JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 29, 1998

• 1530

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Welcome. I want to say before we begin that we have 25 students from the Forum for Young Canadians here, and they represent their communities in all provinces of Canada, I understand. And they're accompanied by Ms. Auclair, who is the coordinator for this program. I want to welcome all of you.

I'll just take a moment to tell you what I think you already know: that this is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that we're working today on a process that is entitled the main estimates. These are the budget estimates of each department and each sub-agency within a department. We're taking a look at those, although with this particular witness you may hear less about money and more about other issues. But it's an opportunity for parliamentarians on an annual basis to have a close examination of different departments.

Today we have with us, from the Correctional Service of Canada, Ole Ingstrup, who is the commissioner, and Richard Clair, who is the corporate secretary. The Correctional Service of Canada is part of the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. The Correctional Service basically takes care of our prison programs and our federal parole programs; more specifically, that would be prisoners who are sentenced to two years or more in a federal penitentiary. So they deal with some pretty bad dudes.

Anyway, I'm sure that if you're still here when we break the members of Parliament would be more than happy to speak to you. And so you know who's in the room I'll introduce the members.

This is Jack Ramsay, who's the justice critic for the Reform party. Mr. Ramsay was a consultant in his other life and it's his second term in Parliament. He was also an RCMP officer two or three years ago.

Mr. Peter Mancini is the New Democratic Party's critic on justice and human rights. Mr. Mancini was with the Nova Scotia legal aid program on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia.

Peter MacKay is also from Nova Scotia. He is the Conservative justice critic but he's also the House leader, so he manages their business in the House of Commons. He's a pretty busy guy these days. And in his former life he was a crown attorney, a prosecuting attorney, in Nova Scotia as well, but on the mainland. Antigonish, right? Pictou County, yes.

Also with me is Paul DeVillers. Paul was also a lawyer in his private life. He's parliamentary secretary to Stéphane Dion, who is the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs.

There is also Andrew Telegdi, who in his former life ran a program called Youth in Conflict with the Law in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, which was a bail verification program. That means that when people are charged, but before they're either convicted or acquitted, if they need to be out on bail his office would help to supervise these people when they were on bail and that way we could keep fewer people in custody.

Mr. Marceau just slipped in there. Mr. Marceau is a member of the Bloc Québécois and is a lawyer. What city?

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Charlesbourg.

The Chair: Okay.

My name's Shaughnessy Cohen, and I chair the committee. I was a criminal lawyer and I've been here since 1993. I'm from Windsor, Ontario, the centre of the universe. Try to get that straight; there will be an exam.

Mr. Ingstrup, you certainly know the drill.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service of Canada): Thank you very much, Madam Chair and honourable members. I am indeed very pleased to be here to appear before you again, this time to discuss plans and priorities and the performance of the Correctional Service of Canada for the fiscal year we just passed and the fiscal year we have just commenced.

• 1535

As stated in the Correctional Service of Canada's plans and priorities document, the priority for the service at this point is to increase public safety, as the minister mentioned the other day, by ensuring the safe, timely, and effective reintegration of offenders back into the community. This goal is not only reflected in the mission statement of the Correctional Service of Canada but also in section 3 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that this committee is going to examine in the fall. Over the last year CSC has been working extremely hard to make progress in meeting our mandate.

Before I begin detailing our progress, however, I would like to say just a few words, Madam Chair, about crime in Canada and the incarceration trend.

According to Statistics Canada, the crime rate in Canada has declined for five consecutive years to a point where it's virtually the same now as it was back in 1986. More specifically, we're told that the rate of violent crime in Canada has dropped by 13% since 1991.

[Translation]

Despite of this decrease in crime, we have not experienced a decrease in incarceration at the federal level. During the five- year period 1989-90 to 1994-95, the federal correctional population grew very rapidly—by 22 per cent, a growth rate twice the historic average. Fortunately, the correctional population has begun to recede from the peak in 1994 and 1995 and the correctional system appears to be emerging from this period of unusual growth.

In Canada today, there are almost 13,000 federal offenders who are incarcerated and approximately 7,300 who are under some form of supervision in the community. This is not good enough. Approximately half of the people in our institutions today are past their parole eligibility date.

Furthermore, the consultation paper of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act has revealed a steady decline in the use of discretionary release and a significant increase in the use of detention until warrant expiry date.

[English]

But we do have something good to report as well. Over the last period of time, between 1975 and 1985, there were about 43,000 federal offenders who were released into the community. We have followed these offenders, and what we found was that nearly eight out of ten offenders when released on full parole did not reoffend. Nearly eight out of ten offenders released on statutory release, which is at least two-thirds of the sentence, what we formerly knew as mandatory supervision, did not reoffend. And that reflects an average recidivism rate of approximately 17% while these people were under our care.

I think the only way of interpreting that, Madam Chair, is by saying that CSC has made a significant contribution to the protection of Canadians.

As I stated earlier, we are working hard to increase the safe and timely reintegration of offenders. This involves an approach that focuses on more timely interventions to ensure that offenders are well prepared for a safe release at the earliest possible date. This obviously will affect mostly low-risk offenders.

• 1540

But all of this is not new. It corresponds with what the Auditor General found in his report from 1996, in chapter 30, a report that some of us have had an opportunity to discuss in the public accounts committee.

We are looking at various ways in which we can move the organization in the direction I mentioned. One of them is to improve program motivation as well as program participation, program completion and program performance. Another way is to enhance case preparation and have better community release and supervision.

I can assure you, Madam Chair, that CSC has engaged in actions in each of these areas to improve our performance, with a focus on how each of these activities or areas supported safe reintegration. And we are seeing some progress.

We're putting our minimum security institutional capacity to better use than we did before, so that today we are at over 90% capacity in minimum security institutions. This has not—and this is important—led to an increase in escapes or an increase in crimes committed by inmates and obviously that's all that really matters in this context.

We are using day parole and work release better as part of a gradual reintegration. Now we have—as I've had an opportunity to explain in more detail to the public accounts committee—managers of reintegration in place in each and every one of our institutions to help us identify and remove impediments to safe release preparation.

We have re-emphasized the importance of setting the goal of safe reintegration as central to staff efforts by fine-tuning the job descriptions, particularly for institutional parole officers.

We have also adjusted the caseloads so that parole officers now have one parole officer on the inside for each 25 offenders. Basically, that has been implemented from coast to coast.

Risk assessment is one of the key areas that we continue to focus on, particularly and obviously when we're talking about high-risk offenders. CSC has attracted a great deal of interest around the world for its pioneering work in risk assessment and risk management. But no one—and certainly not CSC—can predict or change human behaviour in all cases at all times. It is just not possible with the knowledge we have now. But the tools that we have and the tools that we have developed can help us to assess the type of programming and other systems that offenders need in order to become law-abiding citizens.

There is also another area, Madam Chair, in which Canada is a leader, and that is the area of correctional programming, particularly in such areas as cognitive skills training and research into what works and what doesn't work for offenders. For example, recent research tracked treated and untreated sex offenders, which obviously is a group of special concern to Canadians and to us. We followed those individuals for six to ten years, many of them past their warrant expiry. What we found, Madam Chair, is that treatment reduced sex offender recidivism in regard to new sex offences by more than 50%.

Last year there were slightly more than 58,000 registrations for various offender programs in our institutions and communities. In order for us to maintain our leadership, however, and to be assured that our programs are indeed state-of-the-art programs and not just something that we pretend is a good program, we have launched an international accreditation process which involves experts from our own country, Scotland, Denmark, Britain and the United States and representation from the NECHI Foundation, which is an aboriginal substance abuse organization located in Edmonton.

These people from outside CSC will look at our programs from two angles. First, they will look at the program itself. Is it the state of the art? Is it up to the level that this particular program should be at? The second angle is the site accreditation. Are the people who are delivering it good enough? And are the conditions under which the program is being delivered conducive to improvement in the offender's behaviour? We're hopeful that all of our programs will be examined by these external accreditors before or by the year 2000.

• 1545

Another area, Madam Chair, in which we are focusing our energies is the finalizing of the strategy for maximum security and special needs women offenders. Currently, our new regional women's facilities—and you probably know about most of them—meet the needs of approximately 85% of the women under our care. We are close to determining how best to deal with the last 15%, which is really a very problematic group, as I'm sure you know. It's important to remember that just a few years ago 100% of our women were in maximum security institutions. Today, we're down to 15%. And I'm pleased to report that the regional medium security facilities are working very well at this time. We had some glitches at the beginning, but we've overcome that.

[Translation]

CSC has also taken up the challenge to significantly increase the number of aboriginal offenders safely and successfully reintegrated into society.

