JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 30, 1998

• 1533

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): Order.

We have today representatives of the National Parole Board: Willie Gibbs is chairman, Renée Collette is vice-chairperson, and the counsel is Gertrude Lavigne.

Mr. Gibbs, you have a presentation you'd like to make, and we'll follow with questions thereafter.

Mr. Willie Gibbs (Chairman, National Parole Board): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I'm pleased to be here today to continue the processes of information-sharing and accountability that these sessions permit.

My remarks will be relatively brief. You have received a lot of information recently about the National Parole Board and conditional release, including reports for the CCRA review and our report on plans and priorities. You have met with the Solicitor General recently, three board members, and the Commissioner of Corrections yesterday. With all this background information, I see no need for lengthy remarks, but I would like to outline the board's objectives and their relevance for public safety.

The board's plans and priorities include three strategic objectives that reflect our mission and long-term support for effective corrections in Canada. These objectives are listed on page 10 of the plans and priorities in the report I've just shown you.

• 1535

The first demonstrates our commitment to quality decision-making, based on selection of professional board members and the provision of the best training possible. Effective legislation and policy, targeted research, and lessons learned from case audits and investigations also play an important role in enhancing quality.

[Translation]

The second objective challenges the Board to work in an open and accountable manner—to deal effectively with victims, to respond to requests to observe NPB hearings, and to provide access to NPB decisions through the decision registry. Public information also plays an important role in openness and accountability, providing facts and dispelling myths which contribute to public cynicism regarding conditional release.

The Board's third objective promotes constant improvement in organizational effectiveness. It pushes the Board to develop and redesign systems to enhance the conditional release decision- making. Within an overall goal of public safety, the Board works constantly to reduce costs, streamline processes, and eliminate duplication in the Board and within Correctional Service.

These corporate objectives not only provide direction, they also provide a framework for measuring our performance. And I would like to talk briefly about the Board's performance in this context. The quality of conditional release decision-making is linked to the professionalism of Board members, and the training and feedback that they receive.

[English]

Assessing performance in these areas is complex, but the Auditor General's report provides an insight in this matter. The Auditor General made the following observation in his December report, which by the way was a follow-up on his report back in the spring of 1994:

The Board has instituted a process for selecting members for referral to the Solicitor General that ensures that qualified people are appointed.

A comprehensive training program for Board members has been instituted.

The Board has developed a variety of mechanisms to provide feedback to Board members. This includes information on success and failures—for example performance monitoring reports, investigation reports, and the performance appraisal process.

The Auditor General's report illustrates that we have made real progress in our ability to make quality decisions. In practical terms, however, assessment of quality must consider the outcomes of the board's decision; that is, how offenders do in the community after the board has released them on parole. You have, I think, in your possession, statistics you can look at as we proceed.

Information over the past four years demonstrates that we have made progress in the area of performance. Rates of success have been high for all types of release, and they have been highest, and improving, for day parole and regular full parole. More than nine of ten parolees do not reoffend in the community while on parole.

[Translation]

As success rates improved, recidivism rates and the actual number of offences by parolees decreased. For example, revocation of parole for all types of offenses declined by 56% between 1992-93 and 1996-97, and revocation for violent offences decreased by about 60%. During the same period, violent offences by day parolees decreased by over 70%, violent offences by full parolees decreased by 40%.

• 1540

Now, I will be the first to admit that successful parole cannot be attributed solely to the work of the National Parole Board. CSC prepares cases and provides vital community supervision for offenders. Communities are the source of critical support and assistance, and of course, responsible behaviour by the offender is the key.

But recent information demonstrates that the process of selection for parole which consists of CSC preparing the case, and the Board assessing the risk and making a decision, is effective in identifying offenders who will succeed in the community. Continued improvements in this process are top priorities for the Board.

[English]

We know we must work hard to constantly improve. In fact the numbers of cases involving the most serious offences of violence against persons, including murder, have declined substantially in recent years, and that's illustrated again in your statistics.

Still, cases go wrong, with tragic consequences for the victims and their families. The Hector and Russell cases are examples.

You, the members of this committee, and the communities across the country are concerned about violence by offenders on conditional release, and rightly so. It is our intention, however, through selection of qualified board members, effective training, as well as research and clear policy, to try to reduce those numbers to a minimum.

Now I would like to turn briefly to openness and accountability.

You know we deal constantly with offenders, but we also deal with many victims, community groups, and the media.

Victims contact the board more than 6,000 times a year. Most contacts involve people who have been victims of violent crimes. Contacts are most often by phone or in writing and involve requests for general information or notification of decisions or hearings. Feedback from victims indicates that most are satisfied with the information and assistance they receive from the board. Some, however, have expressed interest in more information. Others have raised the question about the role of victims in the conditional release process.

Also, about 1,000 observe parole board hearings each year, and approximately 1,000 more request access to the decision registry. Victims of crimes and/or the media are well represented in these groups.

[Translation]

Observers at hearings and people who use the decision registry expressed satisfaction with information and assistance they received, although some raised concerns about hearing facilities for observers.

From the Parole Board's point of view, the observer and decision registry provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) have proved very useful in building public understanding of conditional release and in contributing to improve accuracy in media coverage of the Board's decisions.

• 1545

To reinforce efforts in building greater understanding of conditional release amongst various media, I meet regularly with the editorial boards of newspapers and with electronic media. These meetings have provided excellent opportunities to discuss issues and share information about the contribution of conditional release to public safety.

