SCRA Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR LA LOI SUR LE SYSTÈME CORRECTIONNEL ET LA MISE EN LIBERTÉ SOUS CONDITION DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 9, 1999

• 1534

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. It's the Subcommittee on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

We have a panel of witnesses we'll be hearing from. I'll ask the members, when we are finished with the witnesses, to please remain. We have to discuss some of our potential upcoming meetings.

We have with us, from the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, Marie Beemans;

[Translation]

from the Prisoners' Rights Committee, Mr. Sébastien Brousseau; and from the Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies, Mr. Jean-François Cusson.

We will hear presentations from our witnesses one after the other. We will allow them approximately 10 minutes each, and then we will ask them questions.

• 1535

[English]

Have you worked out an order among yourselves? Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-François Cusson (Project Officer, Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies): My name is Jean-François Cusson. I am a criminologist working for the Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for allowing us to appear and to further explain our comments on the legislation in question today.

The Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies was founded in 1961 and is made up of 60 or so non-profit community organizations from across Quebec. Our members offer a fairly wide range of services; they work in halfway houses and in organizations that enhance employability, they are involved in assisting and counselling inmates and others being held in custody. We rely on over 2,000 professionals and volunteers who provide high-quality monitoring and treatment.

Our association realizes that its comments on the legislation are nearly the same as those it made in 1992. At that time, we felt that Bill C-36 did not go far enough because its main purpose was above all to reassure the public and to give more credibility to the Correctional Service. We also criticized the low priority it gave to clinical considerations and intervention practices. Seven years later, we are voicing the same concerns and we regret that there is still no intention to go any farther in terms of sentencing. Without this, we are on the wrong track and sooner or later, this issue will have to be brought to the fore.

I will begin by discussing the role of community organizations within the judicial and correctional system. Then I will talk about release programs, risk management, victims and the National Parole Board.

Our members are concerned about the role that community organizations are being given in supervising the inmates who go through our network. Increasingly, we are getting the impression that our volunteers and professionals are being asked to carry out activities that are based on static supervision. This new requirement is not in keeping with their role which is to establish a relationship of trust with the client and then work closely with him or her. Furthermore, they are not trained for such supervision activities. This requirement is not compatible with the mission of our organizations, which may find it very hard to reconcile support with static supervision. We are finding more and more that our professionals and volunteers have less and less time to spend on assisting clients, which is a real shame.

It is important to clearly understand that the goal of community resources is to support and to work closely with offenders as they are gradually returned to society. That's why we believe that the community is critical to reintegration. In our view, a penitentiary is not the best place to settle social problems, whether we're talking about violence or substance abuse. Unfortunately, the Correctional Service puts much greater emphasis on programs inside the walls than in the community. We think that there should perhaps be a change in direction in this regard.

It goes without saying that we will defend the goal of releasing inmates gradually and as early as possible. It is our view that, from the point the person in taken into custody by the system, the first concern should be to work toward returning this person to society as rapidly as possible. Many inmates leave the penitentiary much too late, which makes it extremely difficult for rehabilitation workers to do any good.

• 1540

This brings me to the question of inmates who are released on their statutory release date or at warrant expiry. Almost everyone involved will acknowledge that these offenders make up a difficult group of clients because they have often had very little to do with their release plan. One way to avoid this problem is to get them involved as early as possible and not wait until the very end—as happens occasionally—before allowing them to return to society.

Too often, we see people who have reached the end of their sentence, who have never had the benefit of gradual release activities and suddenly find themselves on the street, with no one or nothing to turn to. We ask them to reintegrate into a society that they really don't know very well. It is therefore essential that we try to do something about this.

There has been a dramatic decline in the use of day parole over the years. Between 1992 and 1997, the number of day paroles awarded fell by 55%, without there being any significant increase in the success rate for this measure. We cannot understand the rationale behind this reduction, especially since the community resources are in place to welcome the clients.

We may ask ourselves whether inmates are more dangerous when they leave the prison than when they come in. Our answer is that they probably are not. We sometimes have the impression that the rate of conditional release awards varies according to political whims and that certain dramatic incidents may have led to parole requests being systematically rejected for months. It must be realized that such rejections may have extremely perverse effects on inmates who deserve to be released. As we well know, there is a right time for the inmate to leave the institution. If this moment is delayed, it will only compromise the rehabilitation efforts that have been made up to that point. Clinically speaking, it's very dangerous, and there is also a financial loss because a great deal of money has been invested in rehabilitation efforts. It is a shame to see that these efforts can be so easily spoiled.

In our opinion, the people who work with offenders, both in prisons and in the community, make much too much use of what are referred to as statistical tools, and rely less and less on their professional judgement. Many assessment mistakes are made in this way, and sometimes inmates who deserve to be released are kept inside because the probability of repeat offending is a cause of concern.

Such clients are probably more dangerous, but they are also much less capable when they leave than before. They are much more messed up because they have been forced to spend a great deal more time in an institution, which in the end makes them much more difficult to work with.

Take the example of the temporary absence program. In addition to a significant drop in day parole, we see that the number of temporary absences has fallen off considerably. It's somewhat surprising because the success rate is extremely high, about 99%. This type of release enables the inmate to seriously start trying to reintegrate, and it's likely the first contact he will have with the community since his arrival at the penitentiary. It's a shame that inmates in medium-security penal institutions do not have access, or have only limited access, to this type of release.

We are concerned about using volunteers as escorts for inmates on temporary absences. Our experience has often shown us that volunteers were in some ways used as cheap labour to replace correctional officers. These volunteers were expected to carry out almost the same duties as officers or guards. The role of volunteers is something quite different, however, and is rather to support and assist the inmate. They have a great deal to offer the inmate, but if they are made part of a security structure, they cannot really do their job properly.

It is quite unfortunate to see how infrequently work releases are used—in only about 2% of all cases. It is often found that people who benefit from these releases would benefit more from day parole.

• 1545

Work releases allow some inmates to complete their education or to take part in an apprenticeship program. The security involved for work releases is quite interesting. The risk level is not very high. We would like to see this program offered to offenders more and we would like work releases to be an option before the day- parole date.

Our association deplores the practice of categorizing inmates according to the nature of their crime. Someone determines whether the act was violent or non-violent. In the current context, it is thought that someone who committed a violent act is a dangerous person, whereas it is a well-known clinical fact that this is not necessarily a good way of assessing the person. It happens that people who were classified non-dangerous may be getting involved in more serious crime and may need more help. By itself, the nature of the crime cannot justify stricter supervision or explain harsher detention conditions, unless specific cases are backed up by clinical considerations. That is the basis of what we do: to ensure that clinical factors are considered. The current categorization makes it very difficult to treat or work with offenders, because there is no individual approach.

This leads me to talk about accelerated parole review. Our association is calling for the abolition of this procedure, because it flies in the face of basic justice. We think it is important that all inmates be treated equally, and that their files be assessed according to the same criteria. Moreover, we know that accelerated reviews are generally done in the case of difficult inmates.