Currently, we have a large portion of aboriginal offenders who stay in prison longer, that waive full parole reviews, that have higher revocations and so on. Of utmost importance to CSC is to have safe, secure institutions.

As you are aware, the Solicitor General announced last Thursday that we will be hiring an additional 1,000 correctional officers. These additional resources will allow for better facilitation of safe reintegration of offenders through the more effective management of the offender population growth and risk; as well as increase the health, safety and security of CSC employees, offenders and members of the public who visit the institution.

[English]

Over the past year, we've also dealt with issues and tragic incidents that have required our intense attention—and got it. Some of them you're very familiar with; in particular, there were the two tragic cases involving Hector and Russell. We think, Madam Chair, that we in the Correctional Services of Canada must have the wisdom and strength to distinguish these incidents as aberrations from the norm, which is safe reintegration.

That doesn't mean we should ignore them. On the contrary, we should learn from them. I can't tell you how pleased I was personally in having the discussion we had in your committee about these cases. We will continue to learn from that. We should not dismantle the system when things go wrong, but we should check it and continue to check it and continue to assure ourselves that it is still sound and that opportunities for improvement are being pursued. Each incident—and I want to make that clear—is seen by us as a tragedy and deserves special attention, and we will give it special attention.

In closing, I would like to say that CSC is working and will continue to work hard to meet our mandate of contributing to the protection of society. I now believe we have about the amount of staff that we need. I think we have a good toolbox and good instruments. I think we have good know-how and by and large the resources to meet our mandate with confidence.

We are not perfect, and I think, Madam Chair, that we will never be perfect, but we are nevertheless extremely proud to be one of the most effective correctional services in the world. One of the reasons for that is our constant search for programs and practices that work.

Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. I will be pleased to take questions from you and the members.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ingstrup.

• 1550

Could people let me know if they have questions so I can get a list going?

Mr. Ramsay, let's start with about ten minutes.

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

Mr. Ingstrup, thank you for attending and again covering the ground for us and giving us an opportunity to seek your wisdom and insight into some of the problems facing the Correctional Service today and some of the problems that crime causes for our society.

You have stated the system is not perfect. The lack of perfection creates a rather high societal cost in that a certain percent of the people who are released on early parole or on statutory release continue to commit offences. Do you have the statistics with you to indicate how many murders, sexual assaults, and assaults occurred in the last 12 months, beginning perhaps from April 1 of this year—the last fiscal year? Do you have those figures available?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, I have some numbers with me. While we're looking for them, Mr. Ramsay, I can tell you that the number of what we characterize as really serious incidents—it's not that we don't treat everything seriously, but there are some that are extremely serious, such as murders, hostage-takings, sexual assaults, and things like that—has gone down quite significantly over the last four or five years.

If you include in this murders, attempted murders, sexual offences, major assaults, hostage-takings, armed robberies, major drug-trafficking offences, and arson, then you're talking about 188 incidents in the fiscal year 1997-98. That's down from 1994-95, when we had 256, and back six or seven years, we were at about 240.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: For the information of the committee as well as our guests, would you read off the figures for just the four top ones: murders, sexual assaults, assaults, and armed robberies?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm afraid we don't have the number of murders with us here, but I can provide that to you. There is a certain number of murders in here—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Of course what I want to do is lay a basis here to ask some questions about the parole system itself and the consequence of error when the parole board does make an error. The average over the last number of years has been approximately 15 murders per year. It might be down a little bit, but not very much.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think that is pretty close.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: When I look at all the good that parole does and balance it against that enormous price, just in the area of murders—15 innocent people dying at the hands of people our parole board releases early—that is an enormous price we're asking society to pay for our parole system.

So let me ask you this. During the Kingston symposium, which you cordially invited me and my colleague, Chuck Cadman, to attend, we heard from a number of international representatives in the penal system. One of the strong messages I left that symposium with was that once the parole board decides to release someone and if they have made a mistake, the last hope to protect society is the manner in which the parole people monitor the activities of the individual.

• 1555

The representative from the State of Utah made it very clear that not only does their system have the complete support of the majority of their citizens in that state, but he explained why they have that. He explained that when someone is released on parole, they're asked to enter into a contractual agreement that they will agree to certain conditions, which include being perhaps in at a certain time, staying away from the bars and alcohol, and so on. If they're found to be violating any condition, then they're immediately brought back in. They don't have to commit an offence, but if they violate the terms of the agreement, they're brought back in.

That's not happening in Canada. Do you think we should be implementing that kind of a system so that the conditions of parole, if violated, will immediately bring that individual back into incarceration? Do you think we should be moving in that direction in order to reduce those figures still further that are costing society an enormous amount each year?

The Chair: Before you answer, Mr. Ingstrup, just for the information of colleagues, the bells are ringing for a quorum call, not for a vote. It reduces the anxiety level.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: How can you tell that?

The Chair: Mr. White just told me.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Oh, he didn't tell me.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): It's a quorum count, Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Ingstrup.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I wonder if the question is framed in the best possible way. I hate to say that; it's your question. I realize that, and I'm here to answer. But when you are saying, sir, that the price we are paying by releasing people at an earlier stage is 15 additional murders, I'm not sure that assumption may be absolutely accurate. The reason I'm saying this is it assumes that if we held these prisoners to the last day of their sentence and then released them, none of them would commit an offence.

I am not sure that we would not see a higher total number of murders in our society if we kept more people longer. I'm not saying from time to time we couldn't make a better decision, and we discussed that a couple of months ago where we had an example of that. I'm talking in general, and here I'm saying I don't believe the assumption holds that if we keep people to the end of their sentence, then murders will go down in society.

It's clear that these particular 15 murders would not have happened at that time, but if the total population becomes more violent, then we may have more murders after.

That's one of the things the Auditor General has said in his report, that what is important from a correctional point of view is to take the long view. He says the person who is faced with a threat doesn't first think “Is this person before or after warrant expiry date?” He or she is concerned about the fact that there is a threat.

So that's the first thing. I don't think there is an easy answer to it, but obviously what we look for is a reduction to the highest level we think we can provide.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, let me ask you this, then. You reported in your opening remarks that the crime rate is down by 13%, while incarceration is up 23%. To you, is there not a message in those statistics?

To me, the message is that they're keeping individuals in longer, so consequently the crime rate has gone down. We know there's just a certain segment, a small percentage of offenders, that keep repeating, and it seems that if you keep them in longer, that may be at least partially the cause of the 13% decrease.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would be cautious in concluding that.

There are a number of studies, particularly in the United States, where they have had some serious fluctuations in the level of punishment, which clearly indicate to me and to the authors of those studies that there seems to be very little relationship between the number of crimes committed in society and the number of people we have in prison.

• 1600

If I may give you some statistics that I think belong to this discussion, which is a very serious and meaningful discussion that you have opened, sir, one is that we look at how many of the offences committed in this country can be associated with people who have previously been within the federal system. Even to me, these numbers were quite surprising.

What we found was that for 1996, the police in this country investigated about 2.7 million offences. Of those 2.7 million offences, we had a number of offenders involved that is the equivalent of seven out of every 10,000 violent offences that could be associated with people who came from the federal correctional system. Every time we had 10,000 sex offences in Canada in 1996, two of them were committed by people who had to do with the federal correctional system.

That doesn't mean we aren't interested in the two; it just means that I don't think one can draw the conclusion that if we keep more people in prison, we will see some significant changes in the overall level of crime.

We looked at others, as well: property offences, two out of 10,000; eight out of 10,000 drug offences; and four out of 10,000 other offences.

So there are questions, at least, that should be asked.

But you asked another question, Mr. Ramsay, about conditions in contract. I too was quite impressed by the parole chairman from Utah. I don't think we are that far in our parole system from that type. The offender in our system will also have to accept and sign the release and the conditions, and we have many conditions on our parole releases, whether it's full parole or mandatory supervision.

As a matter of fact, when I look at statistics for people who are being readmitted to federal institutions after they have been paroled, those who don't make it on parole or statutory release, then twice as many come back because they have violated one of these special conditions as a number of those who have committed a new offence.

So we're pretty tough on people who don't abide by conditions. When it comes right down to it, I think the essential philosophy may not be all that different, but the way in which it was explained was very appealing.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, they seemed to have a better track record than Canada.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I doubt it. They seem to, I agree, but I doubt they have.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Marceau, ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, commissioner, for appearing here today. As you know, I have visited several correctional institutions over the past year. One of the aspects mentioned the most often by inmates was the problem of double bunking in cells that were initially built to hold one person. I would like to know if you have any statistics on how many people are in this situation in Quebec and also in the rest of Canada and if you can share that information with us.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: I do not have the exact numbers for Quebec, but I can get them. In Canada, there are roughly 3,000 people out of 13,000 or 13,500 inmates who are currently double- bunking. That means that there are two people in a cell that was built to hold one.

