.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, including the managers. We do similar follow-up in three sectors. We can influence our partners, the judges and the police. I must say that the results are encouraging.

Your second question pertained to statutory release. Most people think that statutory release means that the offenders are released and then, bye-bye, they are free. That is not at all the case.

There are approximately 2,500 inmates who do not...

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Excuse me, but we are out of time, in fact eight minutes over. Perhaps when her second round comes, you can continue.

[Translation]

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Pardon me, Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: We could go back to this later on.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): It's your choice. I mean, we can ramble in our four minutes and ask nothing or we can ask two or three questions and get two or three answers, both sides. That's why I'm being very strict with my timing.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll just have to talk twice as fast.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Ingstrup, I believe the Auditor General has about nine recommendations in this report before you, and I believe you have agreed with all of them.

I'm wondering, sir, if you would be willing to commit to providing a copy of your action plan, with the dates of implementation, to this committee. Would you do that, please?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Oh, I would be delighted to do that.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: All right. My request and your agreement have been noted in the official record.

• 1620

There are three areas I would like to quickly ask about. First, it seems to me the last time you and your people were before the public accounts committee we were talking about initial assessments and classifications. In those classifications there were some overrides, I believe, or some of the criteria were being waived at the time.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm wondering if you could briefly tell me and the committee if that problem has been dealt with, and how.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Again, I'll have to go a little bit on recollection, because it's not part of what I had prepared for today. I can tell you a couple of things.

At that time, we had an override by our staff that the Auditor General did not find acceptable. Neither did we, as a matter of fact. When we looked into why we had that override, we saw it could be either that the assessment tool was not accurately or appropriately calibrated or that people were just too lax in using it.

We found there was a little bit of both, but most of it was due to the calibration of the tool, and we changed the assessment criteria a little bit, particularly for transfers.

As far as I know—and here again, I would have to come back to you, and I will come back to you if my answer to you is not accurate—we have seen a significant reduction in the overrides, and the assessment tool functions adequately now. It produces the right results.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you.

I'd like to quickly move on to one other area, and that is work as part of the rehabilitation system. It seems that work is a way of keeping people busy, but oftentimes the rehabilitative value of the work within the institution is not carried over into the community. In fact, it seems as though work is not really seen as a rehabilitative tool but more of a time to soak up someone's time to keep them busy and to stop them from doing other things.

Is there some intention, or has there been some progress made, to coordinate the skills of a person developed in the institution with his ongoing life in the community following release from the institution?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes. We are actually moving quite deliberately in that direction. We see work as something that meets more than one objective.

Let's not kid ourselves; this is obviously a security measure. As long as people are busy doing productive things, they don't think about how they can run away. It's not a secret. It's good to have people gainfully occupied.

As you know, the Correctional Service of Canada has for the last ten years been looking more and more to ensure that people are...

I have to be really fast here.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mac, how am I doing? Do I have another minute? No?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We are looking at finding ways to give them the skills they can use later on and to certify them. We're even looking at ways to do something in the community to try to get them into jobs that suit them.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Inasmuch as we have a ruthless chairman, would you conclude the substance of your remarks in your report back to committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: I believe that Ms. Barrados would like to say something about the previous question raised by my colleague.

Ms. Maria Barrados: I simply wanted to state that Mr. Ingstrup's answer with respect to the Custody Rating Scale was correct. We did find an improvement and we noted that there were fewer

[English]

overrides.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Okay.

I'm starting now, Mr. Chair, thank you.

[Translation]

We talked about the recidivism rate and we praised the system. What percentage of male parolees are repeat offenders? What percentage of female parolees are repeat offenders?

• 1625

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The recidivism rate for inmates on day parole is less than 6% per year. The recidivism rate for those who have been given full parole after serving one third of their sentence is about 11%; the recidivism rate for crimes of a violent nature is a little bit less than 2%. Inmates who were given statutory release after serving two thirds of their sentence have a recidivism rate of about 13%, with a little bit more than 2% of these repeat offences being of a violent nature.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Are the statistics similar for women?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't have any statistics with me about women, but I think that women tend to commit repeat offences a little less often than men. I could send you the exact statistics if you like.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. MacKay, did you want to ask a question?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Okay, and then Mr. Thompson.