As a final comment, I would like to remind you that 1999 will mark 100 years of conditional release in Canada and 40 years since the establishment of the National Parole Board. Over the past century, parole has demonstrated its value in contributing to public safety by the safe integration of offenders into society. But we cannot become complacent. Improvements in parole will be a critical challenge for the next millennium. Board strategies for effective corrections will be based on effective risk assessment and risk management.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. We'll proceed to questioning now.

Mr. Ramsay, eight minutes.

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

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today.

As long as the statistics reflect that innocent people are being murdered, raped, and assaulted by people you release on parole, I don't know how anyone can sell this system sufficiently to the majority of Canadians, and particularly the families of victims and the victims themselves—those who survive.

This is a task we face, as members of Parliament. We hear the rationale for doing this: that if it weren't for parole, we'd be dumping these people back into society without any hope of the integration that halfway houses and parole provide for.

One of the components of the anger we sense out there—or “discouragement” perhaps is just as good a word—is the fact that there is no accountability.

When Denise Fayant was murdered 24 hours after she was placed in the company of those who the officials knew—knew—posed a threat to her life, nothing happened. The officials stayed in their positions. The Edmonton city police conducted an investigation regarding the possibility of criminal negligence charges, and they recommended charges be laid. Some of the crown prosecutors at the lower level agreed that there was a prima facie case of negligence. The senior officials within the Department of the Attorney General in that province declined to proceed. There was no accountability.

When Mr. Russell was released on full parole, he was a murderer. He was a murderer. Within a month or two, he had committed a murder.

I don't think members of society are anxious for their ounce of flesh, but there should be some degree of accountability when government employees make a decision with such horrible consequences of error, when they make a mistake.

• 1550

So what I would like to ask you about is this, and I mentioned this to the committee yesterday, when Mr. Ingstrup was our witness. At the international symposium in Kingston a few months ago, we heard about some pretty good parole systems that had the support of their people, at least the majority. But what they had going for them was a system that allowed for the entering into a contract of the applicant for parole to live by conditions that were quite clear and laid out, and if they violated those conditions in any way, they were immediately brought back into prison, into custody.

We have heard often that individuals on parole violate their parole conditions without any type of response. They're supposed to stay out of the bars, away from alcohol, and that kind of thing. They're seen in the bars regularly; nothing is done about it. We understand as well that the parole officers can't take any action. All they can do when they receive that kind of information about parole violation is refer it to their supervisor, and the supervisor then has to make a decision. Our peace officers in this country do not have the authority to arrest the parolee who they see violating conditions of their parole.

Once the parole board makes a decision to release someone on parole, if they have made a mistake in their judgment of the safety of that individual in society, the only hope that innocent people have is whether or not the parole officer is going to be very alert to any red flag that might be raised by that individual's actions to indicate that person is not safe to be in society and the parole board has in fact made an error.

In the case of Mr. Russell, he had a relationship with a lady that was terminated. When we looked at that case, there was evidence to indicate there was a red flag there. If that red flag had been recognized by the parole officer, Mrs. Turnbull may not have been murdered.

Would you address that? Are you satisfied, Mr. Gibbs, that your system of parole has within it the checks and balances to allow for the quick removal of individuals on parole when they show signs that they may in fact be a threat to society?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Mr. Ramsay, you've made several points, and I've tried to keep track of most of them and I'll try to address them.

You started to talk about the victims. Despite the fact that our statistics show that we're improving, when there are victims, there's a tragedy, especially if a murder takes place. We are very sensitive to those situations. We wish we had a 100% fail-safe so that not only murder but other violent crimes would not be committed by our parolees, but unfortunately neither our system nor any system, including the one in Utah that you've quoted, have that kind of foolproof system.

You will note on that matter, however, that in the statistics you have before you on offenders charged with serious community offences, four years ago, out of sixteen murders committed by people on conditional release, twelve were parolees. A year later, out of fifteen, seven were parolees. Last year, out of ten, there were four. And this past fiscal year, out of nine, there were three. I wish it would get down to zero, but unfortunately this is a very difficult standard to achieve.

• 1555

In regard to the contracts in the state of Utah that you've talked about, and other states, when we grant a parole, whether day or full parole, we have various standard conditions and sometimes various special conditions for each case. That is, in our view, a contract that the offender enters into when we release him. If we have seven or eight general conditions, such as where he lives and so on, and special conditions, such as abstaining from substances and association with the criminal element and those kinds of things, that's a contract we impose. He could sign it, but that's on his parole certificate. So we have what we feel is a contract. When they violate those conditions, they violate the contract.

Those are serious conditions that we impose, and we expect action, and proper action, to be taken. We expect proper supervision to be afforded in each case. That's the relationship we have with the Correctional Service of Canada.

As for the arrests of the people who are violating those conditions, that is the responsibility of, on the one hand, the Correctional Service of Canada, the parole supervisors, and the police that they expect to execute the suspension warrant. I'm satisfied that, generally speaking, that works. Sometimes there's a break in communication, but I have to leave the supervision of the cases to CSC.

Was there another area you raised that I didn't address?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Ramsay, this is your final question.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, okay. Thank you.

Do you feel that these unfortunate statistics could be reduced further if we were to adopt a more stringent and efficient monitoring of parolees, such as in the Russell case, where three individuals had to come into the home of this lady to ensure that Mr. Russell didn't bother her any further and terminated the relationship? Why wasn't there that kind of response, bearing in mind that this man had murdered a woman before?

Perhaps this is an isolated case, but it emphasizes the point I am making. We should have a mechanism by which, when these people signal that they may be a risk to society greater than what was thought, we can remove them from society quickly to save innocent lives and reduce these figures further. Would you support that?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I support very strongly that when we release a person, almost 100% if not 100% of all lifers who are released first start on a program of temporary absence, then day parole, and then full parole. That person you referred to had been on day parole for a couple of years, and then for a few months on full parole.