• 1605

Then there are roughly 1,000 inmates who share a cell with another inmate, but a cell that was built for two people. So we are talking about 4,000 inmates. But the situation is more acceptable for these 1,000 inmates than it is for the other 3,000.

Mr. Richard Marceau: We are talking about 3,000 out of 13,000?

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: So that is about 22 per cent.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: That is correct.

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is a huge amount.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: That is true. We hope that by making better use of the reintegration programs as well as the parole system, we will be able to reduce the total number of inmates and avoid building additional penal institutions.

Mr. Richard Marceau: It would go from 3,000 to how many, and in how long? You undoubtedly have some timeline projections.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: We think that, if nothing else changes and the current trend continues, over the next ten years we will have a prison population increase of roughly 1.5 to 2 per cent per year. But as I just said, we have undertaken a reintegration process that is a little more aggressive and systematic, as recommended by the Auditor General, and we hope to reduce the total number of inmates at the federal level. I must say that we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. Two years ago, there were 14,000 inmates as compared to roughly 13,000 at present. So we have made some progress.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am not sure that I understood you completely. You talked about a 1.5 to 2 per cent increase in the present population, but the projections I was talking about concern double-bunking. Currently, 3,000 out of 13,000 inmates are double- bunking and that should not be the case, should it? And you are saying that you were putting in place reintegration programs to bring that number down. In the best case scenario, the number should be zero, since those cells were built to hold one person.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: So I am asking you how long it will take to go from 3,000 people who are currently double-bunking down to zero using the programs you have talked about.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: Presently, we do not have any definite forecast, but I hope that will come. There is no doubt that it will take a lot of time. It will take years. But from that perspective it is encouraging to see that half the people in our federal institutions today are past their parole eligibility date. That means that the vast majority of inmates have the opportunity to be reintegrated. It is however still a bit too early to give you any exact forecasts.

Mr. Richard Marceau: You agree with me that the problem of double-bunking is not only a problem for the inmates themselves. As a regular source of violence, it is also a problem for correctional officers and their safety.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: There has not been a huge increase in violence among inmates because of this problem. Moreover, as you know, we will be hiring an additional 1,000 correctional officers. At present, the number of correctional officers in units where there is double-bunking is higher than in the units where there is single bunking.

Mr. Richard Marceau: But as you know, throughout Canada, and particularly in Quebec, as we have seen in the news, there is a problem with organized crime, especially with biker gangs. It has been noted that biker gangs who are arch-enemies end up in the same institution. Is there a policy in place to avoid this type of situation, and if not, is there an internal policy to prevent these people from running into each other?

• 1610

I have personally spoken with correctional officers and I learned that they must be watchful and immediately close the door when they move inmates from corridor A to corridor B, because they can jump at each other and get into a fight.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup: I think that we currently have about 1,000 inmates who are members of organized gangs. There are obviously different levels. They are not all bikers. They are also groups of natives and other types of groups. So there are roughly 1,000 people in that category and it is possible without too much difficulty to separate the groups that need to be kept apart.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Are they separated within the same institution or put in different institutions?

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: Actually, it is a bit of both. There are institutions that are quite large and that were built in such a way that we can keep the two groups within the same institution without there being any contact. In other institutions, that is not possible. So that is something we do, based on the conditions that exist.

There are currently institutions in Quebec where we have two biker gangs in the same institution without there being any contact between them and without any serious problems. The correctional officers must monitor movements carefully, and incidents rarely occur.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay. Earlier on you mentioned that the Solicitor General announced that 1,000 additional correction officers would be hired.

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Will these 1,000 people be permanent or contract officers?

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: They will be public servants.

Mr. Richard Marceau: They will be public servants.

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: They will be public servants. It will take about three years, because we will start by recruiting 325 officers this year, 575 next year, and the rest the following year. But they will all be public servants.

Mr. Richard Marceau: How will these 1,000 officers be distributed geographically?

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: We are currently studying existing requirements in the institutions, because these requirements differ according to the locations. We are currently studying exactly how to distribute these officers and what institutions must receive the first correctional officers. For the time being, the decisions have not yet been made.

I think that the distribution will be relatively equal among the five regions, but within the regions, the requirements at each institution will have to be considered.

Mr. Richard Marceau: When you talk about 1,000 additional officers, do you mean hiring the contract workers who are already working part-time as stop gaps? Are they included in these 1,000 people you are talking about or will 1,000 other people be hired?

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: There will be some of both. We will have 1,000 additional person-years. We hope we will be able to use the people who are already working for us on a part-time basis but who are not CSC employees. As they have received the basic training, most of them can become public servants, and what's more, the group, in general, is doing excellent work.

Mr. Richard Marceau: You said that the employees who are currently contract employees would be included. I would like to know how many new positions will be created and how many new people who are not in the system, will be hired on.

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: One thousand people.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm not sure that I have fully understood, but I will go back to that later, because I have already used the time allotted to me.

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: I can send you the data, if you want.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, I would appreciate that.

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: Very well. We will send it to you.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Your secretary will take care of that?

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks. Maybe if you send them through the clerk, then we can all share them.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Sure.

The Chair: Mr. Mancini, ten minutes.

• 1615

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for coming today. I'm glad to hear your comments and read your report, and I'm glad to hear we are considered one of the best correctional systems in the world.

That being said, like my colleague Mr. Marceau, I had the occasion to visit some of the federal penitentiaries in this country. In particular—and I'll come back to this—I had occasion to visit P4W in Kingston, the Prison for Women. I'm sure most most members of this committee have been there. It may very well have served as the inspiration for Margaret Atwood in Alias Grace. It is an aged institution. It has many problems. I was particularly concerned when I met with some of the women in that prison who had special medical needs.

That being the case, I'm going to come to some questions about the women in the prison system. There are a number of women currently segregated in men's units in prisons across this country. I'm wondering if you can indicate to me when those women will be moved, where they will be moved, and under what conditions they will be moved.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'd be glad, Madam Chair, to reflect out loud a little bit on this, because the answer is not a simple one.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I know.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There is a little history that I'm afraid I have to share with you in order to put it in the right context.

We wanted—and I was certainly one of them, because I happened to be commissioner at the time as well— We were very concerned about the conditions under which we kept women in the Prison for Women. At that time one shouldn't forget this was 100%. That was it.

At one point we got a contract with the Province of British Columbia and we moved a number of women from western Canada into their institution, and they are now under their care. That seems to be a good arrangement that can continue for both medium and maximum security women, and they get the treatment they should get out there. I don't think we've had any questions about that, and we feel comfortable in CSC that they are getting what they should have in terms of treatment.

When the government accepted—and that was both the Conservative government and now the Liberal government, so it goes across party lines—the basic findings of the task force report called Creating Choices and built regional institutions, at that time we built one institution in Truro, Nova Scotia; one in Joliette, Quebec; one in Kitchener, Ontario; and one in Edmonton, Alberta. These institutions were sort of medium security institutions for federally sentenced women. Then we built a specialized unit that I am extremely proud of, and I think Canadians should be very proud of, namely Okimaw Ohci in the Sacred Cypress Hills in southwestern Saskatchewan close to Maple Creek, for aboriginal women.

These institutions worked very well, but I personally had some very serious concerns about putting dangerous women and women with serious mental health problems into these institutions. We saw one of the results in the Edmonton Institution for Women. I've talked to staff, I've drawn on my own experience as a corrections professional, I've talked to the women in these institutions, and everybody seemed to agree that if we moved maximum security women or very seriously mentally ill women into the institutions, we would destroy these institutions. I believe that very seriously.

Certainly our success in managing these medium security institutions also became our problem, because suddenly we only had 15% of the whole population, and we like them to be close to their families and their homes and their support systems. They also needed a maximum security environment at least for a period of time and treatment, etc. So what we decided to do—and I'm the man responsible for this—was build some special units within existing institutions to try to handle these women, with the clear mandate of making them ready to go down to the medium security level.

• 1620

At the Saskatchewan Penitentiary we built a separate unit for these people. We did the same thing at the Springhill Institution, where there is very small unit. We built a special unit at the Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon and we also built a special unit on top of our regional psychiatric centre within the confines of the Kingston Penitentiary. We built a special unit there on the third floor for female offenders of the kind I have mentioned.