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

Mr. Ingstrup, you have denied today the existence at all of an international institute for corrections plan. Are you saying it never existed, or it is no longer a priority for your department?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have said there is a thinking about how best we organize our international work, because international work is a fact in any modern government. We learn from other countries, and they learn from us. And because the Canadian Correctional Service is one of the best-performing correctional services anywhere in the world, we have had a lot of requests coming our way.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect to the question, a very simple question, are you denying this plan is in existence to—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: An institute for $50 million absolutely has never been considered, but it's not incorrect that we are considering better ways of delivering our international corrections. That could be an institute, that could be a division, it could be a special operating agency, it could be all kinds of things. We are looking at that because it's becoming a big thing.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, so the plan is proceeding. It's still—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We're looking at what we can do, how best to do it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You have denied it in the past, and we certainly don't have the time to get into this, but the release plan or quota system or whatever you call it with respect to gradual integration back into the community, the labelling of it—would you admit, Commissioner, that the labelling of this program as Operation Bypass sends a very wrong signal to those involved in the corrections community?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Not at all. I could not, as a matter of fact, disagree more with you, because Operation Bypass originated, as a matter of fact, from a speech I delivered to my case management workers down at a seminar in Cornwall. I said it seems to me that people are getting their arteries in the system a little cluttered. It seems the system needs some bypass to become more effective, more efficient.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Wouldn't “streamline” have been a better word than “bypass”, which perhaps suggests that procedures are being bypassed and people are being bypassed?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Nobody in my service would ever misunderstand it that way. I agree you could have chosen other words, but then probably that would be misunderstood too.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I know there are a lot of big issues facing your department, and big challenges, but I do want to ask you a couple of quick questions on the priority status programs for methadone and bleach for drug offenders and with respect to efforts to prevent, obviously, the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

I have a sector report that refers to—and I don't mean to trivialize this at all, because I think small issues are indicative of the way you approach bigger issues—the use of condoms and the decision to make available to prisoners condoms that are ribbed and textured surfaces with stimulation for her—this is on the labelling—and further labelling that talks about the need for arousing and “she'll love you for using it”. This is the type of labelling that is currently on condoms that are being made available to male prisoners. I'm wondering if that particular situation has been addressed and what further priority is being placed on these two programs.

• 1630

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There are a couple of issues here—the use of methadone, the use of bleach, and the use of condoms. The condoms that are being used were introduced by the previous government.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's not a political matter.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It was introduced during those years and we purchased them on the open market. We purchased them with whatever label they have.

As far as bleach is concerned, that's a thing that has been in the prisons for a number of years, and the reason for that is the obvious: that we know some offenders—even if we do our best to prevent it from happening—will manage to have needles and they will use them. And the more we can do to avoid the use of them in the first place, the existence of them in the second place, and in third place the use of infected needles, the better it is. Bleach, as I understand it, is not a miracle thing, but it's a lot better than not having anything.

Methadone is being used in the institutions for inmates that were already on methadone when they came to our institute. In very, very few cases at this point in time, for inmates that need to get out of heroin addiction in such a way that we only have methadone, that's being used. But all that we're doing is in tune with the national drug strategy.

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

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I want to quickly go back to airplanes. You've got the pilot licence, so I figure you're more of an expert than I am. But the good old e-mail, you know how that works. I have the names of several pilots I'm going to be talking to personally who have left the force because of safety reasons on this particular aircraft. They say it's not a good aircraft. They talk about the single engine. They talk about it icing, the night flight—you know, there are lots of things. I'm going to follow up on that even more.

I'm going to ask you once again, when I get these kinds of things from people who are in the area, who have left the force because they're making statements that the PC-12 is not a safe aircraft to fly, how do you respond to that?

Secondly, this new aircraft—is it indeed never to be used by you or your department on a personal basis? Is it strictly for transporting inmates and that's it?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No. There are two or three questions here, and I will be as quick as I can.