I will quickly discuss the issue of the presence of victims and observers at parole board hearings. As in 1992, our association is opposed to victims and observers being present, unless, of course, the inmates give their consent. In our view, the hearing is not a trial, but rather a review of the inmate's progress since the beginning of his or her incarceration. Confidential information is frequently reviewed. The presence of observers could easily compromise the discussion between inmates and parole board members.

My final comment is about the appointment of parole board members. Once again, our association recommends that consideration be given to the establishment of a selection committee to ensure that people appointed to be parole board members have the necessary skills. We acknowledge that some recent changes have improved the situation, but political appointments still happen too often, and that is unfortunate. The appointment of parole board members is a very important issue. At all levels in the system, we ensure that we get the most knowledgeable, skilled people. They have to go through a number of interviews. We should be doing much the same thing in the case of parole board members.

It is quite difficult to accept that some inmates have trouble getting release because of their mental health problems. People are not more dangerous because they are ill. That is one of the reasons why parole board members must be very familiar with all aspects of the inmate population.

Finally, I would like to speak quickly about urine tests. We constantly hear from our workers that urine tests are improperly used. At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned that people who work with inmates were increasingly inclined to focus on static supervision. The urine test is a good example of that.

Normally, the urine test should be used for clinical purposes, and should be part of a clinical procedure that is used in working with the offender. Nowadays, it frequently happens that as soon as a test is positive, parole is suspended even though this is not necessarily the best solution, particularly since workers generally establish structures to provide greater support for such offenders. Frequently, the decision is made to revoke the person's rights, without taking into account the situation facing the community organizations.

• 1550

In conclusion, reviewing the Act gives us an excellent opportunity to improve the support we provide for offenders, and we hope that the changes made will live up to the expectations of the people who work with offenders.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cusson.

Ms. Beemans.

[English]

Ms. Marie Beemans (Member, Church Council on Justice and Corrections): The Church Council on Justice and Corrections is an ecumenical group formed of ten mainline Canadian churches from coast to coast. We have representation from coast to coast. Our concerns have been with the needs of victims, the community and the offenders, hoping to work toward what we call a restorative justice that will meet the needs of healing when the harmony in the community has been broken.

We were very glad to hear about the consultation that has happened over the last year on this law. Mr. Scott had the committees and then consultations on the local level. We appreciated the documents we received at the time.

This law has a lot of good in it. It has given us a chance to put into law a lot that was arbitrary or not directive, and it has brought it all together. One of the problems, though, has been the application of this law. We are very concerned that in spite of the fact the crime rate has not gone up in Canada, we have people who are serving more and more time. Compared to other countries, we are one of the countries where people serve the most time.

That has us very worried, because the prisoner is a member of our society. He is a member of our society who has difficulty functioning, has hurt others and has broken the harmony in the community, but he is still a member of our society. Our goal should be to integrate him back into society. That is why we use the word “corrections”.

On the other hand, Correctional Services seems to be going in the other direction. We see that fewer and fewer people are getting parole. People are serving more time inside. The types of release programs that work the best are the ones that are being used less and less. We have more and more people coming out at mandatory, when we know if they come out on parole with support or on day parole they have a higher success rate. Why are we letting go of the programs that work and keeping people inside more and more when these problems have to be solved? They belong to the community and have to be solved in the community.

We even have people coming out now more and more on mandatory and at the end of mandate. The rationale behind all of this seems to be very much related to the way we see the prisoner: the security classification.

I have been going in as a volunteer and been involved for many years in the prison system. I have seen a change where there was a sentence, a person was judged and given a sentence, and that person served that sentence, with part of it behind bars and part of it on parole in the community. But he was serving the time. We looked at the person where he was. Now with the security classification, we're looking much more in the past on what the person did, instead of what has happened since then. It's almost as if we're saying what we're doing in corrections is no good, if we're only looking at him where he was at the original act and not looking at what corrections and our programs have been able to achieve.

• 1555

So we have people who are in for a long time. We have people who come out after many years and get suspended for breaking conditions. They're so institutionalized when they come out on full parole or on mandatory, they have a hard time functioning. They don't have that gradual support system. They're brought in, and then if they're lifers, it's two years before they can reapply. They're serving more and more time, and each time they come out they're more and more institutionalized and it's much harder to reintegrate them into the population, especially when you consider that for a person who is 50 without a record, or over 40 or 45, it's hard to find a job. Imagine somebody who comes out after 30 years and hopes to work and he's 55.

One of the things the commissioners do not take into account—and they say it is not part of their mandate to take it into account—is if a person is terminally ill. They say your health condition, if you have an illness, isn't what they're looking at. They don't take into account the life expectancy, but that is a very important factor in somebody's reintegration into society.

We know in criminology there is a cap, where after a certain age people commit a lot fewer crimes, just like after a certain age we don't climb trees or do the things we did when we were much younger. We don't take risks after a certain age. So there is a certain curve in criminology, and that does not seem to be taken into account. We are keeping people inside longer and longer and only looking at the acts that happened in their youth, and not what has happened in the last 10 to 20 years.

On the other hand, we say we'll make room inside; we'll have the accelerated review. Theoretically we like the accelerated review, but the problem is it seems to be applied to two types of people. First there's the white collar crime. We are all aware of the embarrassment the parole board has had with these high-profile cases. That embarrassment is maybe not our chief concern; our concern is with the perception of justice.

When other prisoners, who have done theft, crimes or robberies for a couple hundred dollars, are inside at the bottom of the ladder and see a high-profile person who has managed to launder hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars get out, what is their perception? Their perception is that justice works if you have money. That is very dangerous, because we're trying to instil into people a sense of justice, responsibility and respect for the laws. The perception is if you're a high-profile person and have money, you get out very fast. What it does to the other prisoners inside is what we hear about, and that is the harm we're concerned about.

On the other hand, as I believe Jean-François has said, we don't have time to deal with the young fellow who has just started his criminal career. He goes through and thinks it's a joke; he doesn't realize how serious it is. It has not made that much room because we know there's a high return rate on the accelerated review for the first offence. We're not dealing with the problem; we're just processing them quickly.

We're very glad to see the work release programs. We think this is something that is very much needed. On the other hand, they're not utilized enough. We do not seem to be using programs that work. On the other hand, we're keeping people in longer and putting them out—people who will not reoffend and are past the cap.

• 1600

On the role of victims at the hearings, I believe the origin of our criminal law was that the state wanted to end vendettas and private vengeance, so victims ceded their rights to the state to do justice.

We went may be too far and the victims were forgotten, and they have that feeling. On the other hand, we are bringing back the victims at the end of a process. We have to decide which way we're going. We can't have our cake and eat it too. To bring in the victims at a parole hearing, especially victims where a member of the family was involved and there's been a terrible crime, is opening old wounds. I don't think it is fair. In Quebec there have not been that many who have been present, but it hurts for even one person to have wounds opened.