I would expect that a case like that would receive intensive supervision. After all, this is a lifer who is going to be on parole for the rest of his life. So for the first several months, if not the first many years, of his release, there should be fairly close supervision. We expect that. But we leave supervision to the Correctional Service of Canada. If there are lapses there, you had the commissioner here yesterday; he's accountable for that. We are accountable for the decision, but we're not accountable for the supervision.

But we expect that. We would expect that, yes, because it's a more complicated, difficult case. After all, that person has taken a life.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'll come back. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Marceau, the member from the Bloc Québécois, expresses his apologies. He had to go to the House to make a speech and hopefully will return.

Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the panel as well.

• 1600

Mr. Gibbs, I'm just going to ask you a few quick questions in furtherance of Mr. Ramsay's. I think we're all quite clear that when the National Parole Board puts conditions on a parolee and requires special reports from CSC, you and your board would expect that these conditions are going to be met—you mentioned abstention from drugs and alcohol, non-association, seeking treatment, conditions such as that—and presumably those conditions have to be accepted by the offender in order for parole to be granted in the first place. I want to focus in on the area that Mr. Ramsay began, and that is compliance.

We know from the information that's been made available about the Hector and Russell cases and the Richardson case that has been talked of recently, that there are a couple of common themes: first, that the conditions weren't met or weren't being followed in these cases; and second, that people then were murdered. I guess in terms of appearance, among other things, it has to undermine the National Parole Board's work and credibility when the individuals charged with the task of supervising these offenders somehow fail to ensure that the conditions are being met.

To ask you a very direct question, how can we ensure that at the ground level, those charged with the task of ensuring that conditions are met can be improved? How do we do that?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I think it would be ensured through the management or supervision of the parole supervision people. CSC has various standards of supervision. For the regular case, usually for the first three months or the first six months they are seen on a weekly basis, and then as the person adjusts and requires a little less, it's bi-weekly, and then perhaps monthly, and so on.

I guess it would be done through doing the right kind of quality control as to whether each parole officer does their proper supervision at the right time. And then, it seems to me—I used to be in the business a long time ago—you pick up random cases once in a while, especially high-profile cases like Mr. Russell, and you question the officer as to what's happening with the case. To me, that's the only way to do it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I take it from your answer that you would perhaps favour legislative or policy changes that would require more stringent efforts to be made by those who are in the supervision role—that is, more contact, more diligent efforts made to ensure that the person is complying with the conditions, more checks with the community, more checks with employers or persons that the parolee is in direct contact with. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I wouldn't go as far as saying we should legislate that kind of policy. And when I mentioned that CSC already has standards of supervision in the community, that's obviously...yes, but it should be adhered to.

The other thing you mentioned was collateral—you know, contact with others, the employer or the neighbour and so on. We call that collateral information. That's something that we favour very, very strongly, because you don't always just take the word of the offender as to how he's doing. You have to check that out with other people.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right. With respect to the Raymond Russell case, during the July 9, 1993, parole board discussion of this case it came to light that one of the factors that went into Mr. Russell being given unescorted absence was based on the fact that in previous unescorted absences he had not embarrassed the board; that is to say, he had not apparently breached any of his conditions. Is that a standard, or criterion?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: No, that would not be a.... It may have been in the decision. Did you get that information from a decision that the board made?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Okay. I have to guess here, and you're more familiar with that line than I am, that the board would have meant to say “you respected the condition by which you were on ETA, and therefore we're pleased with that”, or something like that. We're not in the business of embarrassment or non-embarrassment. That's not a criterion.

• 1605

Mr. Peter MacKay: Along the lines of public confidence and accountability—again I hearken back to Mr. Ramsay's comment—when things do go wrong, when things like Hector and Russell happen, when parolees kill or are engaged in serious violent crime, we do know that there is a process now where the parole board and CSC participate in a joint exercise of investigation or self-examination, we would call it.

My question to you, sir, is do you feel that's appropriate—that you in essence investigate yourself? Do you not feel that an impartial external review should occur, which would be arm's length from those two bodies, with no vested interest on the part of the investigators? Don't you think this would help renew public confidence and also bring about greater accountability?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Madame Collette, the vice-chair, has responsibility, among other things, for audits and investigation. Prior to 1992 and the CCRA, the chairman of the board didn't have authority to convene an investigation, so it's been now a little over five years. I have asked her to review very carefully our processes and how we appoint a board of investigations and so on.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sorry to interrupt you, but did you say five years ago that discretion didn't exist? The chair couldn't call it?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: That's right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You can now.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I can now.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The minister, I presume, could also equally contact you and suggest that it should happen—the Solicitor General.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: The minister, as far as the board is concerned, has to have a fairly arm's length relationship with the board. I'm not saying that he couldn't—

Mr. Peter MacKay: But surely if Mr. Scott called you up—

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Well sure, I was going to say I'm not saying he couldn't make a suggestion, but he couldn't direct.

Mr. Peter MacKay: He can't direct you to do it.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: No. But I can, so I have asked that we take a look at this. Basically I'm open to whatever will improve the system. If it's better to have in part, or all, outside people—people outside of NPB and outside of CSC.... As far as we're concerned, we have nothing to hide. That doesn't mean we never make mistakes, but we don't have anything to cover up.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But in principle, sir, do you not agree that the perception would be better if it were an outside agent looking at your department?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: It could very well be. Having said that, I think in reading the Russell and Hector report you will find that everything came out. It would have been difficult for outside people to do a better job. Whoever signs a report, yes, it may be perceived...for the public it could hold more credibility.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I guess the thought that comes to mind is, how do we know that everything came out?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Well, as far as we're concerned.... You're right, okay? We convened the investigation, and we had to be satisfied. But as far as we were concerned, everything came out, but perhaps not everything, after all.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have one final question. I know my time is short, Chair, and I appreciate the indulgence.