I consider that aircraft one of the safest aircraft that exists. So do test pilots. I fly in it happily as a passenger. I'm not certified to fly that aircraft, and I will not be piloting that aircraft. So in that sense there is an added safety to it, Mr. Thompson.

The other thing I want to say is there is no evidence of unsafe conditions. It is a very, very safe aircraft and the RCMP pilots are very happy with it.

Mr. Myron Thompson: The next thing is here's a document on the international institute for correctional excellence—I've got the whole works on it. It starts off saying:

To mark the new Millennium, it is proposed that an International Institute for Correctional Excellence be established and based in Canada.

That's why I brought the question to you as to where you are going with this. I need to know more.

Last for now, I need to know what you are going to do with regard to the number of people who are on the lam, people who have broken parole, broken whatever it is. I understand it's a very high number. In addition to that, we have the people who have walked away from Ferndale and Drumheller, other minimum security prisons. Recently we had a very dangerous person transported to a Quebec minimum security, a very dangerous killer. What are these dangerous violent offenders doing in these minimum securities? And what are you going to do with regard to the safety of the public as a whole when so many individuals are considered to be on the lam?

• 1635

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Minimum security institutions are there for people who present a low risk of running away, and if they go away, a low risk of reoffending. As a matter of fact, if you look at the performance of that program, it is very encouraging. Very few people commit offences going out of there. Some of the people you refer to may have been extremely dangerous at one time, but after many years in institutions they may have progressed down to minimum security institutions.

Certainly the transfer criteria are based entirely on safety, and we follow them very carefully, Mr. Thompson, I can assure you of that. The last thing we need is to see people walk out of these institutions and commit very serious offences.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Madam Jennings.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It can happen, but it's certainly—

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Madam Jennings and then Mr. Mayfield.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ingstrup, I would like to pursue our discussion about full parole at one third of the sentence and statutory release.

What powers do the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service have to compel inmates to participate in community intervention programs so that they can be reintegrated into the community?

Next, I would like to hear what the Auditor General has to say about the Correctional Services' success or failure with respect to the quality of its reports and the implementation of measures designed to improve them.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Ms. Jennings, I really appreciate your raising this issue, as it is one that is of a great deal of interest to me and one that society understands poorly.

Not all inmates are entitled to obtain statutory release after serving two thirds of their sentence. Inmates who are serving life sentences—there are more than 2,500 lifers in Canada—are not entitled to statutory release. Moreover, this is also the case for inmates who are serving intermediate sentences. Many inmates may have to serve their entire sentence. Every year, between 200 and 250 inmates remain in custody until the end of their sentence.

Inmates who have been given statutory release must comply with the same conditions, or just about the same conditions, as those who are on full parole. The National Parole Board can choose to impose any conditions whatsoever, including the condition that an inmate remain in a transition house for a certain length of time. This is a formula that has become very popular at the National Parole Board. We have seen an increase of more than 800% in this sector over three years. This is a very big increase. In addition, the Board and the Correctional Service can revoke parole for inmates who do not abide by the conditions. Revocation rules exist and are used in such cases.

Moreover, it is very interesting to note that 25% of the inmates on statutory release have their statutory release revoked at least once, not because they have committed a crime, but simply because they have not abided by the conditions we have imposed on them. We have very tight control over this aspect.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Mayfield.

Will this be the final round?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, I want them for another question. Until I get it all out, we'll keep bouncing back and forth.

• 1640

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): That's all right.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Ingstrup, I want to come back to overrides for a little bit, if I may. I still think about that.

The scale has been changed somewhat on the instruments in these initial assessments. Is that correct?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Would that scale perhaps have not only decreased the number of overrides but also encouraged more assignments to minimum security institutions? Would that have made it easier to get to the minimum security institutions without the overrides?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, one could in some way say that, because the overrides put more offenders in minimum security institutions, based on overrides instead of our instrument.

It is very important that the performance of these people who went to the minimum security institutions was very good, so although the employees used the override mechanism to get people there, they were right in their judgment because these people stayed there, completed their sentences and did not go out and commit new offences.