I don't think it serves the purpose of helping the offender reintegrate society. It doesn't do that much for the parent of the victim. We would like to see a process where if victims are to be involved—and we would like to see victims involved—it's much earlier in the process. There should be a mechanism where we could give the offender a chance, because that does not happen at the time of the trial. There's all the tension; our whole adversarial system is trying to prove they did it whether they did it or not. There is no chance for the person who has committed the crime to even say they're sorry and to hear from the victim the hurt that has happened.

There have been a couple of pilot projects, one out west and some started by the Mennonites, where they have victim offender meetings, and what has come out of those is very good. There's a lot of work. It is new. I would like to see more mechanisms across the country for a healing process, but much earlier in the sentence; not many years after when you've forgotten about it.

On the registry and the information, we are trying to get our prisoners, when they come back into society, to put their criminal lives, behaviour and attitudes behind them. Yet if there is going to be a labelling process and everybody knows where that person is, he cannot put it behind him.

When a person is on parole he has to report to the police. The police in the community know, and they are the ones that need to know. If the person has committed a certain type of crime, say sexual offences against children, there can be a list—and we wouldn't be against the list—and day care centres and schools could call and ask whether a person was on that list. But how can we help somebody put all of this behind them? How can we get them out of this pattern if we keep the label on him?

The other danger in labelling people is they have a tendency to go underground, especially the sexual offenders who have been kept to the end of their mandates. If there's labelling and a process that follows them and it's known that this person is in the community, they will go underground. Those who have worked with sexual offenders know that tension is one of the factors that will bring on that type of behaviour. If you put them under tension, you're liable to even bring on more crime.

The Chairman: I'll ask you to wind it up.

Ms. Marie Beemans: I would like to wind up with the other care concern we have. I've talked about the lifers, because that has been a great concern to the church council, and also about the older prisoners. There is also health care and mental health care.

On mental health care in the penitentiaries, there are many people who have problems functioning. As we get an older population in the penitentiaries we will have people who are getting senile. How are these needs being met?

• 1605

I know of a couple who are senile, and one of the criteria of the parole has been that if somebody has mental health problems, that's supposed to make them a security risk. I'm not saying that person doesn't need help, but I think these are the people who do need that gradual... We tend to keep them in longer, and then they cannot be plugged into the community resources that will help them and give them what we call in French l'encadrement, the structure to help them and also to protect them and the community as they reintegrate toward the end of mandate. So for the ones who have mental health problems, there seems to be less.

Lastly, one of the things we have remarked lately is that we are seeing signs that the chaplaincy has been going through budget cuts and restrictions as far as the chaplaincy goes.

The chaplaincy plays a very important role in every penitentiary. It represents values; it represents somebody the prisoner can turn to. The chaplain is a very key person. We're seeing chaplains not being replaced at certain places. They're considered just a program, another program under “socio-” in a certain penitentiary.

I know in the charter there is the right to religious observance. In a pluralistic society it becomes kind of complicated, because we have several religions in the penitentiaries. However, we would like to see some mechanism that will assure the independence of the chaplaincy in the penitentiaries, and that they stay and that they be able to function.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Beemans.

[Translation]

You have 10 or 12 minutes, Mr. Brousseau.

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau (President, Office des droits des détenus): Yes, fine.

Good afternoon. My name is Sébastien Brousseau. I have a legal background, and I am completing my criminology training at the moment. I've been interested in corrections issues for about eight years now. I am the president of our organization. We are a not- for-profit organization that defends and promotes the rights of prisoners.

We only learned on February 5 that we were to appear before you today. Consequently, my comments will be quite brief. As you know, community organizations do not get a great deal of government funding. So we do what we can. Personally, I'm a volunteer, and I wrote my paper on the legislative review yesterday.

First of all, I would like to talk about medical care. Section 86 of the Act requires that the Correctional Service provide essential care. Our organization thinks that this provision is discriminatory because, as you know, we have a health care system in Canada. If you were to go to the hospital, you would have had access to more than just essential services. Consequently, we think this section should be redrafted to read along the following lines: "The Correctional Service should offer the same quality and quantity of services as are available to the general public".

My second point is about double-bunking—two people in one cell. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which was passed in 1992, makes no mention of this subject. In 1955, Canada adopted what are known as the minimum rules on conditions for inmates, or, rather, Canada adopted them in 1975. The text was passed by the UN in 1955. This document states explicitly that two people should not occupy one cell, except in exceptional cases.

It is understandable that in Canada, where there are more and more inmates and few penitentiaries, there might be a tendency to do more double-bunking. In our view, this practice is certainly not conducive to social reintegration. At the very least, we think that now that there is an opportunity to amend the Act, there should be some limit put on the number of cells occupied by two people. Or, at the very least, the Act should prohibit any increase in double- bunking. What we are seeing, in fact, is that even though there is a reduction in crime, many more people are being imprisoned. This is a paradox, and in our view shows that the system is not working.

We know that prisons do not really rehabilitate people and that the programs are not working. Canada imprisons a lot of people. We rank second after the United States, I believe. In the United States, in California, for example, the correctional service budget has become larger than the budgets for education and health.

I don't want to live in a place that would spend more on corrections than on education. I think such a society would be a complete aberration.

• 1610

So we should perhaps be easing up on imprisonment. To do that, public education may be required. We might consider providing information for Crown attorneys and judges, amending legislation, limiting double-bunking and promoting parole.

Section 121 of the Act covers releases for humanitarian reasons. For example, an inmate who is terminally ill could be granted parole. However, there are exceptions.

For example, the Act says that those serving a life sentence cannot obtain parole for such reasons. In our view, that provision is yet another aberration; an inmate who is suffering from a terminal disease and who is about to die, who does not represent a risk to society, would not be able to get parole.

These exceptions should simply be done away with, because under such circumstances parole is being granted for humanitarian reasons, and because the National Parole Board can study the case and decide whether or not the person represents a risk. If he does not represent a risk, we believe that he should be able to take advantage of this section just like any other inmate.

Ms. Beemans and Mr. Cusson talked about victims attending parole hearings. I completely agree with Ms. Beemans on that issue. We believe that these hearings are not the best place for victims and that they should be allowed to attend parole hearings only if the inmate gives his consent.

Since 1970, victims have gained many rights. For instance, provincial statutes have been passed to compensate victims; police officers are getting training to help them understand the psychology of victims and to teach them how to provide comfort and assistance; there is legislation that ensures they are informed of legal proceedings taken; the criminal code has been amended to restrict cross-examination of victims; and there have been changes to allow children to give testimony on video.

So, several changes have been made. One very important addition is the victim impact statement. Unless I'm mistaken, that was placed in the Criminal Code in 1996. The victim can use this procedure to describe the consequences of the crime.

You realize, an inmate's criminal record follows him throughout the entire correctional system. So the members of the Parole Board can view the victim impact statement and find out what the consequences were for the victim.