The CCRA consultation document that we've reviewed indicated that offenders who were released on conditional release have a higher rate of recidivism; that is, higher than those who are kept for their entire sentence. In light of statistics like that, would you, as chair, favour ending the policy of automatic release for violent offenders when the background clearly indicates that those offenders have records that don't merit early release before the conclusion of their full sentence?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: You said people released on conditional release—I just want to clarify this—were more apt to reoffend than people who had been detained. Is that what you said?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I think some of the research showed the opposite—that many of the people who had been detained did not recidivate.

• 1610

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'll refer you to page 93 of the CCRA consultation document. You may be right, but my interpretation of that document was that those offenders released on conditional release had a higher rate of recidivism than those who were kept in prison for their entire sentence.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: You mean statutory release, not conditional release.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Statutory release?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Okay. Statutory release is a non-discretionary release. The National Parole Board has no involvement for at least 90%, maybe close to 95%, of the time. We either release on day parole or full parole.

The only time we're involved, which is 5% or 6%, is when the case is referred to us by the Correctional Service for possible detention.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I follow that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Can we come back to you? Our time is way over.

Mr. Derek Lee.

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

Welcome, Mr. Gibbs and company. I've been looking at the statistics that the National Parole Board has generated for our consumption here today and for public consumption. I acknowledge that there is still progress that has to be made in the work of the parole board, but I cannot help but notice manifest improvement over the years, statistically. I acknowledge that to have even one case of a violent crime perpetrated by someone who is under supervision is something we don't want to have, but the incidence and the statistics clearly show an improvement.

I see one chart that dates from 1988 that shows offenders charged with serious community offences. There is on that chart, and the charts that accompany it, clear progress in every sector.

This committee spent a great deal of time on this envelope back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, even before I came to Parliament, and the parole board and CSC have, in my view, made progress.

Now before the parole board pats itself on the back too much, I noticed something. I want to make sure you have the same chart I have. It's the three-part chart.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Right.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm looking at the bottom two charts. I'm looking at statutory release. In each chart, there's a horizontal column for statutory release. In those columns, I don't see improvement. I have a suspicion about why there isn't any, but would you care to comment on that?

In almost every other sector of these statistics, there is an improvement over the last five to ten years, at least from the point of view of public safety. I'm looking at statutory release, and I don't see an appreciable improvement on reoffending or recidivism. Can you make a comment on that?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: This is what I was starting to answer for Mr. MacKay. Statutory release is a mandatory kind of release. Of the people who reach that time in their sentences, probably 1% or 2% would not have been before the board. So the greater part of them have been before the board, and they either had never been released on any kind of TA, day parole or full parole, or they were not seen as being fit to be released, or they have been released on some kind of conditional release, those kinds of conditional releases, but have failed. They have failed once, twice, or more, for that matter.

• 1615

You are looking at sort of the clientele that either we cannot take the chance to have them demonstrate they can live outside of prison confinement, or have been given opportunities and failed, and some of them miserably. So you have that clientele. It would seem to be quite natural that they would be the ones who would reoffend or be revoked of conditions, a lot more than the categories of day and full parole. That's my best answer.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. The recidivism rate, then, is not as good-looking, and the statistics on the numbers and types of offences committed by those on statutory release aren't as good-looking. It would be fair to say that the problem is in the statute, that the parole board is forced to accept the procedure that is releasing people who are not detainable or who CSC believes shouldn't be detained or needn't be detained, and that the parole board is stuck with its inability to improve this particular category. Is that a fair way to look at it?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: On the latter part of your statement, that the parole board is stuck with not being able to improve, we have nothing to say, so we're not stuck. Do you know what I mean?

Mr. Derek Lee: The product you have when statutory release kicks in is what you have, and you are unable to make any product improvement, any quality improvement in the product.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: The only time we are involved in a case, except for referral for detention, would be a referral for special conditions to be put on those people, either to abstain or non-contact, or one that was legislated, I think it was 18 months ago, the residency clause. We now have authority to put those people in a halfway house, and that's a condition of the parole board. But apart from those things, no, that's as much as we're involved in.

Mr. Derek Lee: You now have the authority, but the statistics are not getting better. As I look at them from a raw data perspective, they're not improving; they're deteriorating.

It's not your job to make policy on the statutes, but if I suggest that our problem here is statutory release.... I'm going to suggest that it's a problem or it may be a problem, because neither CSC nor the NPB have been able to make any tangible progress in improving the product quality here. So this signals to me that it's an area where we should be able to make some progress and we can't. I'm asking you for a signal as to why we can't, and you're saying there's not much you can do about it except by putting conditions on the release.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: As we proceed over this spring and summer and discuss the legislation, I think those statutory releases and the APR that the minister has talked about are two mechanisms of release where the discretion of the National Parole Board is very limited, whereas in the case of day and full parole, we have kind of full discretion. It may be something we ought to have a fair bit of discussion about, because there are systems around the world that have statutory release at two-thirds, and some later. Some have no mandatory or statutory release; it's all through a parole board decision. There are other countries that operate differently. I think it would be worth a discussion.

