JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 20, 2002

1535

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Ms. Lucie McClung (Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada)

1540

Ms. Anne Kelly (Acting Director General, Offender Programs and Reintegration, Correctional Service Canada)

Ms. Lucie McClung

1545

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

1550

Ms. Lucie McClung

1555

The Chair

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

1600

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC/DR)

1605

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Peter MacKay

1610

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

1615

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo--Wellington, Lib.)

Ms. Lucie McClung

1620

Mr. Lynn Myers

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Bonin

1625

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Bonin

The Chair

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

1630

Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.)

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

1635

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Bonin

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

1640

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

1645

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Ms. Lucie McClung

1650

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Peter MacKay

1655

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. MacKay

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

1700

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Bonin

1705

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

1710

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Lanctôt

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Bonin

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Bonin

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Bonin

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

1715

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

1720

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

1725

The Chair

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 063

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 20, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

[Translation]

Welcome everyone.

[English]

I call to order the sixty-third meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to a motion adopted in committee on December 6, 2001, that the Commissioner of Corrections be invited to appear before the committee early in the new year to provide a briefing on the custodial arrangements for all inmates serving life sentences, we have before us, as a result of that motion, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Ms. Lucie McClung, and Anne Kelly, the acting director general, offender programs and reintegration.

I appreciate, Madam Commissioner, you and your officials being here today. I will proceed directly to the presentation. You've appeared here many times before, so you know that we try to keep the opening remarks inside of ten minutes, if that's possible. That gives us more opportunity for dialogue.

Ms. Lucie McClung (Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada): Thank you.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. I am pleased to be here with you today to discuss issues related to the custodial arrangements for those convicted of first and second degree murder in Canada.

I am sure that you will agree with me that there are many aspects of the penitentiary and supervisory regimes that could be explored. But today's meeting is devoted to one particular aspect of our operations which, since February 2001, has directly affected the lives of some 140 Canadians.

In recent years, the Correctional Service of Canada has received 170 individuals convicted of first and second degree murder, approximately 2% of all those admitted to the federal correctional system. Over a period of two years, it can therefore be projected that the number of inmates affected by this policy, i.e. incarceration in a maximum security facility at the beginning of their sentence, will represent approximately 2.5% of the total inmate population.

Allow me to introduce Anne Kelly, who is co-ordinating correctional policy and program development initiatives. She will be able to provide greater detail on more technical questions, if required.

As soon as I was appointed, I reiterated CSC's priority of expanding on the internal policy framework in order to provide all our staff with more guidance. This meant, and still means, that any correctional policy would be revised and resubmitted to the management committee for approval. At the same time, I wanted to have the assurance that our staff had at their disposal the necessary tools to implement each policy because, honourable members, there was a significant implementation problem within CSC.

Many policies were reviewed, and it was in the overall context of this exercise that the concerns of the general public and those of our staff concerning the initial penitentiary placement of those serving life sentences were expressed. These concerns were legitimate and needed to be addressed.

The penitentiary placement of inmates is governed by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which is our legislative framework. The act sets out three criteria which must be considered in any decision concerning penitentiary placement. First, there is the degree of control necessary for the safety of all parties concerned. Second, there is accessibility to the community for purposes of intervention and, third, the availability, within our organization, of programs and services appropriate to inmates in meeting the obligations of our mandate. In short, we are talking about factors directly related to the characteristics of each individual, and factors directly related to the organization's ability to respond.

Some might say that the latter factors, those related to the organization, are more pragmatic and therefore of secondary importance. I do not share that opinion. I believe that both sets of factors must be taken into consideration in the broader context of decision-making.

As you well know, policy and resourcing decisions are part of a broad context which is determined by the public's vast range of the priorities.

In Canada, a life sentence is a sentence to life with the possibility of release after 25 years for those convicted of first-degree murder or, subject to a judicial review, after 15 years.

[English]

The Correctional Service of Canada must thus define and organize its program delivery infrastructure to respond to 25 years of incarceration.

Today our infrastructure is organized around three major categories as described by security levels: maximum security settings, medium security settings, and minimum security settings. This infrastructure is at least 25 years old. Honourable members, the Correctional Service of Canada has adjusted this infrastructure over the years to make full use of research-based developments in the field of corrections. However, it is my view that a more systematic review of our infrastructure is now required. By “infrastructure”, I am referring to our overall capacity to organize, for delivery purposes, our interventions to respond to the obligations of our mandate.

A few months ago I directed a review of our capacity with proposed measures for improvement, and that analysis will be available by this fall. But we will act now in some areas, largely because of incongruence between the regime of some institutions and the security and programming needs of the offender population. The plan is to better integrate security, programming, health, and one-on-one counselling into holistic operating regimes. These regimes will be set to respond to the needs of various segments of the offender population who present very distinct control and programming needs.