It was our plan at that time to move the people who today are in Kingston Penitentiary over to that unit, because we had seen, for instance, in Saskatchewan in the Regional Psychiatric Centre and the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, that some of these women could relatively quickly cascade down and integrate nicely into the medium security institutions.

It was our intention to do the same thing in Kingston, but at that time a couple of the women in the Kingston Penitentiary, supported by the Elizabeth Fry Society, took us to court and it became pretty clear we would lose that case. The argument was basically that we didn't have the authority to move these women into that institution.

It's something that's done around the world. Many systems don't make the distinction between male and female institutions. But who am I to say that things should be the same in Canada as anywhere else? The judge certainly did not think that way, so we decided we wouldn't pursue this for years and years to see if we could win a court case, and decided to keep them in the Prison for Women and try to find another solution.

I have to say—and I am sorry I am taking so much of your time—it is no easy thing to find a solution to this. I think both the government and I would be awfully reluctant to build a new prison for women somewhere, just a modern model, and 20 years from now we have another prison for women.

The Chair: Unless you wanted to build it in Windsor.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Is that the centre of the universe?

The Chair: It's the centre of the universe where there would be all those jobs.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Well, I never thought of that.

We have established a number of working groups, one that is very professional and one that is very creative, and they will come up with some solutions by tomorrow. May 1 is their deadline. And I have to come up with a solution for my minister by the end of May, so that's where we're at.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I want to come back to what you said about being concerned about the women in these institutions who were perhaps suffering from mental illness, who you've defined as being dangerous. But in 1996, if I'm not wrong here, Dr. Rivera did a report and said there were 26 women Correctional Services felt could not function adequately in the new regional prisons. But her report identified only eight of those women and essentially said that with proper structures in place many of those women could function in the regional facilities. I'd like to hear your comments on that, because I think that might solve some of the problems you're facing.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't think we disagree very much, but we don't think those proper structures can be within these regional facilities. They have to be somewhere else and then the women have to be transferred from there to the regional facilities. It has worked well from the Saskatchewan Penitentiary. It has worked quite well from the other institutions as well.

• 1625

But there is a time period here where some very intensive work has to happen with these women before it's responsible to send them out. I would feel very very worried if we took the 30 or 40 we have at this time and moved them tomorrow to these institutions. I would almost guarantee you we would have serious problems right away.

Mr. Peter Mancini: When will we know where these women will go who are currently serving their time segregated in men's prisons? If I'm taking your answer correctly, we should have an answer by the end of the week or by the end of May—sometime within the next four weeks.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I should have a recommendation to me by the end of this week. What is a lot more serious, from my point of view, is that my minister wants a recommendation by the end of May, and a recommendation he will get.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I raised a question the other day to your minister about the halfway houses for women in this country. I indicated at that time there was one halfway house. I've been corrected that there are more than that, but I think you would agree with me there are not nearly enough. When can we expect to see more halfway houses for women across the country?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would be reluctant to say that the federal government is going to build a whole bunch of halfway houses.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I can narrow—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We are working with five houses in the Atlantic region, two in Quebec, five in Ontario, three in the prairies region, and one in the Pacific region. They're not under our jurisdiction, but they are halfway houses for women and we have access to them. There are 10 or 11 mixed houses that can be used under certain circumstances in Quebec, Ontario, and the prairies. So I think that is a way we are going.

We're working quite hard on establishing the best possible community strategy for women. This may sound a little like bragging—I'm afraid it is—but we are actually releasing a lot of these women a lot earlier than the men, and they are integrating very well into society, in spite of the fact many of them have very heavy crime loads. It doesn't mean we're perfect in that area either.

Mr. Peter Mancini: That brings me to another question, about the risk assessment for women in federal penitentiaries. Are the criteria used in determining the risk assessment for women the same criteria that are used in determining the risk assessment for men?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The basic risk assessment tool we have has been tested for its applicability to both female offenders and aboriginal offenders and has been found to be applicable.

Mr. Peter Mancini: But they are the same criteria.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The same basic criteria. Mind you, it only plays a certain role in the final determination. It's only one tool.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So there are no plans to change that or review the risk assessment criteria, taking into account perhaps different circumstances for aboriginal women. If my figures are correct, I think aboriginal women make up something like 18% of the prison population, and 46% of them are classed as high-risk offenders under those criteria.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right. It's in that magnitude. There's a clear imbalance.

Mr. Peter Mancini: There is an imbalance. So are there plans to reassess the criteria?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm afraid that is not because of the criteria but because of the background of these women.

We are doing a couple of things. Our research division is constantly charged with assessing and reassessing our most important tools, and this is one of them. One day, maybe, when they get better at it, they will find better ways of creating assessment tools for women, and aboriginal women in particular.

We're also working a lot harder in the area of aboriginal corrections, as I said in my introduction, to get more of these people back on time. Not only are they dramatically over-represented in our prison population, they are also over-represented in the higher security levels, and they are under-represented in the community, which means there is a lot of ground to be covered.

• 1630

We're now fortunate to have a director general of aboriginal affairs who is an aboriginal person and who has worked with the Assembly of First Nations, so she knows a lot about these things. We're trying to explore sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to get the local communities involved. And as Mr. Ramsay knows from his own riding, we're trying to do that at the institutional level as well.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Mancini, but I'm going to have to go on to Mr. MacKay now.

Mr. MacKay.

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

Mr. Ingstrup and Mr. Clair, I want to thank you, as previous members have, for coming before the committee. We appreciate your busy schedule.

Mr. Commissioner, I'll get right to my questions.

You described the instances of Raymond Russell and Michael Hector as tragic incidents. Certainly any time a person loses his or her life it's tragic. John Richardson is another inmate—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —who was out on parole and committed a murder. We've been looking at that one as well.

You will recall that you were before this committee a few short weeks ago and you were asked a question about a CSC policy with respect to a person in the community who takes offenders into his or her home or hires them or interacts with them directly. I asked you a question specifically about what steps were taken by CSC officials to make sure that the full—and I emphasized the word “full”—record of the offender is disclosed to that individual, who might be in some peril.

Now we know—or at least there seems to be empirical evidence—that the victim in the Raymond Russell case, Darlene Turnbull, was not informed of the full record. And I guess the only people who know, unfortunately, are Darlene Turnbull and that probation officer.

My question, now that you've had some time to reflect on my original question, is this: is there a policy or is there something in place that ensures this information will be exchanged?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Madam Chair, Mr. MacKay, I'd first like to say there is no evidence that the victim in the Russell case was not informed. On the contrary, all the evidence that we have points in the opposite direction. And I'd like to read to you directly from a photocopy of the parole officer's handwritten note where she was saying “I spoke to” the previous parole officer “about what the Turnbull family know about the offender's offence.” She says they knew that he was doing a life sentence for murder. And she also discussed other matters. But in that note she said that the Turnbulls “knew”.

They're using this expression because—I had don't know if I had a chance to mention this last time—our parole officers were under the impression that Mrs. Turnbull was living with her husband in that area. That was what we thought. And the parole officer visited the place three times or so before something happened. And it looked to us as if it was a family— So all we have here points in the other direction. I don't think that this is how it is, but I'm saying the only evidence we have points in the other direction.

But there is a policy on it; it's a policy that I signed in 1997. Perhaps I may, with your permission, Madam, just read the paragraph that pertains to this.

The Chair: Please.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: It's actually the last paragraph, paragraph 16, in the commissioner's directive on these things, and it says the following:

All persons in the community who will play a significant role in offering support to the offender upon his or her release shall be provided, on a need-to-know basis, with basic information regarding the offender's criminal background (nature of current and past offences) and present areas of critical concern. They shall also be fully briefed on the offender's release plan and their role in it. The fact that the sharing of information has occurred shall be documented.

• 1635

That's what our policy says. It does leave some discretion in the hands of the parole officer, but I'm not sure that we can avoid that completely. The message here is clear that if a person who is going to be close to the offender during the release period doesn't know, he or she ought to be informed.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. I appreciate your answer. In terms of that disclosure from the parole officer or the person who took over the file, this is the first I've heard of it. My question, based on the policy you've just read, is does need to know include disclosure of a full criminal record? When I say full I'm talking about details that pertain to, in the case of Raymond Russell, the fact that he had done time for murder. Would that be a directive you would give to your officers in the field?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: If I were a parole officer with this directive in hand and talking about a case like this, I would say yes, you will sit down with that individual and go over the criminal record. If there is a minor theft or something in between, I'm not sure if I would pay a lot of attention to that. But I would pay attention to what I knew about the potential danger from that individual. That would mean disclosure of previous murder.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sex offences as well.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, absolutely. But it's under the circumstances. I think that one would potentially be more careful if it is a single person who is living with an offender than if it is a family. It depends on the circumstances. If a person moves into an apartment building, how many of the people there would one inform? Certainly those who are directly involved, but probably not the whole block.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Chair: I wonder if we could have a copy of that directive for the committee.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The letter as well, if possible.