• 1620

Mr. Derek Lee: Do you make an attempt now to track the compliance of those on statutory release with the program they're given? I'm assuming there's some kind of a regimen, program or something for those on statutory release. If there is, do you monitor compliance? Do you have statistics that monitor the compliance with that?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: We don't monitor anyone who is on parole or statutory release on a regular basis. That is not our job. I tried to explain that. The only time those cases come back to us is when there's a breach of conditions or a new offence, and the legislation now agrees that a new offence brings you back automatically. So it's only when there's a breach of condition where we have to determine whether the breach is serious enough for revocation. Apart from that, we don't do any monitoring of how they're supervised and so on, on statutory release.

Mr. Derek Lee: Does CSC do the monitoring of those on statutory release?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes, they're under supervision. Sometimes they're under the structure of a halfway house and so on, so they have curfews and tighter regulations.

Mr. Derek Lee: Even on statutory release?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Oh yes. When we put a residency condition on a statutory release case, the same rules and so on apply when we have a person on day parole. But they're not as willing clients because they are forced, whereas a day parolee has applied for day parole. Did you understand the contract I was trying to explain a while ago?

Mr. Derek Lee: I understand. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to call your attention to the National Parole Board somewhat inaptly entitled document “Success Rate”, which then goes on to detail failures. It's a strange title.

I want to go over the recidivism rate with you in the various categories outlined on that chart, starting with day parole, which was at 6.8 in 1993-94, and then dropped dramatically to 5.3 in 1994-95, and then has bottomed out at 3.54. Full parole starts out in 1993-94 at 13.9 and then drops dramatically to 8.9, and kind of levels at that point. Accelerated parole was quite high in 1993-94 at 37, dropped dramatically and is still dropping quite dramatically, down to 11.1. Full parole totals go from 15.3 and have dropped fairly steadily to 8.9, and statutory release started out at 18.6 and dropped to 10.4.

I guess the overall question here is have you got about as much squeeze out of your present system as you're going to get?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I hope not. Although your point is well taken, there has been a kind of levelling off over the last two or three years. I hope that as we get better on risk assessment and as the supervision aspect gets better, we'll continue to improve. But one has to remember that this is a pretty tough clientele we're dealing with.

Mr. John McKay: We're not dealing with a bunch of saints, no question.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: We not only have the failures of all the institutions—family, church and school—we also have the failures of the provincial system, two years and under. These are federal offenders we're talking about, despite the fact that the board is responsible for paroling in seven provinces, and as of next year three territories. We hope to get better, but I don't think we're going to get much better than that. I think we have to be realistic.

Mr. John McKay: The one category that seems to still be moving is in the accelerated full parole. Is that the area where you have the most discretion?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: That's where we have the least discretion.

• 1625

We call them APR—accelerated parole review. When a person is serving a first penitentiary term for a non-violent offence and has no violence in his background, with all the information we have at our disposition, and those are the only criteria we have, if in reviewing the case we determine or are convinced that person, for the length of time he'll be on parole—usually it is two years or sometimes five or six if it's day parole—will not commit a violent offence, we have to release that person by law.

Mr. John McKay: So we have a bit of a strange irony going on here. The category in which you have the least discretion is the one where you're getting the most success.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: No, I don't think so. If you look carefully—

Mr. John McKay: In terms of the differential between 1993 and now, you're getting more success, but in terms of the area you fail in the most, shall we say, it's still at the highest category.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: My advice is that you forget 1993, because there were so few cases that the 37% doesn't mean anything. It's better if you start at the following year. The legislation was just put in place that year or the year before, so I think you have to look between 21 and 11 there.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. That's fair.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: But those cases are of grave concern to us, and as you know, the serious drug traffickers are ineligible for this APR. The minister talked about that when he was here last.

Mr. John McKay: Do you have a suggestion for the committee in terms of legislation for that category of person?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: First of all, I think the minister would like to address it very quickly. I think it would be worth while to look at, if not the whole APR system, at least some categories of offenders or sentences that perhaps should not be eligible for access to that provision.

Mr. John McKay: Such as drug—

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Such as serious drug traffickers. You know, a court sentences them to fifteen or twenty years in prison, and three or four years later we have to apply the one criterion that I explained and for the most part release them.

Mr. John McKay: So if you were able to isolate certain kinds of categories of offences from this bundle here, you may be able to make specific recommendations to the minister as to the areas where that could be approved.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Peter MacKay has to leave. If he could ask the first couple of questions...?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Certainly.

Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chairman, would offenders like Michael Hector and Raymond Russell and Richardson have a problem with CSC or with what's happening in the system? You know, their cable's getting cut off or they can't get a tee-off time. We found out yesterday that there's a golf course in B.C. That was quite shocking. But when they have a problem, they've got somebody to turn to. They have the correctional investigator, which is a government-funded independent advocate outside the control of CSC.

However, victims and victims' families don't have an independent advocate. They do have the ability, as you've already indicated, to come to the parole board or go through CSC. They're receptive, and we're not denying that.

Would you as the chair embrace the idea or support the creation of a commissioner, similar to the correctional investigator, for victims? That is, an independent individual who could investigate on behalf of victims when they had concerns arising out of decisions the National Parole Board or Correctional Service Canada had made. Would you support that concept in principle?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I would support considering something like that. I think the Minister of Justice has the primary dossier for victims. I think she announced that a national office would be put together and so on. I think the concept is worth looking at, but it's not something I've given a lot of thought to until just recently. I think it's worth looking at the possibility.