We looked at the scale, which was a little old, I suppose, and changed it slightly, so there's still an opportunity for our staff to override, but there is a lot less need for it. In other words, the scale itself is much more reflective of the performance we want.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: It would then perhaps rationally follow that rather than saying someone looked at the scale and decided to override it because he didn't trust it, we have a scale now where perhaps someone doesn't have the experience, but the scale says this person's a good candidate for a minimum security institution.

I would like to know why there has been such a dramatic increase in the walk-aways from minimum security institutions. These things are showing up in the media on a very regular basis, and these are not always safe people walking away. In my mind, this is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed, and I'm wondering how to rectify it.

Do we need to go back, look at the scales and say they are not doing the job; we perhaps don't even have the experience of highly qualified professional people working with these scales, but we're trusting scales that are not accurate and putting people in minimum security situations? Does that rationally follow? Is it something that needs to be looked at?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely. We are looking at it. You're right in saying there is an increase in the number of walk-aways. There is not an increase in serious crime being committed by these people, and we actually catch them extremely quickly. The vast majority of them are out there—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: How many people are free today who should be in institutions?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't have the number; it is on a daily basis. If you think of those who have left within the last six months, it's a very small number. We can give you the exact number.

As you indicate, there still is a need to look at it. It's one of the things we certainly have our eyes on. One of the main parts of the mandate for our security task force was to look at whether there were ways in which we could manage our whole minimal security institutional network in a safer way. I would ask you to give me a couple of months until that work is finalized, and I'll be happy to report back to you. We take it seriously—I hope you'll take my word on that.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you. I'm sure our clerks would be very happy, and I would too.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Commissioner, I've been going into the penitentiaries, as you well know, on a regular basis. I'm in close contact with the guards, and receive e-mail and phone calls constantly from them.

I want to assure you it is not an exaggeration that the morale of the guards in our institutions is extremely low. Inmates' grievances are dealt with a lot quicker than guard grievances, and middle management is not sufficiently dealing with people who are supposed to be working as a team.

• 1645

There have been requests for some safety features, such as in the Edmonton max, as we've already discussed. But more than that, there's still a big request for puncture-resistant gloves. They've been waiting.

I understand that the Ontario region is about $10 million in debt, but I have also received, in my position, a statement from a person named Ross that across the region we have a $19 million free balance in the O and M—I assume that's operations and management—that had not been committed, as of November 8.

Is there any way you can allocate some money to provide some of the safety features these guards are requesting, for their own protection? Can you do something that will build the morale and give the guards some encouragement that what they're doing is a very important service? That morale has to be lifted. I'm not exaggerating their feelings. If you believe I am, I encourage you to invite individual guards to come and talk with you about that very thing.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It's an issue of constant concern for any manager of a large organization like ours whether morale is good or not. I believe what you are saying is certainly true for the people who choose to come and talk to you; there's no doubt about that.

We're lucky enough to have a public service survey that came out last week. It was done shortly after our people were in a strike position, and you remember all the difficulties we all went through last spring and the short time before. Yet over 90% of the respondents said they had good jobs that were meaningful and a good fit. We're talking about numbers here—not in all areas and not without things for us to improve on—that I think the private sector would die to have in a survey of their employees.

As the Auditor General points out, there are still areas where we can improve, but overall we are not in such bad shape. We're actually in pretty good shape.

The second thing I would say is that when Ontario region says there is $19 million in free balance of non-committed funds, I would say that is good because we have a few months left in the fiscal year, when money will be needed. But I do not believe we have ever withheld security items, such as gloves and other things, for financial reasons. If it is not out there, as we have decided in our policy, I'll be happy to look into it.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Do you ask that question on your surveys?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, we don't.