In making these decisions, CSC will necessarily consider the pace of change, because I don't want to leave the impression that it's out of control. In addition to clinical or programming considerations, the pace of change will take into account the necessary question of the most efficient use of public funds against the backdrop for decision-making. The backdrop for decision-making within corrections is our obligation to Canadians, that of contributing to the protection of society by preparing offenders for safe release at the most opportune time.

The first regime to be considered is for persons incarcerated for the most serious crime in Canada, first and second degree murder. They are subject to the most severe penalty in the Criminal Code, and the Correctional Service of Canada must, in its decision-making, and especially in its first decisions about these offenders, ensure linkages and consistency with the courts' judgments.

I would now like to turn very briefly to Ms. Kelly to give you a clearer sense of the factors considered for the decision regarding the first penitentiary placement for each of these offenders.

¹ (1540)

Ms. Anne Kelly (Acting Director General, Offender Programs and Reintegration, Correctional Service Canada): As the commissioner mentioned, the placement is guided by the CCRA, and I read:

“The service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which the person is confined is one that provides the least restrictive environment for that person, taking into account the degree and kind of custody and control necessary for the safety of the public, the safety of that person and other persons in the penitentiary, and the security of the penitentiary, accessibility to the person's home community and family, as well as the availability of appropriate programs and services.”

Let me give you a sense of what happens in practice. The placement is based on a statistical component, the custody ratings scale, and a professional judgment component. The final placement itself is determined within the context of availability of programs.

Now, let me talk a bit more about the custody ratings scale. It's an actuarial tool that was introduced in the Correctional Service in 1991; it's been adjusted three times to date and will, by matter of policy, be reviewed every two years. The custody ratings scale consists of a questionnaire, which is made up of two sections and 12 items.

The first section is institutional adjustment, which consists of five items: history of institutional incidents; escape history; street stability; alcohol and drug use; as well as age at sentencing.

The second section is security history, made up of seven items: the number of prior convictions; the most serious outstanding charge; severity of current offence; sentence length; street stability; prior releases; and age at admission. The above factors are those factors that have been determined to be linked to the offender's potential to adjust to the penitentiary environment.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you.

Offenders serving a life sentence for first or second degree murder are today, as a general rule, housed in maximum security institutions for at least two years. There is provision for exceptions. This two-year period will allow staff to observe, understand, and assess offenders, help them come to terms with the impacts of the crime and the sentence of life itself, and then start the very long process leading to reintegration to their community. Some offenders may need more than two years to deal with these issues, but we believe two years is a good guideline.

Since February 2001, about 140 individuals have been placed in maximum security settings and one individual in a medium security setting. Let me contextualize what this means by giving you the distribution of the total offender population. There are 1,900 individuals incarcerated in maximum security settings, 7,100 in medium security settings, 2,100 in minimum security settings, and today about 8,500 under some form of supervision in the community.

I would like to point out that the perimeter security provided for both maximum and medium security institutions--except for one--is virtually identical. They are enclosed by high walls or a double fence topped with razor wire, monitored by a motion detection alarm system commonly known as the perimeter intrusion detection system, or PIDS.

What differentiates the two security levels, therefore, is the degree of control over internal movement within the institution, as well as the degree of ease with which offenders may access the community. For maximum security, there is no unescorted access to the community, while in medium security settings, unescorted access to the community is permitted.

Both of these factors were taken into account to determine the best location for regimes for persons serving a life sentence, because they relate directly to our capacity to respond to the full range of programming and security needs of the total offender population. The Correctional Service of Canada needs to ensure that there is sufficient capacity at medium and minimum security settings to best prepare those offenders closer to their end of sentence than would be the case for newly life-sentenced offenders. This makes sense.

In conclusion, the Correctional Service of Canada will pursue targeted research that will result in integrated operating regimes, with a clearer set expectations on the part of the offender. This will enable us to really put into action what we have learned through our research and development here and elsewhere across the world in the field of corrections.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sorenson, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner McClung, for being here today.

I don't think it's any secret that today's meeting is the result, as the chairman has already mentioned, of the motion that I brought just before Christmas this last year. The motion was specific. We requested, and I'll quote, the Solicitor General to “conduct an immediate audit of the custodial arrangements for all inmates serving sentences of life imprisonment, and that a briefing on the said topic be given to this committee”.

Now, if you all recall that committee meeting, unfortunately that particular motion was defeated by the government members of the committee. However, a subsequent motion or agreement was brought forward to have the commissioner make representation on this issue to our committee, and we welcome Commissioner McClung here today.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank her again for coming at my request to Drumheller last week. Our meeting with the correctional and the parole officers was very productive, very successful. I hope that as a result of that meeting, and as a result of the new warden being installed there in Drumheller, we'll see a change in the morale of the officers working there and also a change in the inmates, and we won't see any more riots such as the two riots we had last year--with one murder and a number of suicides.