• 1630

Mr. Peter MacKay: I don't want to put you on the spot, but as a person with a great deal of experience within the system and somebody who has encountered victims in his work experience, do you not see or agree that there is a need for such a position within our present justice system? I'm not trying to trick you or pin you on this. I'm looking to gain from your experience, if you don't think it's necessary.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I'll put the answer this way. Whatever is needed to make the lives of victims less painful and more equal in the criminal justice system, I think it should be looked at. In our discussion of the CCRA, the section on victims, we're going to look, and if there's any way our process, as far as hearings are concerned, if there's a better way of doing it.... Right now they can provide us with victim impact statements and they can be there, but they cannot make verbal statements. We're prepared to look at that.

It's not something we will jump into tomorrow. We must not forget that we're not a judicial body. We're not even a quasi-judicial body. We're an administrative tribunal. We don't want an adversarial system to be put in place. We're an inquisitorial body, so we want to continue in that direction. Having said that, we always have a board member who presides over that hearing, so we're open to those things.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm encouraged to hear you say you're looking at the concept of fuller participation at the parole board. I'm very encouraged to hear that. I apologize for having to leave. You've been a very frank witness and we appreciate your time.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

John McKay mentioned the squeeze factor. A declining percentage of parolees has committed offences, even though it's still 188 in the last year. Why is that decreasing? It's either because parole board members are wiser and more careful in their selection, or there are fewer applicants, or the parole officers monitoring the activities of these individuals are more alert to the red flags I hope they are always looking for and take immediate action on when they see them.

Has the number of rejected parole applications increased during that period? I'm looking at the dramatic drop from sixteen to nine murders. If we go back to 1993-94, 240 offences were committed, and if we go to 1997-98, it was 188. That is a dramatic drop. How did you accomplish that? Is it because the parole board is rejecting more applications from parolees? Are there fewer applications coming forward? Are they doing a better job in screening? If they're doing a better job in screening, that means they're rejecting applications they consider to be unacceptable. Do you have any information?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes, we do. First of all, the legislation of 1992 tightened the system to a fair extent. The legislation puts more emphasis on the principles of protection to the public and all the information required and so on right in front of that piece of legislation.

• 1635

Also, it was determined that day parole applications would be required. Prior to that, day parole candidates were seen automatically or reviewed automatically by the parole board. So there was a tendency to release more day parolees, despite the fact that if you look back, a lot more succeeded than failed, and then they became full parolees. So there was a bigger population of parolees outside.

This means that starting about three or four years ago, we had a lot fewer. All those statistics are in this book, our performance report. There are a lot fewer applicants for day parole; it came down to close to 50%. That means that some of the inmates themselves disqualify themselves. So we get the better applicants for day parole and eventually we get better applicants for full parole.

We were talking about rejection a while ago. Although the reviews have come down significantly, our grant rate three years ago came down a bit, but in the last two years it has come up. Our grant rate for day parole is 71%. Our grant rate for full parole three years ago was 34%. Last year it was 40%; this year it's 42%. So we're not rejecting more, we're rejecting fewer. The candidates are better prepared, better programmed. The risk assessment training that we give to our board members and our key staff at the National Parole Board...the Correctional Service Canada parole officers inside and outside get the same training. So we're on the same wavelength.

Yes, we have better board members. I have said that to this committee several times. The criteria, the abilities we expect board members to bring to the table, the experience, the openness, the selection process, the training we give them...when you add all that together, plus obviously the role that CSC plays in the case preparation and case supervision, we're not surprised that the results are better.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I understand there are some cases, and I don't want to refer to them by name, where offences take place...that there are lawsuits against the board. Am I right there?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Yes, definitely.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Does that put a chill on the operation of parole board members in terms of being either more careful or more reluctant to grant parole?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Perhaps some individual board members, perhaps the ones who were directly involved in those cases or in any investigation.... We have lawsuits that have been put before us, but we have also additional investigations where tragic, violent offences were committed by parolees.

• 1640

I would guess that in some cases they're a bit gun-shy, but we always try.... As I explained to the committee when we were discussing the Hector and Russell cases, all board members are made aware of all the findings and recommendations of all the investigation reports we do. And during their regular training every three or four months those findings and recommendations are thoroughly discussed with them so that they learn from it. It's not to scare them. Hopefully that's another way that people eventually make better decisions.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd like to follow up on this, but I'm prepared to wait and come back.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): No one has indicated from the other side they wish to question, so go ahead.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: We've entered into that area of accountability on the part of board members. If there is no accountability for a mistake made with such dire consequences as murder and rape and so on, there is perhaps, if I could use the term, “not a sharpening of senses” if we are accountable for what we do, and most of us are. I'd like to know in what way members of the board are accountable other than for the honest remorse they might have of having overlooked something or made a mistake. What other mechanisms of accountability are there within the system for board members who have made a mistake, other than the drastic action that next of kin might take in launching a lawsuit?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: There is accountability, and I'll name a few areas. For example, if a board member is involved in making a decision that has very tragic consequences, that board member will have to answer to the board of investigation. The board of investigation will thoroughly interview that person on how the board member reviewed the file before he went to the hearings.

There may be many board members. As you know from the previous cases, there were several panels, if you recall. So all those people are interviewed even if they're no longer on the parole board. We call them back and interview them. So that's one area, and they have to show they followed all the procedures and did the job that was expected of them.

On a yearly basis, we have a performance appraisal system that we evaluate. We appraise every board member. We look at how they conduct their work, how thoroughly they review the cases, how good they are at asking the right questions, at conducting the right hearings and at writing the rationale of their decision. Because in our decision registry you don't only put the rationale when you release, you also put the rationale when you deny. So every decision has to be accounted for.