If you look at the statistics, you can see that when victims are present at hearings, board members are much more likely to deny people parole. The emotional side of things comes into play. And yet, law is based far more on rational thought, logic and facts. In our opinion, the statement that the victim already gave during criminal proceedings is certainly enough to inform the parole board members. Having the victims present does not add anything.

The parole board members are there to determine whether the inmate represents a risk to society, whether he has made progress while in prison, whether he has gone through therapy. So, from the time of the charge, to the conviction and then to the application for parole, the victim cannot add anything, in my humble opinion.

The Act also lacks one important point. More and more often, justice is rendered in the community. The government is delegating more and more authority to communities to render justice. There are an increasing number of programs which focus on community justice.

However, often community organizations do not have sufficient financial resources to assume their greater responsibilities. In addition, inmates are not told they can use such community resources. Inmates are often released automatically, or they finish serving their time and they really don't know what to do. They are at a disadvantage because they have a criminal record. Often, they have become estranged from their families during their time of incarceration. They are often uneducated or have drug abuse problems or other problems. So these people are somewhat at a disadvantage within society.

In my humble opinion, this is why the recidivism rate is so high. As well, during their time in prison, they may have formed ties with other criminals. So I think that more resources should be provided to communities and inmates should be informed that these resources exist.

• 1615

As for parole board members, we are somewhat opposed to their being appointed for political reasons. Usually judges are appointed for political reasons, but at least they choose people who have legal training. There's a minimum requirement. In the current legislation, there are no criteria, in my humble opinion, for appointing parole board members. If the government wants the parole system to improve, it should try to appoint competent people who have some training.

There is also a second problem with the appointment of board members. The members who hear appeals are chosen from the ranks of those who hear initial applications. This is a serious problem in terms of impartiality. For example, Jean-François and I may have to hear a case together. Two or three weeks later, I may have to hear an appeal of a case that Jean-François first heard, without me. This could be a serious problem in terms of my impartiality, and inmates could easily criticize me because there is not enough distance between the board members who hear appeals and those who hear initial applications. The Act should be amended so that the two groups are truly separate.

The third part of the Act deals with the Correctional Investigator. In her report on the events that occurred in Kingston in 1994, justice Arbour, who is currently serving as prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal, mentioned the importance of the Correctional Investigator.

The current policy is that the Correctional Investigator accepts written complaints only. In the past, inmates could make complaints over the telephone. The problem with this policy is that, among other things because of provincial cuts to legal aid and other legal services, inmates usually are not well off and have a hard time... Many inmates are illiterate. It is much more difficult for inmates to file complaints when they have to put them in writing.

So, section 170 of the Act should allow inmates to file complaints in writing or verbally. The Act is not clear about this; all it says is that, "The Correctional Investigator may commence an investigation on the receipt of a complaint." "Written or verbal" should be added.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear before them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Brousseau. We can now move to questions from members.

[English]

We'll start with rounds of seven minutes and then after the first round we'll alternate between an opposition and the government. Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Thank you.

We've had a lot of information coming in, so it's going to be hard to decide how to use this bit of time. I'll start with just a couple of comments, for Ms. Beemans in particular.

One of the things you talked about is a graduated support system and reintegration and the idea of their having been away from society, and the difference between being inside and outside. I would suggest it goes beyond that. There are too many situations, I think, in prison where the same responsibilities and the same requirements to earn rights and privileges are not imposed upon certain prisoners that are imposed on people in society at large. There are a lot of people who live better by virtue of simply being there inside prisons than a lot of hardworking people who live outside following the rules of society. I understand what you're saying, but at the same time I think that's important.

The other thing you talked about is the idea that instead of having victims' statements at the end they have to be at the front, and we can't shift from that to the end. I just want to make it clear, and I hope you meant the same thing, that it's not an either/or situation. I think certainly the upfront part is where it's most important, but I also happen to think it's very important...

• 1620

For example, Clifford Olson had a parole eligibility hearing, and I think it's very important that 15 years after the offence, when some of the people considering that application may not be aware of the feelings and the horrors and impact it's had on the victims' families, they would have still that right. I would address that in fact to all of the witnesses.

The third thing I wanted to deal with that you specifically had mentioned is the idea of labels, of labelling people in society. I think you're correct, but part of the problem is that we sometimes—and there have been some very famous cases—let people out with the statement of the officials that we know they're likely to reoffend.

There was one recently, a sexual offender, a very well-known case, who refused treatment throughout. It was offered; it was refused. He didn't get parole, but served the full sentence. He is no longer on parole and is completely free and clear. Personally, I think that if somebody is that dangerous of an offender, and the officials feel they are likely to reoffend and they have refused any type of treatment that has been offered to them, they should not be out. We have to protect society.

Perhaps that person won't reoffend and perhaps we're putting a blockade in front of him. Frankly, I have to say that's too bad, because the protection of society is far more important than the rights of an unrepentant offender.

If you want to make a brief comment on what I've said, I would like to get on to some questions.

Ms. Marie Beemans: First of all, what I was thinking is the context also for the victim is that what we are looking at in the victim and offender meetings is that the victim has a chance to express their pain but within a support system, because there is support and a preparation for the victim and the offender. So instead of an adversarial process it's a healing process where you try to give the victim a chance to feel, yes, they have expressed to the person what has happened. Ten years down the line perceptions change. You're opening wounds, and that can be very hard, but I think that early in the process there can be closure. I'm working toward closure for victims.

I'd like to make a little correction. You said Mr. Olson had a parole hearing. He did not have a parole hearing.

Mr. Jim Gouk: No, he made an application for parole.

Ms. Marie Beemans: He had a judiciary review, which is different from a parole hearing.

I do believe in the need to keep the judiciary reviews, because that judiciary review did allow some victims to come out of there and say they saw what he was. I'm aware of the poison letters he wrote and all that, but they saw what he was. But that was not a parole hearing.

Mr. Jim Gouk: No, I realize that. And rather than have the victims come forward at a point like that, personally I would just as soon see that particular privilege for people like Mr. Olson taken away.

Ms. Marie Beemans: On the other hand, we have one Mr. Olson, but we have a lot of other people and we are trying to reintegrate them. Unfortunately, we have one Olson, but he's not the only prisoner; there are many others.

As for the labelling, and people coming out at the end of the mandate, yes, it is a problem. We are concerned with people coming out at the end of mandate. In Toronto, one of our members on the church council has formed circles of support with volunteers, because there is no input from Correctional Service Canada after end of mandate. So he has trained volunteers with a professional, all working on a voluntary basis surrounding that person to give the offender a feeling there is some support every time he goes out.

That is different from having the name on every post, because the big danger is when these people go underground from putting the names on the posts and on the papers. I believe the law has been changed to have that possibility of long-term surveillance.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I'd like to go to the list of statements, Mr. Cusson.

One of the things I get, and I guess we'll come back to some of it, was the suggestion, number 6 on your list, which says “interventions and decisions must be based on clinical decisions not reflective of political or media pressures”. Would you include the public in that? Are you saying that in interventions and decisions for parole and so on the public should not have some input, some societal attitude should not be a consideration? Or are you specifically referring to the media and us?