The motion I brought forward was a direct result of the transfer of Clinton Suzack in October 2001 to William Head Institution. It's a minimum-medium security facility. Subsequent to that, he was relocated to Mission, another medium institution.

For those who are not familiar with the case, Suzack was a criminal with an extensive record. He murdered--execution style--Constable Joe MacDonald while on conditional release. In 1995 Suzack, who was classified as a high-risk offender, was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years for the first degree murder of the Sudbury regional police constable. He was originally incarcerated under maximum security at Kingston Penitentiary. About three years after that, in 1999, he was transferred to Joyceville, a medium security prison, despite serving only four and half years of his life sentence, and despite the fact that the sentencing judge at the time of sentencing recommended that he be kept in maximum security for his full 25 years, given his long record.

I fully recognize and respect that the commissioner cannot refer to any one particular inmate, so probably will not comment specifically on Suzack. However, for her information, when questioned in the House of Commons on November 21 of last year, the Solicitor General said, and I quote: “After they are placed in an institution, they are evaluated periodically and placed in the proper institution. That's what took place here.”

In other words, the Solicitor General said that when Clinton Suzack was in William Head, he was in the proper institution. Just a few short days after that, he was moved out of this proper institution into another that the Solicitor General would perhaps define as a proper institution.

That is where we differ. That is where I differ with the Solicitor General. Therefore, I ask the commissioner this. Just exactly how does the Correctional Service of Canada determine when to transfer an inmate incarcerated for first degree murder? In answering the question, can the commissioner tell us whether or not an offender's crime and record are taken into consideration? Is it reviewed, or is it simply that the review is what happens while the offender is in that institution?

Before the commissioner responds, I want to inform the committee that although Suzack was the catalyst for my motion being brought forward, subsequent to that the letters and calls have been huge. Some of the others who have been brought to name.... Initially we had asked for all of the listings of those first degree murderers--those lifers. But others who have been brought forward since that time who have been moved to medium security facilities are people such as Allan MacDonald, Robert Appleton, Jean-Marc Jacob, Ian Gordon, Antonio Lorenz, Michael Hector, and Albert Foulston.

¹ (1550)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you.

With regard to how CSC determines when the transfer of inmates should occur and how all of that operates, if you will, I'm going to answer first by dealing with the decisions for the first institutional placement.

Upon reception Corrections Canada must ensure that it has all relevant information for decision-making purposes. Relevant information means the official police record of the crime committed; an official transcript of the reasons for sentencing; any psychiatric report that came to light as a result of court proceedings; any pre-sentence report; and community assessments of those who have the most relevant, up-to-date information about this offender, including his family and volunteers and justice or social system type information, depending upon his lifestyle. There is a wealth of information, therefore, as it pertains to his past. All of this is captured, as Ms. Kelly tried to explain, in the questionnaire through the custody rating scale. It takes into account the offender's past. Then there is a first indication of where this person should be placed, whether maximum, medium, or minimum. That is past information.

But we must deal with the person in the present. We have an obligation to provide safety for all parties concerned, including the individual Canadian who has been sentenced. Therefore, we take into account any risk of self-mutilation or suicide and any potential for violence against other people. That is based on a clinical assessment based on our experience. We take all of that information and then we look at the needs of the offender and the static and dynamic control required by what is presented by the offender. That is one set of information.

We then see where the best placement is for this individual within the context of Corrections Canada according to today's infrastructure, where there are some programs in each institution. Then there is a determination of a first placement as guided by the principles of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There are certain things we must safeguard to the greatest extent possible, such as proximity to their community, because we know that when they are close to positive reinforcement it helps the offender to want to change and it has a positive effect on the ultimate goal of safely reintegrating the offender. So it's a complicated process that will lead to one statement of penitentiary placement.

In the case of sentences for first and second degree murder, I have decided that the best way to organize our interventions to recognize the seriousness of crime and the likelihood of reoffending and their programming capacity would be to place them in maximum security institutions for at least their first two years.

That, hopefully, will answer the first question.

The second question was with regard to what happens after the first two years. Independent of the first placement and of the sentence length, for every person incarcerated there is a review every four months to make sure that the correctional plan is being followed. If there is behaviour that would lead one to believe that a lessening of control or a more rigorous control is necessary, then we will take action. So it's every four months thereafter.

Is it only behaviour? No. It's also the motivation of an inmate. We are responsible for providing the best environment for the 13,000 people who are incarcerated today. So we have to organize it so that it's the best placement for the whole 13,000.