We have a disciplinary section in the act that a person, through either conduct or failure to execute the duties of office, can be taken on the carpet for that. So I think we have various areas where board members are held accountable.

This doesn't mean that if they make a decision and there are tragic consequences.... Perhaps at the time, with the information, it was the right decision to make in the first place. If they happen to make a mistake, unless they don't want to learn from this and carry on and do a better job, I don't think the consequences should be a dismissal.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It wasn't the intent of my question to ask you about dismissing people. I'm asking about what accountability mechanisms you have. If dismissal is not part of that accountability mechanism, I would gather from what you said that you're reluctant to use that. I also understand the parole board members are in a tough position.

We had three parole board members before our committee, and I went through their résumés, none of them had taken courses in clairvoyance, and you almost need that.

• 1645

Again, when I look at the reduction in your numbers here, there are basically three areas where you could reduce those numbers further and where, as Mr. John McKay said, you could get more squeeze into the picture, and that is if you enhance the parole officer's duty and responsibility. In that area I want to ask you very specifically why we would not support the whole concept of granting police officers the authority to apprehend a parolee when they are seen to be at the time violating, without question, their parole conditions. Why would we not aid and abet the parole officers in that area and have that individual turned over to the proper authorities to be dealt with? Would you support that? And if you wouldn't support that, would you tell us whether you have enough parole officers to maintain that close scrutiny of parolees that is necessary? This is the only area where you can get more squeeze out of this whole area.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I must say that I left CSC four years ago. Some of the questions you're asking are not in my jurisdiction; however, I'll still address them. Ole Ingstrup was here yesterday; those are his areas of responsibility.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Ole talked so much we didn't have time to get our questions in, and I say that with respect.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Gibbs has agreed to respond to that question as best he can, notwithstanding that it's not in his jurisdiction. Perhaps we can allow him to speak.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: First of all, you will have noticed in our statistics here that our revocations for technical reasons have gone up not significantly over the years. That means those people who breach conditions are being reported regularly. The statistics show it. So in a way we're preventing crime by doing that, because a crime is not being committed.

When the National Parole Board imposes conditions we expect those conditions to be adhered to. When they are breached we expect the consequences to take place. When it comes to suspension, execution of warrants and so on, we expect CSC and the police to do their job. I wouldn't be against the police having that kind of authority. To me, whatever ways are best to make sure the parolee or the offender on conditional release is held accountable...I'm not against looking at ways to improve it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Derek Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Gibbs, you referred to the crime prevention potential for a prompt response to a breach of a parole condition, that type of scenario. As Mr. Ramsay pointed out, we interviewed three recent appointees to the parole board, and I raised a question at that time. I'll raise it with you. It really was almost an unfair question, but I was seeking their response to see if they had the right attitude. I have no doubt you do have the right attitude.

When the parole board revokes it doesn't recommend revocation, it actually revokes the parole. So in that scenario our corrections system then has an offender it is supervising. The offender has had the parole revoked and is out on the street somewhere. Can you tell me what happens precisely when your board revokes the parole and you have a bad guy out there who's out of control?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: First of all, I think you may be confusing violation with revocation. Maybe the legal counsel can.... Usually when we revoke, the person is inside anyway.

• 1650

Ms. Gertrude Lavigne (Legal Counsel, National Parole Board): In some cases they will be inside and in some cases they will not. It may be direct revocation—

Mr. Willie Gibbs: It may be direct revocation. Okay.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm talking about when it comes to the attention of the parole board that an offender on release has just beaten up his landlord and has stolen a car.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I understand. It's an automatic revocation. There's a charge pending and so on.

The suspension or revocation warrant is provided to the police by the parole service staff, by the parole supervisor.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's CSC.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: That's CSC, yes. I would hope that the police would act very quickly, especially with the advice they get from CSC.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's the area I'm looking at: you would hope, I would hope, and everybody would hope. I'm searching for what really happens. What happens, I take it, is that a piece of paper moves by fax from point A to point B. The parole board doesn't have any officials capable of apprehending, nor does it have a mandate to go out and apprehend. CSC perhaps does have officials capable of apprehending, but they don't send anybody out in teams. Is that correct? At least you're not aware of it.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: They can. I've seen parole officers arrest the person themselves.

Mr. Derek Lee: Parole officers do have the power of arrest, do they?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: They have. They're peace officers.

Mr. Derek Lee: Good.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: In fact, in the Toronto area—I think that's where you're from, Mr. Lee—we have a program called ROP. It's a police and parole officer team that works together to enhance this kind of action you are talking about.

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, outside of Toronto, then. I'm aware of the ROP program, but I'm concerned about across the country as well.

The organization in Canada that's supposed to have custody or supervision of the offender just cranks out a piece of paper. I realize you can't do anything more at NPB, but it seems like a heck of a void that someone whose non-custody has been revoked is simply on the loose and being followed by a piece of paper and that NPB and CSC will simply await the goodwill of a local police force somewhere if the force happens to bump into that person. They've got robberies, break-ins, car accidents, and domestic disputes going on all over the place. A piece of paper drifts in on the fax machine or...the communications system, and that's all. Have you ever been frustrated by that scenario, that a bad apple who NPB knows is out there is simply adrift with no one chasing him?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: We would rather not have any person unlawfully at large, but there are different roles in our society that ought to be clarified. I just came back from an international paroling authorities conference, where presentations were made by a couple of states about the role of their parole officers. In one state, I can't remember which one, all their parole and probation officers carry side arms. They're involved a lot more in arresting. I don't think in our country we want to start having.... Once there's a revocation warrant or a suspension warrant against a person, the person is on the loose, he's on the run. I think you have to be prepared to arrest the person properly, and I would think that's the role of policing, not of parole supervision.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Lee.