• 1625

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: First of all, I'd like to point out that we don't want to keep the public from expressing their views. We realize that the public have concerns about crime. We are from community organizations that live within the community. We certainly aren't in a position to keep members of this same community from expressing their views.

Our concerns are more with the media's use of information. It's always the cases that don't work out that are reported in the newspapers, like the people who re-offend and commit some grisly crime. Often public opinion is based on these cases. Basically, this reaction is completely normal, because people hear about the cases that go wrong.

For example, there was the Bolduc case, which everyone is familiar with. It goes back a number of years. After that very unfortunate event, hardly anyone could get parole, even people who had a very good file who had made a great deal of progress. We saw that things were getting tougher and tougher for these inmates. We also saw that many halfway houses had tremendous difficulty filling their beds. At various times, some halfway houses experienced tremendous financial difficulty because of this.

So, we believe that a great deal of work needs to be done to make the public more aware of these issues. We're not saying that this should be done only by government authorities or institutions such as Correctional Services or the Solicitor General's department. Everyone must work towards this goal because everyone is trying to reach the same objectives, which are to protect society and ensure that everyone can enjoy a safe environment.

That's why we need to be careful about public opinion. Research has shown that the public sometimes has its mind made up on certain issues. However, when you educate the public, for example on how the parole system works, when you explain the process, people become more open and will consider alternative solutions or community-based solutions.

[English]

Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Chairman, could I interject one thing? I realize my time would have been out in any case, but could we perhaps make the point that given that we only have seven minutes and they've already made a presentation, we don't want answers that are approaching seven minutes. Otherwise, we'll never be able to deal with the questions we have.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, that's quite clear. Could you please shorten your answers?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: No problem. That was all I had to say.

The Chairman: Mr. Marceau, you have five minutes please.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): I would first like to thank the three witnesses for being here today. I took notes, but unfortunately I only have seven minutes to address your briefs, each of which would demand far more time. Mr. Cusson, since you were the first at bat, I'll toss to you the first question.

When it comes to these issues, I prefer rehabilitation over coercion or repression. That said, you know as well as I do that the public doesn't always share our point of view, and the burden of proof, so to speak, falls upon the committee and other organizations.

As you were saying a little earlier, the media tends to report about things that go wrong. That is unfortunately the way it works. Believe me, that's also the way it is in politics. When I was reading your brief, I was hoping to find some arguments to support your first point, in which you argue that the system should not be made stricter. However, I did not find any.

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: As for arguments, if you look at what's being done at the clinical level, those involved keep on telling us... I think Ms. Beemans is an excellent example, since her institution takes in inmates who leave jail at the very end of their sentences. The main point, the major point, is that the more repressive you make the system, the harder and more expensive it becomes to reintegrate a person into society. This simple fact should make us think.

• 1630

We know what incarceration costs, we know what the legal, penal and correctional systems cost and all that entails. So, the argument can be made that if we don't come to a person's aid quickly and if we don't try to help that person as soon as possible, then the problem will simply be delayed, at which point we'll be back at square one.

Mr. Richard Marceau: My second question was already raised by my friend Jim Gouk. On page 4, point 6 reads as follows:

Interventions and decisions must be based on clinical considerations and must not be a reflection of political or media pressures.

We don't live in a vacuum. We have to take society into account. Of course, we must meet the needs of inmates, of people who are incarcerated, but we must also remember that we all must adapt to the society in which we live. What do you mean by "not be a reflection of political pressures"?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: Let me quickly come back to my previous example. Perhaps that was not a good way to put it. The stakeholders often get the impression that the diagnostic work or other work is not really taken into account.

I mentioned urine tests, an obvious example which might help you understand. Say we are following an inmate staying at a halfway house. He fails a urine test. But until then he was doing fairly well. Okay, so he stumbled. We know he had a drug problem. We have proof that he's taken something again. What do we do? Work with him, or go the other way because we're afraid of being reprimanded should he re-offend in some spectacular way...

Such a scenario is unlikely because the authorities would already have assessed the individual and concluded that the level of risk involved was acceptable to society. They would have monitored him in a different way. However, in the case of a failed urine test, the inmate is sent back to jail, which doesn't solve the problem.

Point number 6 says that even if clinical treatment is recommended for an individual, other considerations prevail.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I see.

As politicians, we are often told that we're wrong. I humbly submit that point 19 doesn't make sense:

No observers or victims should be present at NPB hearings, except with the offender's consent.

Victims feel excluded. The committee held a two-day seminar on the subject. The Standing Committee on Justice adopted a report on the issue. We did not agree on several matters, but this wasn't one of them. Victims already feel so excluded from the legal process that the least we can do is give them a voice, and their voice should not only be heard in court, but also before the National Parole Board.

I read pages 15 and 16 with great interest, but I'm sorry to say that I wasn't in the least convinced that we should not allow victims to speak.

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: We must stress the fact that victims should be heard; others have said so as well. It's important that they do so from the very start.

The reason why our members have a hard time agreeing to the presence of victims at these hearings is because the corrections system is new to them. It is a new situation which has nothing to do with... No, I should say it has everything to do with them, because it is a continuation of what has happened.

What we want to avoid at all costs is something which happens a lot today: putting victims and offenders into an adversarial situation. Hearings are typical of this. We would rather work with victims in another way.

• 1635

We know that victims have tremendous needs, and the system as it stands doesn't help them completely. But must we work in an adversarial system? I don't think so. We believe it is important to provide new services. Victims must receive psychological counselling. Offenders get lots of counselling, but we can't forget the victims.

Don't think we'll solve all problems by having victims present at the hearings. We have to reach out to them beforehand and let them explain their situation to other authorities so that they get things off their chest.

Furthermore, clinical trials have shown that some inmates have a very hard time expressing themselves when they know other people are watching them.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Is my time up?

The Chairman: Yes. We'll have a second round.

[English]

Mr. Wappel, seven minutes.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today. My questions tend to be relatively short and direct and I would really appreciate it if the answers were also short and direct.

I'd like to start with Mr. Brousseau, please. The Prisoners' Rights Committee appeared before the committee studying this legislation back in 1992, with Mr. Jean Claude Bernheim as président. Is this the same committee you represent, Mr. Brousseau?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: At that time a committee member asked Mr. Bernheim, “Do you agree that there should be prisons”, and Mr. Bernheim said the committee is in favour of abolishing them. Is that still the committee's position?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: Generally, yes.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: You referred to a minimum level of training for National Parole Board members. What kind of training?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: For the commissioners?

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: Well, for instance, they could have a background in criminology to better understand why a person re- offends or how therapy works, and so on. They could also have a legal background to better weigh the evidence in parole cases, to better understand what evidence is admissible and how to apply stare decisis rules.

The law deals with parole issues in section 102. The ruling criterion is "acceptable risk". But it's a rather vast and complex concept. So, in my opinion, I believe these people should have a background in psychology or criminology if they want to become a commissioner. Indeed, it's very hard to assess whether the person standing in front of you is...