¹ (1555)

The length of sentence will come into play and the person's motivation, because we would rather deal, in minimum and medium security institutional settings, with those closer to the end of their sentences who are motivated to change and able to meet expectations than work on somebody to get their attention. Those people should be in maximum security.

So links to the outside, the potential for continuing the crime pattern inside the institution, the potential for violence, and actual behaviour are all factors to be taken into account for subsequent transfers.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I've given you quite a bit of latitude, but I think it's important to get the background basis for this discussion.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for being here. I also wish to thank my Canadian Alliance colleague for putting this motion forward. I think that it is a very interesting one. It involves something which was frankly almost unknown to me. These are obviously important issues. If they are important to me, I imagine they are also important to the public.

My questions have to do primarily with maximum security. I see that assessment is very, very intensive during the first two years. What are the internal movements? How do these inmates spend them? Are they immediately taken in charge by a Lifeline program or something similar, or does this happen much later?

I would like to know how this works, particularly during the first two years. You talk about reviews. Why might one know in advance that one was going from maximum to medium security after two years?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you.

I would first like to correct an impression I may have given committee members.

The result of the review after two years is not automatic. I cannot tell you the proportion at this time. I can give you an idea of the general length of stay in a maximum security facility for this sort of inmate. In recent years, the average length of stay has been almost 27 months. For some inmates, it is much longer. For others it is two years. I simply wanted to correct the impression I may have given that the automatic result was medium security after two years. That is not the case.

You ask me how this works. In 1991, the commissioner at the time asked that CSC look at what regime should be required for lifers who were looking at 25 or 15 years—25 years was the norm—because the person was completely baffled. They did not understand the impact of a 25-year sentence.

Since there were a number of suicides at the time, this was followed up. It led to the famous report by Jean-Claude Perron, from the Quebec region, who has a great deal of experience in corrections. In those days, the phrase “correctional career” was used in connection with those sentenced to 25 years. Nowadays, the term used is “regime”. We talk about the phases an individual must go through over a period of 25 years.

The first phase involves adjusting to the regime and to the fact of being isolated from the community. Inmates must learn how to face their family because, generally speaking, homicides in Canada are committed by people who know their victims. So there is a serious impact on the community.

What to do? What can the service do with respect to this concern? It is estimated that the adjustment phase generally lasts 0 to 18 months. So it was proposed that the service begin to develop a comprehensive strategy, a regime. This was done in the Quebec region's Regional Reception Centre, a small unit of some 20 inmates serving a life sentence and living in maximum security. It produced results, but was not done elsewhere in Canada. Now, in 2002, the plan is to extend this positive experience.

º (1600)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Could you tell me about inmate movements? What is the day like for an inmate in a maximum security institution?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I will give a general answer. Clearly, each establishment has adjusted its practices to meet its particular needs because, in a maximum security establishment, there are different types of population. For example, at the Donnaconna Institution, the population generally consists of people convicted of crimes related to organized crime, which requires segregation.

The primary concern driving the regime is the potential for violence of each individual with respect to others. It is very controlled.

Wake-up is between 6:30 and 7:30. There are two periods of programming, school and workshop. If individuals do not wish to participate, do not wish to conform, or are not motivated to conform, they remain in their cell. From 8:30 or 9 until 11:30, inmates take part in small-group activities under the control and supervision of correctional officers.

This is followed by lunch in small groups, or in larger groups as is the case in Kingston Penitentiary. Activities are resumed for the afternoon period between 1:30 and 4. There is a short period set aside for activities in the evening which, again, take place in small groups and under supervision. Inmates generally return to their cells for the night between 9:30 and 11.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Peter MacKay, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. McClung and Ms. Kelly, for being here.

We have very limited time, so I'll go right to my questions. I probably won't have time to get to them all, but I've broken them down into victims, guards, process, and penitentiaries.

With respect to victims, I want to get a feel from the commissioner as to how she would respond to the necessity for a victims ombudsman office that would coordinate with her own role. I raise that issue because I've heard directly and indirectly from a number of victims on issues of advance notice of earlier statutory release, and the lack of advance notice on when these transfers or release decisions are made. Similarly, concern has been expressed by victims on the lack of information available about the progress and participation convicted criminals might have undertaken after being incarcerated. So with regard to that, I'm wondering if your department has undertaken any policy decisions or whether you are even open to investigations when these breakdowns in information flow occur.

The second line of questioning deals with the guards working in the institutions, who are very much under your purview and integral to the system working. You mentioned in your opening remarks about the PIDS system. I'd like to hear more about that, in particular with reference to a decision I understand is pending regarding moving more toward the open condo or cottage-style of penitentiary, particularly in various regions including the Springhill institution, Archambault, Cowansville in Quebec, Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Collins Bay, and the Pacific region that includes the regional health care centre in British Columbia. I understand the decision is still pending with regard to moving toward this more open style of incarceration.