• 1655

Perhaps I could pose a couple of administrative questions, Mr. Gibbs.

Are you familiar with the year 2000 computer system problem we're anticipating, the difficulties of changing into the next millennium, and the fact that hardware and software data are at risk if certain steps aren't taken?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: I have with me Marc Seguin. He's the director of corporate services. He's about 85% or 95% better acquainted with that, so perhaps we could ask him to respond, if you don't mind.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): How, if at all, will the year 2000 computer system problem affect your agency?

Mr. Marc Seguin (Director, Corporate Services, National Parole Board): Good day, everybody.

The agency works with all the other agencies under the Solicitor General, and there is a Y2K committee. For the most part, the National Parole Board's systems are taken care of by Correctional Service Canada.

The largest system, which is the system we have been talking about, the offender management system, has been the responsibility in large part of Correctional Service. All the other office automation systems we have, and the other smaller systems we have, have been investigated and looked at and there has not been any difficulty for the Y2K.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): The system is under control as far as you are concerned. Is that correct?

Mr. Marc Seguin: Yes, it is.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): As it applies to the National Parole Board.

Mr. Marc Seguin: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Are there any questions arising out of my questioning? Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Are there any departments or agencies you interface with that can say the same thing?

Mr. Marc Seguin: Well, I can't speak for the other agencies and departments, but I can talk freely for the National Parole Board. I know what I've heard in the committee we have with the Solicitor General agencies and departments.

As you know, there are some large departments, Correctional Service and the RCMP, that have their own.... It's been talked about widely, but I'm not in the position to talk about it. I can say the National Parole Board itself is, I think, in a very good position compared with that of some of the larger agencies and departments.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you interface with other agencies?

Mr. Marc Seguin: Yes, we do.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Are you satisfied that you are going to be able to continue to interface with them after the year 2000, or when we hit the year 2000? In other words, my original question was, although you seem to be in good shape, what about the agencies you have to interface with? Are they going to be in good shape so that you can continue to interface with them and get your job done?

Mr. Marc Seguin: Well, I can tell you the systems we have that respond to the agencies' systems, both the common service agencies and the central agencies, are in good shape. As far as their own particular systems and how they work in the interface process are concerned, I'm afraid I'm not in a position to discuss those parts.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: No, I wasn't asking you—

Mr. Marc Seguin: But our systems, yes. Our systems for the interface with those agencies are fine. My knowledge is that we will not have a problem dealing with government services, for example Treasury Board or other large agencies.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So they're up to speed as well.

Mr. Marc Seguin: Well, I can't talk for the other agencies. I'm not in a position to do that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Okay, we will be making written inquiries to the other agencies relative to their position.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Discepola, did you have a question?

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Yes.

I was under the impression that the OMS system was a rather old, archaic system. It has been used for many years. Is it being rewritten or just modified to meet the Y2K compliance?

Mr. Marc Seguin: The offender management system, I believe, was a bit before my time. It was 1992, which is relatively old when you talk about technology, but in the same vein I think we are talking about a system whose technology and software are fairly well known. We have a lot of programmers, a lot of them with Correctional Service Canada, and I am aware that they have been dealing with that problem. It's a huge problem. It's not an easy one.

Again, I'm not speaking for Correctional Service, but I am aware they have a very sound plan to tackle the Y2K problem.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I'd like to ask Mr. Gibbs a question on recidivism rates.

I believe the recidivism rate you're quoting there is while the offenders are within your care. Is that right?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: That's right.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Do you have statistics on what the recidivism rate is when they fully serve their sentences, including when they come back to any provincial institutions?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: We do on page 21 of your performance report of last year. This report is called “Improved Reporting to Parliament: A Performance Report”. You'll have another one like this in about four or five months—in the fall, I guess, or at the end of summer. It's on page 21. I'll leave you this one.

• 1700

Mr. Nick Discepola: How do the rates compare with the rates while they're under supervision?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: After warrant expiry, the people who had completed their parole, if you go back 12 years ago, 1986-87, there was a 13% recidivism rate. For the next year it was 11%.

I guess the five or six first years, or older years, are the ones that are more accurate. By then, except for the lifers, most of them had probably terminated their parole. In more recent years there are still a lot of them on parole. That's why it's so few. I mean, 3% or 5% is just a small sample.

Mr. Nick Discepola: You're saying the best years to look at are 1990-93 or so.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: That's right. From 1986 to let's say 1991 or 1992.

Mr. Nick Discepola: That still means it's relatively high.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Relatively low, I hope.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Well, if I look at the rates for while they are under CSC care, they average 4%, 8%, or 11%, depending on the category.

Mr. Willie Gibbs: It's for a shorter period. As well, these people no longer have supervision. Their warrant has expired.

Mr. Nick Discepola: What would be the rate if we let everybody simply serve out their full sentence?

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Boy, I'd hate to guess, but my guess would be 50% to 60% recidivism across the board.

Mr. Nick Discepola: So in absence of another system or a better system, we're better off developing the system we have, keeping it and improving it as opposed to—

Mr. Willie Gibbs: Exactly. Don't forget we have about 1,100 lifers on parole. There are about 2,400 to 2,500 inside, with about 1,100 outside. These are not included in any of our statistics.

They unfortunately have to finish their life before they are a success, if I can put it that way.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

I appreciate the witnesses' being here today and their candid comments to all these questions. Thank you very much. We'll see you again.

The meeting is adjourned.