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: So you see no role for people on the parole board who are not involved in the system in some manner?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: I don't understand your question.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: You're saying they have to have some legal training, they have to have some training within the prison system. In other words, you wouldn't see a role, let's say, for someone from the community like an insurance agent or a former mayor or a housewife?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: No, I don't think so, because commissioners are a little bit like judges; they sit on a quasi- judicial tribunal. Therefore, the release of an inmate should not be decided by the community. It's a legal issue, an issue of criminology, an issue...

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: But the act as I understand it wants a cross-section of the population so as to be able to represent society when looking at parole. Do I take it that if my interpretation of the act is correct, your committee disagrees with that fundamental principle of the act?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: Take justice Lamer, for instance, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Last year, he gave an interview to the CBC the day after the reference to the court on Quebec's right to secede.

• 1640

To the question "should judges take public opinion into account in the exercise of their duties?", judge Lamer responded no, that the task of the judge was to interpret and apply the law. I believe the same principle is true for a parole commissioner.

However, judge Lamer wisely noted that judges were not disconnected from reality; they read papers and live in our society; they know who they are and know they can be influenced. However, their role is to apply the law. So, if you have to interpret the legal concept of acceptable risk, which is contained in section 102, you should have a background in law, in criminology or in psychology.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Turning to the correctional investigator, you said the correctional investigator accepts complaints only in writing. Is that in the act, or is that an administrative decision by the CI?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: As far as I know, it's an administrative decision.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Do you feel that this is onerous, that a prisoner should write a letter of complaint?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: The role of the Correctional Investigator is so important—he must prevent abuse and ensure that the law is applied—that an inmate should have the right, in my humble opinion, to simply call him with a complaint. This was allowed three, four or five years ago. This should be the case at the very least.

In our society, if you're not happy with your government, you can contact Parliament, call your MP, call the CBC and so on. But inmates have to make collect calls because that's how prison phones work. It's hard for them to call someone on the outside. If, on top of that, they have to write a letter... These people have very little education, so it's another obstacle in terms of their basic rights under the law.

So, we believe that since the Investigator plays a very important role, and since it is hard for inmates to access legal services, they should at the very least have the right to make a phone call, and this right should be enshrined in law.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: I have less than a minute, so these are yes or no questions.

Did your committee take part in the Solicitor General's consultation?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: I really don't know. Yes? I've been told yes.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Did you receive a copy of the report?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: Me? No.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay, that's it for this round. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Gouk, we'll go to a second round of three minutes, please.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you.

I'll start with Mr. Cusson. I have a few questions.

Recommendation 13 in your list is that to guarantee effective reintegration, gradual release must be done as soon as possible. Are you talking about early in the sentence, that if someone has ten years, for example, we should start early on in that ten-year period?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: Regarding gradual release, we basically have everything in place today for it to work. We know there are some real problems, and that inmates leave jail much later than they should. Under a system of gradual release, almost everyone would receive day passes; some inmates would be housed elsewhere, and so on, so that when an inmate is free to go or has served his sentence, it won't be a complete shock to be on the outside.

[English]

Mr. Jim Gouk: We're talking, even at regular parole, after one-third. I think a lot of people in society would be horrified if people get sentenced to ten years and they find that they're out on the street, even on a temporary basis, in less than three years. We've already heard from some of them.

• 1645

With number 17, where you talk with regard to urinalysis, if someone's principal problem... Maybe robbery is what they're in for, but their principal problem is substance abuse, whether inside prison or on parole or some special situation. How can you entrap someone by testing them? They either are positive or they're not. You can't pour alcohol into them or inject them with drugs and then test them. If a condition of their parole or a condition of their specific situation inside prison is to be substance-free, how are you entrapping them by checking to see if they're meeting the requirements?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: Be careful when you call it entrapment. It has more to do with how people react to urine tests and how they are used. A person who fails a urine test isn't necessarily more dangerous. It all depends on the nature of his problem. Some will, others won't. It all depends.

Sometimes an inmate confesses to taking something even before he gets tested. The person in charge might decide to administer the test just to confirm that fact. But if you punish the inmate immediately every time, nobody will ever want to confess to relapse. Inmates will try to hide their problem for as long as they can. They won't trust anyone else ever again if they can expect nothing but increasingly severe punishment.

So it depends on how you use them. They should be used as clinical tools which may lead to treatment. And if you decide that an inmate presents a high risk because of his drug problem, then fine.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Saada, you have three minutes.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): If you don't mind, Mr. Brousseau, and I say this in all friendliness, I thought I was a centre-left politician, but when you talk about abolishing prisons, I feel like an extreme right-winger.

I would like to set the record straight on two issues, and then I'll ask you a question. First, on the issue of political appointments, I want to clarify the question of process, because there may be myths which, on this side as well, we need to destroy. There is a process in place, which works according to very precise criteria; very competent people are named to a selection committee, and it is only once the process is finished that the names of the chosen candidates are submitted to the Solicitor General. He, in turn, recommends to the Governor in Council which choices should be made.

Any system can be improved, but I want to banish the idea that ours is a purely political system. It is a highly professional system—highly professional.

I'm in perfect agreement with all of you.

[English]

We shouldn't be confusing the security of the public and the appearance of security of the public. On the one hand, we are doing a favour to the community. On the other hand, we claim to serve the community but it's very short-sighted.

[Translation]

I say this for the benefit of my colleague Mr. Gouk.

[English]

I know every time we have a problem dealing with these issues of conditional release and so on, it's tempting to refer to the Olson case. I would like to remind humbly that, number one, this issue has been dealt with by our laws and they have been modified accordingly. The second thing is that we have approximately 10 or 12 such cases in the country. We have over 14,000 inmates. I don't think we should really aim at legislating according to such a small minority, which is already taken care of, by the way, in our legislation now.

[Translation]

I feel that there are two important issues, and I want to know what you think of them. First you talked about the issue of speedy reviews and in at least two briefs—I apologize for not having the time to read them—and you say that we should maintain them. How would you deal with organized crime and criminals associated or affiliated with organized crime?

The second issue is health. I think Mr. Brousseau referred to it. Some witnesses have told us that more and more psychiatric cases end up in the correctional system, as opposed to criminals ending up in specialized psychiatric institutions. What do you make of these two issues?

• 1650

Ms. Marie Beemans: May I respond to the question on psychiatric care, since I am a member of the board of directors of the Institut Philippe-Pinel?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

Ms. Marie Beemans: The Institut Philippe-Pinel is a psychiatric institute which treats dangerous individuals. Patients rarely come to us from prison; most are sent directly by the courts or by hospitals which cannot look after them.

For some time now, prisons across Canada have created mental health units. Some of their programs really help people who have behavioral problems. However, they don't have the know-how to treat serious psychiatric cases. When they realize that they haven't been able to help an inmate by the end of his sentence, or just before he is about to be released, they send him to the Institut Philippe- Pinel.