Mr. Myron Thompson: You should ask those kinds of questions.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We can look into it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Ingstrup, I just remembered that you didn't answer the question I asked at the beginning of the meeting. I had asked you why the percentage of statutory releases continued to climb, whereas the number of full paroles was declining.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It is difficult to pinpoint why exactly. There is no doubt that the members of the National Parole Board are extremely cautious. As a result, the commissioners and the case managers do exert an influence on each other. The trend is clear: these people are very, very, very cautious and take fewer and fewer risks.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm a little bit confused about this mutual influence. Your responsibilities, your terms of reference and your legal powers are stipulated in the law.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, and that also holds true for commissioners.

• 1650

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Usually, the only type of influence that one should be able to exert over the other should be of a legal nature. For instance, the Correctional Service could be obliged to submit a report containing certain recommendations. Is this what you're referring to when you talk about mutual influence?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, not really. The criteria stipulated in the legislation are relatively ambiguous, as they have to be. The legislation refers to the concept of risk, emphasizing the protection of society. It's the way that we interpret these concepts that matters. I believe that the co-operation that exists between the National Parole Board and the case managers will become more and more synchronized. We always emphasize the risk that inmates present. I believe that I can honestly say that we are becoming more and more cautious and that we are taking fewer and fewer risks.

It is very interesting to note that the people who are now given full parole or statutory release remain in society much longer than they did beforehand and commit fewer crimes.

As the Auditor General indicated in his report, we have succeeded in decreasing the number of repeat offences to 37%, which is incredible, particularly in the area of violent crimes. This puts me in a position that may be difficult because I cannot promise that we will be able to continue improving this rate, given that the number of repeat offences is so low at present.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you.

Mr. Mayfield.

[English]

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.

I'd just like to clear up the last little intervention we were together in, sir. In your response to the committee, I wonder if you would include the numbers of those who are not in custody who have not met the conditions of their release, and those who have broken parole and have not been put back into the correction system, who are still outside. If you'd do that I'd appreciate it.

Getting back to my next question, the Auditor General's report, paragraph 1.65 says “Research shows that intervention programs for offenders are more effective when they are delivered in the community.” Yet it's almost paradoxical that offenders who are serving the remainder of their sentences in the community pose more risk to society than at any other time of their supervision.

In his 1994 report the Auditor General wrote the following:

An institutional mindset exists at the service whereby key institutional problems are readily addressed, while issues regarding the management of offenders released to the community appear to take second place.

Now, considering these things, I believe the service spends about $329 million a year on reintegrating offenders. I want to ask you how much of this is spent in the institutions and how much is spent in the communities. Can you give us a breakdown on that?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, we can. As a matter of fact, about $130 million a year out of that budget—I could be off by a little, but not much—is being spent in the community, and we are looking at whether more money should go into the community.

In terms of community programs—delivering, for instance, educational programs or drug and alcohol programs in the community—we now spend approximately $12 million to $13 million just on these programs, which is an increase of about 30% over our program expenditures in the community last year.

It is true that many of the programs, particularly the so-called cognitive skills programs with offenders who are property offenders, show much more promising signs when these programs are delivered in the community.

• 1655

Sir, I want to invite your attention to the fact that we don't release them out into the community until their risk is manageable. We're not releasing people out there to the community hoping that they will go safely through the program and then have reduced recidivism. We try to do as much as we can on the inside, then try to get them out and continue the programs in the community. That's the way it works.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: But if I read the Auditor General's report correctly, one of the difficulties is that once an offender has been put back into the community, the supervising process there is not always as it was intended. In fact the contact between officials with those under supervision is not always maintained. The eye-to-eye contact, the communication, the meetings, and the supervision are simply below standard by quite a significant amount, if I read the Auditor General's report correctly.

Maybe Dr. Barrados or Mr. Wolchuk would like to comment on that. Is there some provision by the service, perhaps?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): I'll get back to you.

Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Speak fast, Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: If I don't stop laughing, I'll use up all my time.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Philip Mayfield: —

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'll talk to you afterward.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: No, I want it on the record.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: My question is for Dr. Barrados. To come back to the question I asked right at the beginning, what is your view on the improvements in the quality of reporting by the Correctional Service, along all of the steps where the Correctional Service has to provide a report, for instance to the National Parole Board?