I also understand there's a current system in place that involves the use of a sophisticated type of scanner for determining whether an individual has drugs in their system upon entering an institution--the ion scanner. Is zero tolerance being enforced, as I believe you've indicated publicly? Are there any instructions that this is to be changed, or will there continue to be zero tolerance?

Similarly, I have reason to believe there is concern among guards, and it has had a profound effect on their morale. We travelled the country, as you know, some years ago and met with a number of guards. Some testified before our committee and some chose to approach us in the hall, not on the record. In particular, there was reference to investigations done on staff and investigations that extended beyond the prison walls, where their personal circumstances were being looked into. There was a similar concern that really disturbed me, wherein one individual had referenced the fact that inmates were sometimes used to entrap correctional officers on their conduct.

One last question pertaining to guards is whether a decision is pending on vests--special protective clothing some guards are requesting, particularly when handling dangerous prisoners who have exhibited violence toward guards or other prisoners in the past. Sadly, we know there have been instances of violence, and weapons are sometimes manufactured or slipped in.

I know I'm throwing a lot of questions at you. We have a short time. The last question deals specifically with whether there has been any further investigation done on what was publicly alluded to as a quota system. I want to give you an opportunity to address that situation here today.

º (1605)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you.

The type of information we give to victims is listed in the act. It includes the offender's name; the offence for which the offender was convicted and the court that convicted the offender; the date of commencement and length of sentence the person is serving; and eligibility dates or any review dates, as they pertain to temporary absence or parole.

We may disclose to the victim any of the following information about the offender where in the commissioner's opinion it makes sense: the offender's age; the location of the penitentiary where the sentence is being served; the date to be released on temporary absence, work release, parole, or statutory release; the date of any hearing for purposes of review under another section; the conditions attached to accessing the community and the destination of the offender; whether the offender's in custody, and if not, the reason why the offender is not in custody.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Commissioner, I know the conditions, but whether they are provided to the victim in advance of a decision being made is the concern I have had expressed to me--whether these decisions are made and whether they are publicly or privately communicated to the victim in advance of the decision being taken.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Peter MacKay: If they get it after the fact, yes.

I have had one instance related to me involving a victim whose father had committed a murder of their mother, where the decision was made to release the individual. He was released and showed up on the daughter's doorstep prior to any communication being made to her.

º (1610)

Ms. Lucie McClung: The essence of the legislation--first of all, I read it because I didn't want to suggest that you didn't know the act, or what was in it--is that we give a very specific type of information and nothing else, because the progress the offender has made is not in there. We are bound to give very specific information, but the essence of the legislation is that the victim will know before the person shows up; it doesn't make sense otherwise.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's the intention, but it's not legislated. There's nothing in there that says “timely”.

Ms. Lucie McClung: No, but it's the intention of our policy. It's the intention of the service to implement the intention of the legislation and our policy.

The Chair: There is a long list of questions, and I want to get to all of the answers. I would recommend that we try to minimize the dialogue.

Ms. Lucie McClung: I'm sorry.

Every time there is a breach in policy, we investigate here in national headquarters, and especially Anne Kelly. We have a national headquarters to investigate any breach of policy, and it is taken extremely seriously.

With respect to guards, I would like to first say that we don't have any guards within federal corrections--they are correctional officers. There is a difference in culture, and there is a difference in expectations.

With respect to the PIDS, I am not able to provide a technical briefing on it, but it is a sophisticated system that would announce when there is an intrusion so that we may take action. There are human measures to be taken when the PIDS system goes off. Perimeter and correctional officers will act accordingly, and we have contingency plans, etc., including, sometimes, outside police forces.

The decisions with respect to future construction or expansion--and you referred to Springhill, Archambault, Cowansville, and the Saskatchewan penitentiary, and there are a number of others--will be reviewed within the context of operating regimes. I believe, and I know by experience and by analysing other correctional jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, Hong Kong, that for maximum security inmates--those who have more of the potential for violence--it is much better from a corrections perspective, and from a security and assistance perspective therefore, to break down the population into manageable chunks. I am not satisfied that this is done.

I do not agree that in a maximum security institution there should be, at one time, 200 offenders in the yard, for instance, because correctional officers have difficulty in going into the yard. They say, well, it's 200 against two, potentially; it is too dangerous. So we are breaking down our institutions according to regimes into manageable chunks, a set of expectations based on the ability of the offender to respect the rules. I think that will offer us a new platform for corrections and also will make sure that correctional officers are equipped and feel safe in doing their job. If nobody feels safe, the job of integration and transforming lives cannot be done.

Zero tolerance for drugs, yes, absolutely: I reinforce that all the time. Zero tolerance means every time we suspect, or every time we see, either drugs or a person who is intoxicated, we must take action, after assessment. My expectation is the staff will take appropriate action.