As an institution, Philippe-Pinel is a Cadillac; it is a very specialized institution whose expertise is recognized around the world and which treats serious cases. If we're sent an inmate before the end of his sentence, we have neither the time nor the flexibility to give him individualized treatment. Serious psychiatric cases should be treated in a specialized institution.

Of course, I agree that there is a place for mental health units in prisons for less serious or emergency cases. However, these units often recruit prison guards, who haven't necessarily received adequate training. These units have a very different approach.

I've already spoken to sex offenders who participated in very behavioristic programs. Several of them confessed that they had gone along with the game. On the other hand, some of those who had been to the Philippe-Pinel institute told me that they had gone to the very bottom of things, that they had cried for the first time in their lives. This wasn't just a two or three-hour program, but a 24-hour-a-day program that lasted a year.

I think that these units were set up with the idea of saving money. But sometimes we need specialized centres in a community.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Beemans.

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Jacques Saada: But I didn't get an answer to all my question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cusson, a statement under point 8 on page 5 of your brief surprised me at first sight. You said:

We must henceforth aim for the long-term protection of the community...

Obviously, the first question that comes to my mind is: What about short-term protection? Am I safe in my street in my part of town or at the mall? Why did you mention the long term and not the short term?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: The short term is of equal importance. The reason why the long term notion was raised here, is that practically speaking, we often realize that neutralization should perhaps be our objective, without getting overly concerned about what might happen 15 or 15 years down the line.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Neutralization?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: I mean putting offenders in penitentiaries and only taking care of them in some other way when they get out. But in the meantime, they are left there and we wait. The short-term notion is very important. We must have full security in our society; and this is the reason why we have penitentiaries. On the other hand, we realize all too often that the emphasis is on the short term. We store people away and we try to put them through some programs, which are sometimes good, but also sometimes bad. That's all there is to it.

Mr. Richard Marceau: But must they necessarily be in opposition to each other? Why should the short term necessarily be in opposition to the long term?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: No, not necessarily.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Nonetheless, that is what you're implying by saying that we should aim at the long term.

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: It is important for the Act to show that we are concerned with long-term safety. Regarding short-term safety, there are different ways of going about it. Even if there is neutralization, we have to go further than that. Gradual discharge programs must be offered to inmates and they should be allowed to enroll in them very quickly.

• 1655

Mr. Richard Marceau: The philosophy behind your brief seems to support case studies or a clinical approach. Am I right?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: Yes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: In your mind, there should be no dichotomy between violent and non-violent crime, but we should rather look at each person's case individually. I'm not wrong in saying that?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: You are right.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Under point 12 of your brief, you state:

The National Parole Board should come back to its former practice of automatically reviewing every case of day parole.

This statement seems to be quite contrary to your philosophy. Why do you propose a review of clinical cases that work well in certain instances rather than doing a case-by-case study of them?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: We would like the Board to go back to its former practice because very often inmates—and especially certain inmates who are mentally ill—do not really understand how the system works, they are to some extent victims of circumstances and they do not really take advantage of everything they are entitled to.

Previously, the Board would review the case of any eligible person. It could refuse or accept to grant day parole. The convict even had the right to refuse. This recommendation seeks to protect such persons and to ensure their access to this program.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Would it not be better for someone from within to check on the inmate's follow-up and help the inmate in detention by telling him: "Listen, my friend, you have an opportunity to have your case reviewed", rather than have the Board review his case automatically?

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: No, not necessarily. Before the inmate can appear before the Board which will review the possibility of his gradual release, the case management team involved with the inmate must give its consent. If the team does not agree, the inmate will never be able to file his release project before the Board. It is up to the Board, and not the team, to decide whether or not the release project is realistic.

Interveners may or may not support a release project, but it should not be up to them to decide whether the inmate can appear before the Board. This is up to the Board and the Board should be allowed to use its discretion.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I see.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Wappel, for a three-minute round.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Anyone who wants to ask questions can go right ahead.

The Chairman: Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): No, I really don't want to ask questions. I just want to say something.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Go right ahead.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Okay, and I'll address my first remarks to Mr. Brousseau.

Your idea of eliminating prisons is of course so airy-fairy that it's not worth talking about. What concerns me is your makeup of the parole board. Your makeup would pretty much consist of the same people who sentenced the prisoner in the first place. He's therefore being re-sentenced. I want a bunch of people who aren't involved in the judicial system to look at him and say that what he did was awful, to ask him what he has been doing in the last fifteen years or whatever the term is, and to make a judgment on whether or not they think he's ready to come back into their community.

I want to read some things from the recommendations by the Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies. The reason I'm picking on you is that I like to use a rifle rather than a shotgun, although that may be a bad analogy in this instance. In any case, they said:

1. The system must not be made more coercive.

3. Since the community is the best place for reintegration, priority must be given to the development of programs that will be taken outside correctional institutions.

5. The practice of categorizing offences by their violent or non-violent nature must stop, as it does not take clinical considerations into account. It is fundamentally important that intervention be tailored to the needs and pattern of each offender.

7. Judges must be stripped of the power to extend the period of eligibility for parole.

Any government that implemented those recommendations—even though I may agree with them—would not be the government after the next election. You have the cart so far in front of the horse that it's out of sight. The great populace out there doesn't understand the criminal justice system as we have it now: we don't give long enough sentences; we let people out too early. I know that's refuted by the facts, but the populace out there doesn't know it. That's one example, and that's all I'm going to say.

On the Young Offenders Act, policemen don't understand it and haven't read it. Some judges don't understand it and haven't read it. When someone calls me and criticizes the Young Offenders Act, I tell them I'll make a deal with them. I tell them I'll send them a copy of the act, whether they want it or not. Some say they don't want it, because they don't want to be confused by the facts. After they have read it, they can call me back—and when they do, they'd better have read it, because there will be questions I will ask. There will be an exam to prove they've read it. What I get back are very few calls. The ones who do call say that the act isn't what they understood it to be at all, that they got their interpretation of it from the media, which are always wrong, of course. So I have to correct these people.

• 1700

That's just one small part of the justice system. We have to tell people out there what the present justice system is, get it through their heads, and explain to them what we'd like to do. But to do this won't fly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Would any of the witnesses wish to comment on Mr. Grose's plight?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: With your permission, I would like to answer.

The opinion I expressed regarding the abolition of prisons is the opinion of the organization I represent, and not necessarily my personal opinion. I believe that if tomorrow morning we were to close down half of the penitentiaries in Canada, you would not even see the difference. There would not be any difference as far as security is concerned. Does anyone here feel threatened? I do not think so.

[English]

An hon. member: I sure do.

Mr. Tom Wappel: If they closed the prisons, I'd feel I'm in danger.