Apparently there's been some improvement. I'm not sure about just how significant that improvement is. Is the Auditor General satisfied with the steps that have been taken by the Correctional Service to improve even more the quality of those reports?

Then, if we have enough time, I'd like Mr. Ingstrup to explain to us exactly what measures have been put into place to improve where you're still underachieving. If you don't have time to do it, send it to us.

Thank you.

Ms. Maria Barrados: I'm trying to do this very quickly and briefly, Mr. Chairman.

The first thing I'd like to say is that we saw a marked improvement on the part of the service in terms of trying to measure their own performance throughout their management process.

There are a number of places in this report for which in the past we had to generate the numbers ourselves, and now we can actually rely on the service to generate numbers. The commissioner is correct, it is an organization that is making an effort to manage toward results. So that definitely is a clear improvement. Now, you can always improve on numbers. There always can be better measures, and they're aware of that.

With respect to the reports that are prepared for the parole board, the earlier observation we made was that the quality control in place was very weak. When we came back, we found they really had made improvement in the systems and processes. But what we now find is that they had made that first important step, but there was an inconsistency in the application of those processes.

So when we did a test of how good those reports were, we found that they were not to the standards that the service themselves said they would like to achieve. So not only was the service's own study showing that the reports weren't of the quality they would like, but our own test supported that this was the case.

Now, the commissioner can explain further what steps he's taking. But they certainly recognize this is something they would like to improve, and it's a very important area for them to improve.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Definitely. Someone's freedom may depend on it.

Ms. Maria Barrados: It's for the proper work of the National Parole Board.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Ingstrup.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'd be happy to comment on that.

We actually put out some new standards for community reporting, for reporting to the National Parole Board. We put these standards in place in February 1999, so it's a little too early to say how good we are, although to the extent to which we can, we are looking into how it is working. But we're not auditing it at this point in time. We will, though.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: When?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't know if we have an audit plan ready, but that again... It will be soon.

• 1700

Ms. Marlene Jennings: It will be a year if you start an audit, say, next fall at the latest—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, but I think—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: That will give 18 months. That's usually solid enough.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think we will do it before that time.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Oh, great. Then you can come back—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We also have developed training modules for all our supervisors so they'll be better able to control the quality of their people's work. We have ongoing discussions with the National Parole Board because there's actually nothing better than asking the parole board if it is getting the kind of quality it needs.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Sure.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: But one of the most important things in the standards from February is that we have matched our report-writing to the National Parole Board's decision-making policies so we ensure that our reports are actually addressing all the issues the National Parole Board members have. We hope this is going to produce a good result.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Mayfield, are you finished?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I haven't finished my question. I'd like to hear Mr. Ingstrup...actually, I was discussing this earlier with Mr. Wolchuk, too.

Either Dr. Barrados or Mr. Wolchuk, I'd really appreciate your input on this question about supervision in the communities.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Mr. Chairman, there are two points we are making in the report. One is the importance of having a continuity in the programming that goes from the institutions into the community as part of the whole reintegration process. I'm pleased to hear that the service is putting more funds into this. They have committed to looking at strengthening this.

The second point you make is the observation about supervision in the community. We made earlier observations that there was an inconsistency in the approach, that their own standards were not being met in terms of the amount of direct contact. This is still an area that needs improvement. It's an important area, and I think the service recognizes that.

Perhaps the commissioner can elaborate on what he is putting in place.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'd be happy to do that. As I said, we are increasing our funds for community programs by about 30% this year, going up from $8 million and change to a little more than $13 million, which is significant.

I ask you to remember that there is a limit as to how much more an organization can absorb and implement in a high-quality fashion. We can't just throw money at it. We could have put more money into programs but they have to be programs that are of quality, with qualified people to deliver these programs. That's why I've put the accreditation system in place: to make sure that it's not just on paper that it looks good but that it is good in reality.

The other thing we are looking at and we actually have a report on is workload in the community. If it weren't my own organization I would say that of course the proposal is to put more resources into it, there's always a proposal to put more resources into it, but I am personally not convinced that more resources are going to do work that is a lot better.