Mr. Peter MacKay: There's no decision that you're planning to change that zero tolerance?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Absolutely not; it is the opposite.

Investigations on staff members' personal circumstances--how they behave in their personal life--will only come into play when there is an impact on their ability to perform and respond to the expectations within the service.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So it's off-site surveillance in those circumstances.

The Chair: Peter, you only have seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's not a lot of time, given the importance of the subject matter, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I agree, but everybody has the same access to time. They have access to more time.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Investigations into potential criminal activity will not be conducted by the service, but will be put in the hands of those responsible, and that means the police forces. There is an expectation between the police forces and Corrections Canada that there will be sharing of information as the police manage their investigation, in due consideration of their due process.

To use inmates to entrap correctional officers is wrong. We are in control of the correctional environments. If we need to have inmates tell us what's happening in our institutions, we have a problem in that institution.

There is a decision pending with respect to vests, with respect to the equipment. All security equipment for correctional officers is reviewed on an annual basis. I have met with the new Union of Correctional Officers, UCCO-SACC, on two separate occasions, and they have not raised this specifically with me. However, I am aware that there is discussion among their group. As a matter of fact, there will be conversations during the month of February or March when there will be a review of security equipment for correctional officers, and they are aware of that. So it may be just a question of timing.

Quota systems, absolutely not. It is wrong, and it is shameful to suggest that we have a quota system when it comes to the security of citizens in Canada.

º (1615)

The Chair: Mr. Myers, for seven minutes.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo--Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I wanted to thank the witnesses for appearing. This is a very important topic, and certainly this committee is well served by having you here today.

When I've been in correctional facilities, talking to either correctional service personnel or correctional officers, I've been struck by the number of times they've mentioned that other countries visit Canada to see what we are doing. I got the sense, quite frankly, that in many cases, they emulate what we're doing and the kinds of work we're engaged in and such.

I wondered, Ms. McClung, if you could elaborate on that a bit. Tell us, first of all, about countries that have come to Canada--outside of the Americans, of course--and other thoughts you have with respect to how we compare to what other countries are doing in this important area. Frankly, it was something I hadn't thought about before I was in a position to ask some of those questions. I think it's very important and enlightening for the committee to hear that.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you.

We are under the gun to respond to the number of requests we have from other jurisdictions. Most recently, the Caribbean has shown an interest, most specifically Jamaica, Barbados, and St. Lucia. Right now, one could say the Caribbean is unfortunately placed when it comes to organized crime and drug trafficking in the wider world, because they're the ports. They are reviewing their police policies, making sure they have the network of intelligence. They are, indeed, receiving and giving out the information that is required for control of crime.

As soon as you start talking about controlling crime, you are also inevitably talking about your correctional system, and they are turning to Canada for both, to give them advice on the handling of crime, police forces, networks, sophistication of intelligence networking. At the same time, they are turning to us to say, “Once we capture these people, what do we do for them for the betterment of our society?” They recognize that the criminal justice system is a pillar for the economic and social development of their countries.

I would like to answer your question about the subject precisely at hand here, the handling of life sentences. Often times, we view ourselves as very soft, and I would just like to give you information on a comparative basis.

There is a study conducted by the National Parole Board on repeat homicide offences committed by offenders under community supervision. That basically covers 24 years, from 1975 to 1999. Of all those persons convicted of a homicide offence, how do we handle them compared to other jurisdictions?

As compared to other jurisdictions in Canada, first-degree murder offenders serve, on average, about 28.4 years prior to release. So when I say consideration for release at 25 years, and possibly 15 years after judicial review, in fact, on average they serve 28.4 years prior to release. Comparative international data states that first-degree murder offenders are eligible for consideration for release after 9.5 years in prison, and serve about 14.3 years prior to release. So it's 28.4 versus, if you wish, 14.3 years of incarceration prior to release.

º (1620)

Mr. Lynn Myers: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could have that tabled. It's important information. I'd be interested in seeing that document.

Thanks very much.

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, for three minutes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, I have a couple of things.

First of all, I listened with interest to the commissioner's response, and I have, previous to today, read the commissioner's directive on the classification of institutions.

In regard to the medium-level institutions, the directive reads--and I want to quote from that publication: “contain those inmates who pose a risk to the safety of the community in an environment which promotes and tests responsible, socially acceptable behaviour through moderately restricted freedom of movement, association and privileges”.

What this directive does not say is that some medium penitentiaries--and I refer specifically to Mission, where Clinton Suzack currently is incarcerated, are.... I'll quote what it said in the institutional profile for Mission, which was pulled off the website; it's no longer on there. It said: “Mission Institution concentrates on release preparation, and is a major feeder institution for minimum security and day parole centres”.