The Chair: Yes, I think we have that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, we sent that. That was in the afternoon, and I remember you were absent, Mr. MacKay, but we found it after the first session. I think we did provide it to the committee.

The Chair: We'll get you a copy of that, Peter.

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

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Ingstrup, I want to follow up on an issue that was raised by my friend, Mr. Ramsay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you indicated that if a person were held the duration of their sentence the total numbers of murders might be higher. You said so generally. You said this might be a general result.

But I'd like to draw your attention to the CCRA consultation document. In that document it indicates that offenders released on conditional release have a higher rate of recidivism than those who are kept in prison for their entire sentences. That was the finding of this document. So can the commissioner confirm that the statistics that were used would explain the logic behind this finding? And in regard to an automatic release for offenders whose backgrounds might clearly not support their release, why wouldn't they make a recommendation to hold them for the duration of their sentence?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Certainly the study is accurately quoted. That particular study is about detention and the effectiveness of assessing who would likely commit a new offence. So it's a very specific group we're talking about here. I've talked to the researchers about it, because I think your question has a lot of common-sense appeal. I asked the researchers why we can't draw the conclusion from this that it's better to keep them to the end of the sentence. They said this is not what the study is about; it's about our ability to predict risk in a particular group, and we don't have a control group that would allow us to make this kind of conclusion.

Because you see another viewpoint that goes in the opposite direction is that people who are released on full parole recidivate a lot less than people who are released at two-thirds of statutory release. So it seems we have more work to do in this area. The only conclusion is really that you cannot draw any conclusion from the amount of time people spend in prison and the likelihood of reoffending. We're studying it more carefully now, and I don't have the numbers yet, but we're trying to see what happens after people are being released, what happens many years after full parole, many years after statutory release.

• 1640

Mr. Peter MacKay: In the immediate release timeframe—and we're talking about prisoners who are doing two years plus a day, obviously—would you favour changes to the Criminal Code that would allow for probationary conditions to attach for those serving federal time?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: In reality, that is what we have.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But I'm talking about court-imposed conditions.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, I think we haven't thought it very well through. If you want, for what it's worth, my spontaneous reaction to it—

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's what I asked you for.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: —I would say that the instrument we have at this point in time is good enough. Also, it's awfully difficult for judges—and judges I've talked to are saying the same thing—to predict what should happen a few years down the creek to these people and they would rather see people who know the individuals make that kind of decision.

I would like to go back to your very first question, if I understood you correctly, of would I favour an automatic early release. I would say no, I don't. From a professional point of view—it sounds like policy, and maybe it is, but I try to be professional—corrections, more than most other areas, is an area where we need discretion and we don't have any automatic releases. What we have in Canada at this stage is automatic review, but we don't have automatic release, except at the end of the sentence.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to ask you another policy-type question. You're certainly aware that as a result of Bill C-16, the government's response to the Supreme Court ruling in Feeney, the powers of recall or the powers to seek an arrest warrant have been granted now to CSC officers. I'd like to know—and I realize that it's a relatively recent amendment—your department's reaction to that and whether the recommendation has been followed.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: As I understand it, it's really not powers that are imposed on us, but powers that we may take and use if we think it's the best thing to do. There are things that are going on in my department at this point in time. One thing is that we are considering whether it's a good idea for parole officers to have these warrants, and the other thing is what training would they need in order to exercise those powers.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But regardless of that, you've been granted that power and you're saying now that you may choose not to exercise it.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right. In that case the police or the courts will do it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So you would have the police intervene and make the warrant application.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Either they go to us or they go to the court. So what we want to make sure is that we can best achieve our own stated objective in our mission, namely to make sure that the rule of law applies to the Correctional Service of Canada. And if I am not totally confident that parole officers, who don't have a legal background, can do this very well, then I think society is better served by having other people in charge of that authority. But we're looking at it. We're discussing it with the justice department and my own lawyers are looking at it as we speak.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So with all respect, what you're telling us is that although the justice committee, in its wisdom, drafted this bill in such a way to grant you or your officials that power, you're saying thanks but no thanks—leave it up to the police.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, I'm not. We're looking at how best to do it. I thought initially that it's a power we had to exercise, but I understand from my lawyers that the problem is a little more complex than that. But please don't examine me on a legal background, because I'm not really qualified here.

• 1645

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the more violent young offenders. I know they're under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but when the Minister of Justice was here before the committee, she indicated that there's a possibility of maybe, I assume by agreement, establishing some regional detention, possibly under the Correctional Service of Canada, for these more violent young offenders who create a problem in the young offenders system. Is that something that would be doable, provided the agreements were there, from your department's point of view? And what would your opinion of that be?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: As you know, sir, this is not the system as it is today.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Right.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: But obviously if we were asked to take responsibility for these young people, we would immediately start to carefully study what we can do and treat them in the same type of way as we do adults.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I think the concept was regional centres similar to the women's prisons that exist now—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: —where more treatment might be made available to them than under the provincial systems.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Obviously the Correctional Service of Canada is extremely treatment-oriented, and the more we do and the more we study it, the more encouraged we are. So if one day—and I'm talking totally hypothetically here, as we both are—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Right.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: —if we were asked to look after that, it would be my guess that that would be the way we would go. It's going a little too far to plan the structure of it, but I always think that for any offender, some kind of regionalization is not a bad idea, although for some of the young offenders, I don't know. They may have to get out of a group of friends and colleagues.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes. I think part of the problem, the reason for thinking of regional institutions, is they're so few in number that it's difficult to set up provincial institutions for them.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: That was my only question, Madam Chair.

The Chair: When they get out, they all have to go home, and that's part of the problem.

Mr. Telegdi, did you want to take the rest of that time?

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

I have to tell you, we have a centre for women in Kitchener, and you can't have it. You have to look for a new one.

The Chair: I think Essex County tried to get it.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: We got it, and I actually helped work on getting it.

The Chair: It might be nice, right on the border there.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm very pleased.

Mr. Ingstrup, you mentioned that we have one of the best systems, and I'd like to take a step back and look at the incarceration rate we have in Canada compared to other countries. We don't rank all that well when you look at the western world.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Philosophically you mentioned there isn't that tight correlation between the number of people we have in prison and the crime rate.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: There are many countries that have much fewer people in prison than we do and they have a lower crime rate.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Okay, I just wanted to get that.

I often wonder what would happen if you took some of the non-violent offenders, people who are not a threat to life and limb, and managed them in the community instead of locking them up.

I noted last week when the minister was here that we're going to be getting 1,000 new people to work in the prison system. At the same time we're spending $30 million on community corrections. It seems to me the 1,000 new people will probably cost us $60 million or thereabouts. Am I pretty close?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: You're off by about 25%; it's $40 million a year.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Including the benefits and all those good things?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Okay. Still, we're spending more on putting more people in place in a system where we admittedly have too many inmates, versus community corrections, where we're trying to prevent crime.

• 1650

Do you see in the long term that we will achieve our goal of having a lesser percentage of the Canadian population in jails, and get more closely aligned with the numbers in western Europe?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's what we are working towards, but we are only one part of the system. The level of crime, the level of sanctions and the release policies are obviously the three major regular players. We are in control of one of them—namely with the parole board, on the releasing side.

We asked in our strategic planning session in January for a rough estimate by the regional deputy commissioners of how many they thought could be in the community safely, and how many we needed at this time to have kept in our institutions. Interestingly enough, across the board they were talking about 50%. That would be not a goal or an objective, but something we look at in a very serious fashion. That would of course bring our incarceration rate per 100,000 a little closer to what we see in most European countries.

You are right, we have a tendency to believe that we're very tolerant and that we don't use criminal justice tough sanctions very much, but we do. We have 133 per 100,000. It's one of the highest in the western democratic world. So it's not as if we don't use incarceration.

We've also seen over the last number of years a decline in the number of people who are getting out on full parole. We will do our best to present offenders to the National Parole Board who are a lot better prepared for a safe reintegration.

I would like to mention that our investment in community corrections is as a matter of fact considerably higher than you mentioned, when you count it the same way as in institutions. We're talking about somewhere between $80 million and $100 million when you take staff that is in the community and the programs that we have there—contracts that we have in the community. Compared to other systems, it's a fairly significant investment in the community.

At this point in time, but only at this point in time, I think our resources in the community are sufficient. The reason for that is that the community resources that we have are basically aimed at a 9,000-person population in the community. That would give a reasonable case load, I think, and still be the lowest in the world, or at least that I know of.