Once again, we have to remember that the Correctional Service of Canada has the lowest caseload for parole officers that we can find anywhere in the world. In many other systems, they supervise 100 to 140 people. In our system, we have a few people who have up to about 30 people to supervise, and there are people who have all the way down to 6. We have people with intensive supervision, where 2 people share 25. Our caseload is very low but our demands on our parole officers are very high, and I think that is how it should be.

So before I just accept blindly the recommendations to increase the number of parole officers in the community, I want to have a good look at whether this is actually the best way of improving our performance.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you to both the Auditor General and the Commissioner.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'd like to change gears completely, if I could, please.

Sir, in the federal institutions, are there no-smoking areas for prisoners as well as staff?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: There are.

• 1705

One of the things I wonder about is that inasmuch as there are areas where you can go to avoid smoke, I don't believe that prisoners with drug problems are isolated from the other prisoners. Is that correct?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It is correct.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm wondering why. Why is it that people who have serious drug problems, who use needles, who have in their possession contraband substances—and these people are known by the service—are not isolated, at least for the safety of those who have nothing to do with them?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have to remember that 70% of our prison population—70%, seven out of ten—are actually people who have what we would call a significant drug and/or alcohol problem. So it's seven out of ten we should focus on. But we're looking in the service—and I think you will be pleased to hear this—to see if we can find ways of isolating or keeping apart those inmates who are really determined to get out of their drug and alcohol problem. We're looking at what they're doing in a couple of other countries, and some countries have some programs like that in place. We'll be looking at those to see if we can learn something from them, so it's something that is on the active study. It's not possible, with the population we have, to isolate those with a known problem because it's 70%.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Part of the protection is for those people who may be induced to try using drugs because of the culture in there, because of the peer pressure, I suppose. It seems to me that if there were an incentive for someone not to use drugs, that there are parts of the prison that are safer, there are parts of the prison where there may be benefits you don't have, whereby there would be some incentive for people to say they would never use that stuff... So for those there would be an incentive for them to take part in the drug programs that may help them recover from this.

I am certainly not a specialist. I worked in a prison for about four or five months, and I hated it. Even with keys I didn't like that job. I've never been back. But certainly I know of the tragedy and the sadness and the loss that occurs in the institutions, no matter how well they're planned and how well they're administered. Please think about that. I'm not the only one thinking about that either.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Sir, I'm happy to say that there's absolutely no disagreement between us on that point. Also, we are looking at things. We don't have a firm conclusion at this point, but we think it's around the corner. Something ought to be done, and we're looking at ways of doing it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

Ms. Barrados, do you have any closing comments?

Ms. Maria Barrados: I have a couple of comments. The first one is that we are pleased at how seriously the service is taking our audit report and how diligently they are making an effort to act on the issues we raised. We only looked at one part of their responsibility, obviously, and they have other things they worry about. For us, as an office, this area is a very important area because it is an area that talks to the management practices and the systems and processes that need to be put in place to protect Canadians as part of the total judicial system.

We identified some areas where the service has done good work. There are other areas where more work needs to be done, and they're committed to doing that. It is in that front-end assessment process, the rehabilitation programming, the quality of the reports of the parole board and supervision in the community.

We welcome this opportunity to be here today.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Mr. Ingstrup, do you have a final thought?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would also like to thank you very much for this meeting. It's always important for us to come and have these discussions, and we're pleased with the discussions being possible in such an open way.

I would also like to say that, believe it or not, the Auditor General has had a division in the Correctional Service of Canada for the last six years. We really enjoy having them there. We learn a lot from them. One of the things we have learned from the Auditor General is that the results are more important than process, but both are important. In my darker moments it is a light at the end of the tunnel to know that in the results area we are making very significant progress, but we still have something to do in the process area. So thank you very much.

• 1710

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): I like your comment about there's light at the end of the tunnel, providing it's not the train coming your way.

On behalf of my colleagues, I thank you very much for your frank comments. We had positive comments on both sides, and we hope things will work out for the best. I thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.