My question specifically is why would a first degree murderer, who has still to serve approximately 19 or 20 years of a life sentence, be in a facility that is known as a preparatory facility for early release?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Let me try to answer this question.

We have, I think, 11,000 offenders incarcerated. We have, when you count all of the cells, about 11,000 cells. The tricky part is to match each person to the correct cell, if you want. We have about 15% capacity in maximum security; about 65% in medium security; and a further 15%--if that matches to 100%--in minimum security settings right now. That's our global distribution.

People in a maximum security institution should be those we cannot legitimately manage in a moderately restrictive environment at the medium security level. That's my answer. I could go into more precision, but we must remind ourselves that the cost of incarcerating somebody at the maximum security level is $30,000 more than in a medium security institution.

The Chair: Monsieur Bonin, for three minutes.

We'll be back, I'm sure.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have been very critical of Correctional Service Canada, as is known, but in all fairness I will say publicly that you are subject to legislation and you are following that. So my criticism is not all to you, although there is some.

You explained the system, and you did say that when there are infractions or errors committed, Ms. Kelly, I think, is responsible for reviewing, and the review is done internally.

I have two questions. First, who are you, as commissioner, accountable to?

Secondly, do you know of any instances where victims who were challenging Correctional Service Canada have been obliged to keep quiet after a cash settlement, which means that when an MP initiates research and does a lot of work on it, they all of a sudden lose the person who has asked them to inquire into the complaint, because they can no longer speak about the case? As an MP who has lived that, it's unfair to me, to start with. It's unfair to the community. And it's unfair, if it's a cash payment to a victim, to buy off victims.

So who are you accountable to, and do you know of instances when victims were muzzled by cash?

º (1625)

Ms. Lucie McClung: I'm accountable to the Solicitor General. The settlements are managed in part by, or in cooperation with, or under the advice of the Department of Justice, I believe as a matter of course, but I really would need to check it out, because it's not my policy. There is a non-disclosure clause on the results of settlements managed through the Department of Justice. It is not under my authority or my policy area.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, and I accept this. I understand it's the Department of Justice that does it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now it's Monsieur Lanctôt for three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you. I will ask all my questions in a block so that you have the time to answer each of them.

I would like to know, if possible, the ratio of correctional officers to inmates. You speak of small groups. I think that it would be important to know that.

I would like to know whether there are still cases of inmates being kept in isolation for a period of time because of behaviour or whatever. Perhaps you could give me examples. I would also like to know who decides to put an inmate in isolation. Management, or the correctional officer? I would also like to know how long isolation can last. Are there set norms or limits?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I do not have the ratio with me. I can give you approximate figures, but that is all they would be because, depending on the level of security, it is complicated. I would prefer to forward the information to you as soon as possible, if that is fine with you.

You mentioned segregation. There are two kinds of segregation: preventive and disciplinary. For certain serious disciplinary incidents, there is a process akin to a court proceeding. There is an independent tribunal generally consisting of lawyers who come to hear the case. They examine the inmate's behaviour and, depending on the guidelines, they can hand down a sentence of preventive segregation, which is incarceration in a designated location in each establishment and which is governed by a whole system and described in the act.

It is therefore very rigid as a system. Furthermore, this is one of the concerns of our staff. There is a whole 48-hour process. There are things that must be done. Inmates must be told why they are there. They must be informed of the recourse available to them if they wish to question preventive segregation, which is segregration for 23 hours, with a specific time set aside for a shower and time for exercise.

It is quite a system. First, there is the initial 30-day period. After that, there is a review within the institution. After 60 days, there is a review by region and by headquarters. It is very rigid because preventive segregation affects an individual's psychological dynamic. So, yes, there is preventive segregation in our institutions.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Is there disciplinary segregation as well?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes. It is either for a disciplinary reason, in which case it is for a set period or time, or for a preventive reason. For example, we have information that a person is plotting to attack someone. This would be preventive segregation, which lasts until an investigation has been held and more rigorous or long-term measures can be taken.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Now to Mr. Maloney for three minutes.

º (1630)

Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.): Could you explain for me the LifeLine program? Is it available in all parts of Canada, and has there been any evaluation of its effectiveness?

Ms. Lucie McClung: There has been a review, not an evaluation in the pure sense, of LifeLine. LifeLine is a program designating lifers who are successful--who have successfully integrated into the community for a period of up to five years without any breaches--who are role models, if you want, for other offenders. They give them hope and also wake them up if they are not concentrating on the right things. It's a structure of individuals managed by a non-governmental organization. For the life of me I can't remember the name, but it's out of Kingston. John Braithwaite is involved in the Vancouver region.