At this time we have 7,300, so there's room to grow a little bit. What I will guarantee you, though, is that if we see a significant increase in the community component, we'll do everything possible to make sure the resources match. I don't think it's going to be a problem for us.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. White, five minutes.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Ingstrup, you and I have a substantive difference of opinion in how your system works. You talk about it as a leadership— and compare it, I guess, to other countries. I compare it to the things that go on in my community. You and I have talked about Sumas Centre, a community release program. I want to ask you a couple of questions about that. I also want to ask you about rehabilitation and your definition of its success, and perhaps your comparison of the terminology of rehabilitation versus that of your wardens.

You know that a review is taking place in my community at Sumas Centre, and much at the insistence, I think, of myself and the community at large, and the city council, which wants to close the place down. This community release program has basically no cells, no fencing. In the day release program, the individuals in the day plan can go throughout our community. We found out that 13 individuals going into that centre in the last two years have come from maximum security prisons right into this community release centre.

• 1655

You know the difficulties we're having in that community—four rapes inside of two years. You know the difficulties with the over 40 unlawfully-at-large individuals. You're aware by now that 12 of those UALs were not even reported to the police. You know about James Armbruster, which is one of the things that convinced me the place is unsafe. That is an individual with 63 prior convictions who walked out in the daytime and raped a woman, robbed a store. The police weren't even informed of it.

I'd like to ask you, sir, how you can convince me that community corrections facilities such as Sumas Centre, or for that matter others anywhere else in this country, are safe. I'd like you to answer relatively quickly, because I only have five minutes and I have some—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm afraid I have to say that I cannot convince you in a short period of time that what we're doing is right. I've tried that many times, and I haven't been successful so far. But what I want to say is that this study we did on the Sumas Centre—and I'd like to publicly thank you for your support in doing this investigation—did lead to some observations and some recommendations that we are seriously looking at.

I want to say, Madam Chair—and I will be brief here—that a lot of these people who end up in the Sumas Centre end up in the— It's a halfway house, but it's so big now that it looks more like a minimum security institution, as a matter of fact. The reason for that big institution in one community is that it's been impossible for the Correctional Service of Canada to find any other communities in the whole province of British Columbia that will accept a halfway house. We are continuously working hard to find places in downtown Vancouver and other places.

Are there problems in the Sumas Centre? Yes, there are problems, and we are doing what we can to correct them. However, I want to say that a lot of these people who end up in the Sumas Centre would previously have been just sent out to the local communities without any kind of control. So is that a preferable course of action, or is it better to have them in some kind of transition? I understand from your community's point of view it's a different perspective.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you. You know, we have put Corrections Canada on notice. One more rape in that community— In fact we want it closed down. I'd prefer to see it closed down now, but we have put you on notice on that.

I want to talk a little bit about rehabilitation. I've had substantial disagreement with Ron Wiebe, the warden at Ferndale Penitentiary, a minimum security penitentiary, about his opening of a nine-hole golf course and his insistence recently that he wants now a driving range on site. He says this is done in the name of rehabilitation. I really question what he knows about rehabilitation when this happens.

I also, under the name of rehabilitation, had reason to visit Springhill Penitentiary I think about a year and a half ago, one of a lot of penitentiaries I've visited in this country. There was an offender there, a sex offender in fact, and when I walked into his cell he had in excess of 40 pictures of nude women on the walls and on the ceilings and so on and so forth. I asked the staff there how they reconcile having an individual in a prison for sex offences—he was in segregation, as a matter of fact—with putting him in a cell 23 hours a day looking at those pictures. What kind of rehabilitation do they have in mind for when he gets out, when he's going through that exercise?

I'd kind of like to get your idea of what you really think rehabilitation is, and whether these wardens agree with you. Are they in fact allowed to determine their own kind of rehabilitation in their own prisons?

• 1700

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, sir. The Correctional Service of Canada is a government agency. There's one Correctional Service of Canada, so there are some areas where we have to have a common view of things determined by the hierarchy of the system, including the minister at the head of the organization.

When we talk about rehabilitation, we talk about managing the inevitable risk that always exists when a person makes a transition from prison back to the community. No matter what we want, no matter what we do, there is a risk in that transition. To us, what we are talking about, what we have in mind, is to make that transition as safe as possible. The fundamental idea in what we are doing is based on the fact that we know that we can change people's behaviour to some extent while they are with us.

Mr. Randy White: Then are my two examples the ideals of good behaviour changes?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: You cannot make policy based on individual examples, but you can make policy based on general information about how the system works and what we know.

I don't like the example you mentioned, and I can't comment on it because I don't know anything about this. But I can tell you that we did an extensive study of sex offenders released from Correctional Service of Canada institutions. This extensive study demonstrated to us that offenders who had gone through our sex offender treatment programs and had been gradually released back into society had a more than 50% lower recidivism rate than people who did not go through this.

So this is a very significant thing for me. I know that there are only half the number of victims in society because of what we do in this area compared to what we would have had if we didn't do anything because there is no such system.

Mr. Randy White: Could the other half possibly be people who are sitting in cells looking at pictures of women?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm no expert in this area, but I'll look into what you're saying.

Mr. Randy White: Please.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'd like to come back to that, and this rumour thing outside this committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White. Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Mr. Ingstrup, some of the information you shared with us is very encouraging. I gather that with all the effort and work you're putting forward in working with the international level you're looking for higher levels of excellence.

When the Solicitor General was here, he did announce a thousand new employees, right?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I've been wanting to ask you just how you are planning to use these positions. To me, when I read page 10 of your presentation, they sounded more like policemen, security people, guards, or something of that nature. I'm much more interested in behaviour modification and work integration into newer fields of potential for full employment, particularly in the area of women, worker training, etc. I know you did say, in answer to one of my colleague's questions, that it would depend on the institution where you would be starting to place these new employees.

When hiring, do you take into consideration a number of factors, such as the percentage of your indigenous population so as to fit in with the skills and needs of aboriginal and Inuit people in prison? You mentioned that as a high percentage.

Second, as for the area where these people come from, Mr. Ingstrup, do you know what the needs for the workforce really are? They differ in different parts of the country. One glove doesn't fit all, certainly not in the regional perspective of Canada.

Third, do you take into account language and language skills?

Also, when you were looking toward this new level of excellence and this international review so that you could have some common standards, have you thought to involve in your consultations the aboriginal women's groups, such as the Métis women, the Native Women's Association, and the Inuit Women's Association, particularly in relation to the youth that you're serving—men or women, young people—or the women in particular? I think if you don't consult them, we miss a step on the road to action.

• 1705

I think I'll leave those on the mat for the moment, and I'll come back. I have another question. Thank you.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would like to say that the thousand officers will not be doing primarily policing work in our institutes.

The main objective of additional resources is to ensure we can better interact with the offenders we have. Simply because of the relative numbers, we will be able to interact a lot better with the offenders at the correctional officer level. The correctional officers, today, in their job description, are doing parts of what we call case management work. They do sit down with offenders. They do talk to offenders in the correctional—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Are they trained social workers? Are they trained university graduates?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No. We have different levels of training. Our parole officers now have to be university graduates, but not all correctional officers.

So to some extent, they work under the supervision of or in connection with the parole officers, who have that kind of education. But we do train them in certain parts of the case management process. So they are heavily involved in that, in observing the inmates and discussing with the inmates and passing information back to the case management team so that we get a lot fuller picture of the offenders than we would otherwise. But the sheer fact that they are there obviously creates a feeling of more safety.

I can understand that if you go into some of our penitentiaries, and certainly Mr. White and Mr. Ramsay have seen that—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I haven't been there yet.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: —sometimes there are lots of offenders and not so many correctional officers. So that means the atmosphere is not as safe as it should be. It's not that we have had a lot of attacks; it's just that the atmosphere is not right for doing the kind of work we need done.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: They say, Mr. Ingstrup, that if you send a small-time criminal into the court system, they come out big-time operators. Is that true?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I don't have all the skills when I come in and have been accused of a crime and have received a two-year-plus sentence, but when I come out, I sure am. I have perfected my skills, and I know how to be a better offender.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I am sure it happens to some offenders. Many things happen in correctional institutions like ours. But I think, as a general statement, it's much exaggerated. I think this is one of the areas where good case management and good institution management plays such an important role. And if I may draw a line to Mr. White's question, I think training people in having good habits for their leisure time is very important. If people work and if they have healthy habits, when they get out of prison they are a lot less likely to come back than if the only thing they know, the only way of killing time they know of, is to go with the other guys to the tavern and continue to drink.