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: Mr. Wappel, I was incarcerated in a penitentiary in 1991 for manslaughter. I'm here before you today and I am no more dangerous now than I was then and was no more dangerous then than I am now. Sometimes people make a mistake which they do not repeat again, and they rejoin society and lead a peaceful life.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: As Mr. Saada mentioned, there are mentally-ill people in prisons and in my opinion, there are far too many of them. Those people should be hospitalized. I might agree that we should jail people who must be punished and who re-offend, but some people do not necessarily need this punishment and imprisonment is not the right solution for them. We must therefore seek other solutions.

Mr. Saada, you mentioned political appointments. Last week, I had dinner with Mr. Yves Léveillée, a criminologist and former director of the National Parole Board. When I asked him to identify the problems with criminal justice, he first replied that we should close down all prisons and penitentiaries. Mr. Léveillée had resigned from his federal position where, in his view, there were too many political appointments with too little skill. He is now working at the provincial level, where he thinks he can make a better contribution.

Mr. Saada asked whether people involved in organized crime should benefit from fast-track procedures. First I'll say that being involved in organized crime is already an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing. Normally, these people receive heavier sentences. Secondly, the Criminal Code has specific provisions which allow a judge to apply a minimum jail sentence. For example, he can sentence a person to a five-year term and specify that there will be no chance for parole before having served two years in detention. So there are certain provisions aimed at organized crime.

Within this expeditious review procedure, there is a dichotomy between violent and non-violent crime. As mentioned earlier, public opinion varies according to the seriousness of the crime. Acceptable risk is one of the criteria. As a citizen, and not as an expert in this field, I believe that the risk associated with non- violent crime is much easier to accept. A person who has committed a non-violent crime should get released much more easily. That is my position regarding fast-track procedures.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'd just like to make two very quick points of clarification. Even though I do not want to get into intricate details, I believe it is important to emphasize the fact that the way of making appointments changed a few years ago.

Secondly, there is a question that you did not raise, and I would have liked to have more time to discuss it. Perhaps we might do it some other time. You mentioned the fast-track review procedure. When I put a question to you specifically regarding organized crime, I was especially concerned with violence.

For instance, if I am not violent but if my acts create conditions for violence, courts do not currently consider me as a violent individual. However I do have a role to play and a responsibility in this violence that I brought about through my acts. This is what I would have liked to discuss regarding expeditious reviews.

Ms. Marie Beemans: We think that in such cases, the expeditious review was not of much use to us. We wanted to free up some space inside the prisons.

• 1705

We are under the impression that there is an injustice being done to the poorest class of inmates who are not leaders in crime and who have committed small offences. They may have been somewhat violent and may have used a fake weapon. When an inmate who has been in the headlines is released, we know very well that he has the means to defend himself and that he knows all the mechanisms.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Should I gather, Ms. Beemans, that your organization does not favour expeditious review procedures?

Ms. Marie Beemans: As far as we are concerned, it failed.

Moreover, we believe that this measure was intended to free up space inside prisons. It is frightening to see convicts released after serving 15- or 20 year sentences who have become helpless to the point of committing stupid crimes like smashing windows to get back into jail because they are no longer able to function in society. It is hard to learn how to live responsibly when all responsibilities and decisions have been taken away from you. You can't learn how to take control of your life if you have no bills to pay and if you are living in jail. I think that these questions have already been raised.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Despite the questions which were raised and after having heard some positions that were slightly more extreme than what I expected, I would nonetheless reassure you that I understand what you are telling me perfectly.

Ms. Marie Beemans: Very well.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, we'll allow Mr. Gouk one more quick one, and Mr. Wappel also has one. I'd then like to leave about fifteen minutes to discuss future business of the committee before the vote.

Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you.

I would address my question to Mr. Brousseau, but I'll skip right over the idea of closing all prisons. After hearing that suggestion, I would say the criminologists who said he was incompetent certainly had a good reading on him.

One of the things you mentioned was this idea that we have to eliminate two people in a cell or a room. My assistant here was a naval officer. Throughout his entire career he had one or more roommates. His wife was an RCMP officer, and she had one or more roommates throughout her training. When my son went to the University of British Columbia, he had a roommate because of economic reasons. When I started my working career, we couldn't afford a two-bedroom apartment. I couldn't afford a one-bedroom one when I was by myself, so I had a roommate. So would you mind telling me why people who have broken the law and have gone to prison should not be subject to this restriction, if you want to call it that, or condition of life that the rest of us have to face?

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: First, I will tell you that with its signature in 1975, Canada took on an international commitment.

Secondly, even though public opinion would have us believe that inmates are very comfortable and living very well, I will tell you that no one wants to live in jail, and no one likes being there. That is not where you'll necessarily find the excellent conditions that some describe. The size of a cell is about six feet by ten or twelve feet.

[English]

Mr. Jim Gouk: I've been inside some, but I'd like to know your reason why they're entitled to more than members of society who have not broken laws.

[Translation]

Mr. Sébastien Brousseau: As for me, when I was a student, I shared my room and I had roommates. This is quite a normal situation. That is not where the problem lies. The correctional system seeks to give a sense of responsibility to inmates, to correct them and rehabilitate them. A therapeutic approach does not consist in locking two people up together in a small cell where they have no privacy. Their dignity is under constant attack. Even though persons who have committed criminal acts are sentenced and lose their freedom, they have a right to dignity and respect. These are fundamental rights. When they are jammed like that into small cells, they have lost these rights.

In 1980, the Supreme Court recognized in the Solosky ruling that inmates were entitled to everything that other citizens are entitled to, except for their freedom, and had to suffer the consequences that stemmed from losing their freedom.

I don't believe that cramming people into little cells is a solution. Paradoxically, the crime rate is decreasing but more and more people are being incarcerated. Do we want to become like the United States, where five to six times as many people are incarcerated than here? Do you think that the crime rate is lower there? Of course not. In my opinion, that could be a solution.

• 1710

[English]

Mr. Jim Gouk: I keep hearing that notion of if you have less crime, how can you have more prisoners, unless we're arresting innocent people.

The Chairman: We'll give the last question to Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to make a very short comment. I want to congratulate Mr. Cusson for putting forward actual recommendations. So many of our witnesses come, with no disrespect to them, and they make various criticisms, but they do not put forward recommendations we can get our teeth into and ask other witnesses about. So I want to congratulate you for doing that. Of course I don't agree with all of your recommendations, but there are some that I do.

I have five very simple questions that require a yes or no answer that I address to each of Madam Beemans and Mr. Cusson.

Did you take part in the Solicitor General's consultation, oui ou non?

Ms. Marie Beemans: I did.

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Did you receive a copy of the report?

Ms. Marie Beemans: I did.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Were your groups mentioned in the report?

Ms. Marie Beemans: Yes, I was.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Does it correctly set out your position?

Ms. Marie Beemans: Yes, and we hope that it won't just stay on paper.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: Do you disagree with anything in the report as it pertains to your group's position?

Ms. Marie Beemans: No.

Mr. Jean-François Cusson: No.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I would like to thank the people who came here today to appear before us. I would like to ask members to stay so that we can continue our discussion.

[Editor's Note: The meeting continued in camera]