So I think managing and educating people in healthy leisure-time activities is an important part. That is a thing a good correctional officer can help us do as well, but they need to be there.

To your question of aboriginal, culturally sensitive women's groups, basically, to all your questions the fundamental answer is yes. We may be able to do better in some of the areas than we do now, but by and large we are in touch with these groups.

I also want to say, Mrs. Finestone, that the thousand officers will go to male institutions, all of them. We have a special project on staffing for the female offenders. At this point in time, they are staffed quite well, but we are looking at potentially additional needs for the female offender area.

• 1710

We have a lot of projects going on, like the experiments in Edmonton where we have all female officers as front-line officers. Before we know how that works out, we will not add officers in that area.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The other concern that I've heard—and you know it's very important to destroy myths and stereotypes if they exist—is about sexual abuse and, in particular, homosexual behaviour. Is this a fact?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: By the very nature of these things, Madam Chair, this is something that we probably know a lot less about than most other things. In my view, there is no doubt that—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Actually, I think the reason for my question, Mr. Ingstrup, whether it's true or not—and I would hope that you would have some kind of an answer—is the whole question of how prevention is important, the whole question of testing for health prevention, for your own staff, for the other prisoners. I have heard that there is an increase in tuberculosis and I'd like to know if that's true. I think those things would be helpful to clear up.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have a policy in CSC that sexual activity between offenders—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Consenting adults.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: —is not acceptable. On the other hand, we're not naive. We have been in this business for many years. We know it is happening anyway. That's the reason, Madam Chair, that several years ago the previous government, as a matter of fact, introduced a program of distribution of condoms in prison.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I remember that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We also have a number of other preventative measures, such as bleach, because although we do everything we can to keep drugs out of prison, they are there. I don't know of any prison system that doesn't have them. So in order not to add to the problem by putting staff and other offenders at risk, we have a number of things that we do as well.

With respect to your question about tuberculosis, it's true that we are seeing some people who are converting from negative to positive. We've seen that over a period of time, particularly in a couple of institutions where we have a lot of activities going on to look into that. Overall, at this point the latest data on tuberculosis is that we don't have any active tuberculosis cases. And for what the doctors call “passive tuberculosis”, we have 11 cases registered.

There's no evidence that any contamination has taken place, but this, by its very nature, is something that's very difficult to say. We know that some offenders and some staff members have converted from a negative test to a positive test in the same institution. Since tuberculosis is an airborne disease, we obviously have to look at that as an issue for both staff and inmates, and we are. Every inmate is offered a skin test.

The Chair: We have 11 minutes left. We'll go to Mr. MacKay.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: That's fine.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I just have a point that I believe was initially brought up by Madam Finestone. With respect to the corrections investigator, we know that when killers like Michael Hector or Raymond Russell or John Richardson have a problem with your department, CSC, they have an outlet where they can go to voice their complaints.

The idea of a commissioner for victims' rights or an individual who would perform a similar role for families of victims or victims themselves has been discussed at this committee. The role would be similar to that of the correctional investigator. I would just like you, as a person experienced in the system, to give us your reaction to that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I don't know if that is going to be the best mechanism. There should be no doubt that I'm as concerned as any other Canadian citizen about the victims and about making sure that the victims are treated as well as they should be. We have a number of mechanisms in place to help them, but that's not the ideal thing as our mandate has been defined. We try to be as accessible as possible. We try to be open, and we try to inform victims whenever they ask us to be informed. But there are also victims who don't want to be informed about what is going on.

• 1715

Certainly as to mechanisms that can improve the victims' understanding of what is going on and an outlet for them to express their concerns, I would hope quite frankly that they would go to our organization, because we do have a lot of respect for victims and want to help them as much as we can.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Do you not see that as perhaps a conflict of interest, that they should have an independent person who is not— I'm not saying that there is any effort to cover up things that happen, but I would suspect that a person independent of CSC would be in a better position to give victims the information they need.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I haven't thought about that in detail. I would think somewhere to go if we don't do what we're supposed to do is not a bad idea, but I basically think the primary contact should be directed between the victims and us instead of through a convoluted system.

When I talk to victims' groups, in most instances they are not complaining about the services we give them. And I can assure you, Mr. MacKay, that for us it's very important to show that we're part of a criminal justice system and not just an offender system.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So you don't feel that's necessary, given—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I wouldn't say one way or the other. I'm just saying that I recognize the need and the need to think about that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

The Chair: Do you mind if I build on that for a minute?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure, by all means.

The Chair: I'll give you all your time.

Do you have anyone actively working in the policy area on the issue of victims' rights, doing any work-up for you right now in the department? And if so, would you share them with us?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Honestly, I couldn't tell you if we have somebody in our policy unit who is looking at that at this point in time, but I would definitely be pleased to let you know.

The Chair: Yes.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'm not here to put conditions on any of it—

The Chair: No.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: —but I would ask you, then, on the other hand, if you could share with us if you have concerns where you think we could improve.

The Chair: We're about to embark on a study of victims' rights in May, and then again in June, and their role—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We'll be pleased to find everything we have.

The Chair: Thanks.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, I want to continue along this specific line of questioning about the John Howard Society and their role in supervising offenders.

You're aware of the Michael Hector case, where an individual was supervising Michael Hector while Hector was on parole for killing a young man by the name of Kevin Solomon and two others. There has been information brought forward at this committee that the supervisor, among other things, met only once with Hector in his office, never visited Hector's residence, and had no contact with Hector's family or family members of the victims.

Later, I believe there was a statement or a reference in one of your reports about how Michael Hector was embarking or involved in self-evaluation; that is, he was giving information directly to the supervisor and there was no attempt made to verify that, at least no independent verification, and that the supervisor wasn't aware of Mr. Hector's employment or financial situation, which were identified as two indicators of instability.

I'd like to ask you, first, generally a question about CSC and their contracting out to the John Howard Society for parole supervision in the 1997-98 year. How much of your budget was spent contracting out?

Do you see any conflict of interest between contracting with the John Howard Society, given their mandate, and the potential for what I would consider to be a conflict of interest as indicated by this Michael Hector case? What is the ongoing relationship you have with the John Howard Society?

Could you address those questions?

• 1720

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I'd be pleased to do that in detail, but I can't say exactly how much money we spend with the John Howard Society. Overall about $120 million a year is being spent on all kinds of contracts. The John Howard, the St. Leonard's Society, the Salvation Army, etc., are all included in that.

We have a significant contractual relationship on the community side with the John Howard Society. My assessment at this time is that this is a good relationship, and one that should continue. That doesn't mean that it is flawless. Certainly the Michael Hector case demonstrated very clearly that there were flaws in that, but I don't think one can say this is because of a conflict of interest. That isn't the issue.

The issue had two sides to it in the Michael Hector case. One was that the Correctional Service of Canada did not provide the kinds of documents and information to the John Howard Society that we should have provided. As you recall, we dealt with that at our last meeting.

On the John Howard Society side, they were not aware, and we didn't control well. They were not aware of the particular things they were supposed to do in a good supervision relationship, as outlined in our supervision standards.

On our part, we failed to monitor this sufficiently well. It was a bad case of not doing what the system ought to have done.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I realize that giving you one example is dangerous. There's an implicit danger in saying it happened here, it's systemic.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But I want to ask you, if— As a result of this case, I understand the contract of the John Howard Society in Thunder Bay was renewed in March of 1996. There was no performance appraisal done. With respect to contracting out to societies like John Howard, is it routine for this to happen? Is there a system of performance appraisal to see that these information exchanges don't result in disasters, as happened with Michael Hector?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We're not appraising the performance of the John Howard Society, but there are regular management reviews.

Since the case we talked about here, the Michael Hector case, we're doing a lot more in-depth and frequent audits of these things. It seems to me that we find basically a high level of quality. The reason the contract in Thunder Bay was renewed was simply that there are new people there.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you. I'd like to go back over one issue, and address a new one. I will take up the new issue first.

In its part III report the CSC indicates that 5% of the inmates in the institutions are involved in gang activity. That 5% may seem like a small amount, but it's still 5%. Now, about a year ago Parliament passed a piece of legislation dealing with criminal organizations. So I suggest to you that if there is gang activity in the penitentiaries, you have criminality taking place that contravenes the Criminal Code. I'd like to ask you if your service is investigating any criminal organization activity inside any of your institutions, as a result of the passage of that new law.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think we're saying that we have a significant number of offenders who belong to gangs. I don't think we're saying that a significant number of offenders are involved in gang activities as they serve their sentences, but if we catch some of them doing it, we will report that to the police. Obviously we will do everything we're supposed to do under the law.

• 1725

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, the point I'm making is that it is actually a crime of status. In other words, it is not the doing of the criminal act, it is not the extortion, it is not the dealing with contraband, and it is not the dealing with drugs. It is in fact being part of a criminal organization involving five or more persons, and it's possible that at any one point in time in the yard you may have an offence taking place.

I'm being a bit lighthearted in my approach to it. A basketball game could constitute a criminal offence. Are you familiar with the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think so.

Mr. Derek Lee: I mean, I couldn't think of a more vulnerable grouping of unfortunate people involved in criminal organizations than those already in custody. They may believe that they can engage in criminal activity with relative impunity inside the institution, but in fact they are incredibly vulnerable to any kind of investigation that would use ordinary means or intrusive means.

If this provision of the Criminal Code is not being used, then I commend it to you in the event that it might be helpful.

Are you aware if this new section 467.1 is being used?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I would be guessing, so I won't do that.

What I would say is that we usually get our information about the membership of gangs from the police. So for us to call the police and tell them what they have just told us maybe is not necessary.

But I will be pleased to look into it, and see if we have any activities in that area.

Mr. Derek Lee: Your security officers may wish to consider this as something useful.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, I'll be glad to look into it.

Mr. Derek Lee: The second item I'd like to deal with is to go back to this issue of disclosure of criminal records. As I understood the discussion, your answers and the law, I gather there is no impediment to making disclosures to anyone that a person has a criminal record for a particular offence. Is that correct?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Derek Lee: So the problem isn't impediments to disclosure. It is simply the policy of whether or not one should be disclosing the different classes of people.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right, yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. I've heard your answer on that, and the direction you've given.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Madame Chairman, May I just correct one thing that may be a potential misunderstanding to Mr. MacKay?

If you were asking if we at this time today have a contract with the John Howard Society in Thunder Bay, then the answer is no, we don't have that. As I recall, we're working with a former executive director who for years and years has done excellent supervisory work. But, as I'm informed, we don't have a contract today with the John Howard Society in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So when you said the personnel had changed, that's not the case; you're working with the personnel that are no longer John Howard.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, the personnel is changed, as well. The person who was involved in the Hector case—

Mr. Peter MacKay: I see.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: —is no longer with the John Howard Society.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And is it still called the John Howard Society on the contract?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, I believe— On the contract? No.

I'm saying this because we may engage in a contract with the new people at the John Howard Society, and I wouldn't like you to go back there and realize that what I've told you is not true.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, that's fine. So you're not under contract with John Howard in Thunder Bay?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: At this point I'm informed that there is no contract with the John Howard Society in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thanks, Peter.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: As I understood it, the personnel— I asked the same question when you were first here.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The ex-director—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: —of the John Howard Society. That was one of the confusions we were trying to investigate, so thank you for clearing that up once again.

• 1730

If you will recall, there were two things I wanted to address in the course of my questioning about health practices. The other question I wanted to know about was the whole question of tattooing, and the process of tattooing, because I understand there was a lot of tattooing done in the prison. Is that accurate?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We have had that; there's no doubt about that.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Good. So as far as you're concerned, is there not some concern there about the health of the prisoners?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely. We do everything we can to inform the offenders and to tell them about the risk they are taking if they engage in these things. We confiscate the tools they use for it if we find them.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Why? Is it illegal to do that, Mr. Ingstrup?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes, it is. It's illegal in our institutions to have these instruments with which to do tattooing.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Then my question changes its focus. Something can be illegal, but if it's practised anyway, it brings serious problems—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: —such as HIV. It brings AIDS.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It brings serious infections. So is it a good idea, the same way we provided condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS and HIV— Don't you think it would be just as important to ensure that clean needles and proper equipment is available so that you don't have the spread of a disease? Would you not consider that?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Well, the same bleach we have for illegal syringes can obviously be used for these machines as well.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Needles?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: No, not needles. We don't have a needle exchange program.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: May I ask that you please consider that with your medical staff at another time? I think that if you're going to have the practice of tattooing anyway, and it's done behind the scenes, under the table, in the backroom or in the back of the cell, you're going to have disease, and there's no point closing one's eyes to what is a reality.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's very true. I would be pleased to look into it and give you a more in-depth explanation at our next encounter.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Just look into it. I think this would be more important. And give them clean needles, please.

I really had wanted to ask you the question on the agreements you had as a point in your 1997 performance report. You're working with the provinces and territories to develop agreements on community notification. When I first heard that, I thought it meant contracting for the property, the supervision, or the John Howard services. I didn't quite know what that meant. On reflection, I still don't know what it means. So would you mind telling me what it means? What is community notification? Is that where you hang up the name of the perpetrator of a serious sexual offence and advise everybody, or what is it?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We hope not. We are informing the police when a person is being released from our institution. We are in contact with the local police forces so that the local police force will know when we release an offender into the community of that police detachment. That's essentially what we do.

From time to time it happens that the local police office decides to publish the name and pictures of offenders, although it's not a major problem in Canada. It's not a thing we do.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So is there a protocol that includes the level of the crime that distinguishes it, whether it is a white collar crime, a murder, a sexual assault, and then you determine whether you're going to share that information or not? Or is it just an automatic— Well, what is the protocol you're going to sign?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: We simply inform the local police every time a person is released to that community. That also includes if a person is going on temporary absences, day parole or work releases, whatever.

The working relationship between the police and the CSC has improved a lot in that respect. So we try to make it absolutely automatic. The only problem we have been dealing with lately is time lapses, so we make sure that they are informed in a timely manner.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Finestone.

Mr. Discepola.

• 1735

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Commissioner, I'd like to come back and speak in general terms on parole board decisions and hearings.

I think one of the things that frustrates members of Parliament, and families also, is the fact that the impression is given that when an investigation is ongoing regarding a particular incident, it's done by the CSC in an awful lot of cases, and it's done behind closed doors. It's in secret. To get the information is very difficult, especially when the families try to obtain information. More importantly, it seems that recommendations usually emanate from some of these hearings. No assurances or follow-up are given that any of these recommendations are actually put in place.

To pick up on what Mr. MacKay said before, is there a procedure in place, either through CSC or through the National Parole Board themselves, where families of victims have accessibility to get their concerns or their questions asked?

In addition, what assurances can you give the members of this committee that in any revision of such cases, any of the recommendations that are called upon are actually implemented, acted upon? Again, how do you convey this to the families?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you, Mr. Discepola.

Madam Chair, at this time when we do national investigations, without any exception, we always involve a person from the community, independent of CSC, as a full member of the investigation team. We do that in order to make sure that people from the outside can go to that individual and ask, is this a cover-up, or is it a real investigation?

We believe that the people we have who are trained to do investigations are better at doing investigations than anyone else, because they know corrections. I know there have been some accusations that they are too kind to the Correctional Service of Canada. I have to say that only people who have never read our reports can say that these people are kind to us. They seem to find every thing that could conceivably have been done better, and they highlight that in their recommendations.

Also, when I compare this to other countries—which we have done—our investigations are about as thorough as they can be, as open and critical as they can be, and also constructive. They usually come up with a series of observations and recommendations. Action plans are being developed on that basis, and implementation plans follow and are being monitored by the same investigators. They go out and control, see if the recommendations have been implemented, and they report back to me on that, as well.

Now, with the help of Mr. White, when we did the Sumas Centre study we actually involved people from the local community in a more public way in these investigations.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Is there a formal mechanism within the parole board or CSC where families of victims can have—

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Absolutely. If they contact us, we will make sure that their views are heard. In most of the cases, if they're not directly involved in the incident, we don't go out and ask. If they are, we will talk to them.

But I can assure the committee, and certainly you, Mr. Discepola, that if offender victims feel that they have something to say in the process of our investigations, we will listen seriously to them—absolutely—and not come to anybody else.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Discepola.

Thank you, Mr. Ingstrup and Mr. Clair. We appreciate you coming.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you.

The Chair: It's been a long day. I know I kept you over.

Colleagues, just before we go I want to let you know that I received a letter from John Sims, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. He was here yesterday with Neal Sher, clarifying the situation with respect to a complaint against Mr. Sher with the Office of Professional Responsibility in the United States. He indicated that in fact he was advised by Mr. Sher that this investigation was going on, and that he had made a determination at that time that it was a minor thing. But since then he has contacted the Office of Professional Responsibility, and they've said that they expect to finalize the report within a month or two. They don't know whether they're going to make it public or not. They think they're going to get a copy of the report, and when they do, they'll give it to us.

• 1740

I have this, and when it's translated, it will be properly circulated to everyone. It's not translated yet. Thanks.

All right, we're adjourned.