It's showing great promise, so much so that after a review the government has allocated specific funds to see the program expanded. Offenders tend to be very hard toward other offenders and speak to them about issues in a way that is sometimes better understood than it would have been through citizens or staff. They may motivate the offender to do the right thing through their conversations. That is LifeLine.

Mr. John Maloney: Is it in just two areas of Canada?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Oh, no. It's across Canada right now.

Mr. John Maloney: What are the costs of this program?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I believe that $1.2 million of new funds were injected into this program for coordination purposes and to pay the volunteers, basically citizens, who are involved in this program.

Mr. John Maloney: You have done a review and it seems to be working well. Could you elaborate on that?

Ms. Lucie McClung: It's working well because it reduces the number of violent incidents, either self-mutilation or violence against other offenders.

Mr. John Maloney: That's while they're within prison, but what about--

Ms. Lucie McClung: Outside the institution it's as if somebody were holding their hand, somebody who has dealt with what it means to be reintroduced into the community after 28 years of incarceration. They are frightened to be among a group. They don't understand the fast pace of life on the outside. They don't understand smart cards, and they don't know how to access a bank or to get a car. They don't know how to deal with their wives. It provides an opportunity for them to talk to a tried-and-true friend who has dealt with all of these issues and is able to give advice.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney. Your time has expired.

Mr. MacKay.

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

I'd like to take up one point that came up during your last round of questioning with me. You stated emphatically that no quota system exists, and I take it that you maintain that one never existed. I want to put on the record--and I'm sure you're aware of this--that internal memos were leaked. One is from Bowden Institution in Calgary dated March 1998 and it states: “The government under our present Solicitor General, Andy Scott, has indicated that by the year 2000 he would like to see 50% on our inmates in the institutions and 50% of our inmates in the community.” It goes on to say: “Some of those cases that we release from here may go wrong, but the warden said he will stand behind us.”

In a further publication from CSC itself entitled Let's Talk, the commissioner writes, “To reach the 50-50 split by the year 2000 will be a professional challenge, but it is not unattainable.” It goes on to indicate in a follow-up memo: “The commissioner states that a 50-50 split is our working hypothesis based on the best information we have. It is not an arbitrary or artificial target.”

There are other references in a memo from Brendan Reynolds, where he talks about a reintegration agenda, less than satisfactory results, and individual accountability, which has a bit of a threatening tone.

So this is not something that was politically motivated or made up. These were actual documents that came from CSC.

I want to ask you a question about the two-year minimum incarceration period after sentencing. You stated that there were some limited exceptions. I wonder if you could expand on that and also tell us what effect the original sentence recommendation from the judge and a victim's impact statement might have on that decision as to whether it would be an exception to the two-year minimum.

º (1635)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Because we can't predict all of the circumstances affecting an individual, we have purposefully not described the exceptions. This particular case involved a person who was 18 years old. We have obligations and settings that must be respected. So those are exceptions.

There is a separate process, which goes outside of the purview of decision-making, that comes to the national headquarters upon the recommendation of the deputy commissioner of the region. So it's out of the hands of the case managers who normally would make a recommendation and process the case on a regular basis.

So exceptions are exceptions, and due consideration will be given to each of the factors, including victim impact statements, the reasons for sentencing, and the police report. But in these exceptional cases there is one element that stands out and must be taken into account.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: “The commissioner states a 50/50 split is our working hypothesis based on the best information we have. It is not an arbitrary or artificial target.” Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is an ongoing debate about numerical quotas. Corrections Canada insists there aren't any, and the Joe Mac Committee insists there are.

The evidence they are submitting is in this document, which contains information gained through access to information from Corrections Canada. If you would allow, I will give you my copy, hoping you would have it translated and distributed to members of the committee. I should mention that the period covered in this report is 1998 to 2000. Maybe things changed in 2001. So in all fairness I should note that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The document will be tabled with the committee and it will be translated and made available to members of the committee.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I'd appreciate that.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask a question to the commissioner with respect to young persons serving federal time in provincial institutions. Obviously, the case would be somebody serving a federal murder sentence as a young offender and being incarcerated provincially until they turn a certain age. How much control or oversight does the CSC have over the management of that sentence, as opposed to when we're dealing with ETAs and temporary absences as far as the timeline of their sentence plan is concerned?

Actually, this flows out of a question, Commissioner, that I asked last May 9 to you. I gave it to you in writing, and unfortunately I haven't had a response yet. Maybe I'll give you my letter again at the end of this. But how much oversight do you have over the provincial institutions to make sure those sentences are managed properly?

Ms. Lucie McClung: None.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: None.

Ms. Lucie McClung: We have absolutely no oversight. However, the Province of British Columbia has approached us, and there have been conversations, because they have asked our advice on how to structure and manage their regime so the situation to which you refer does not occur any more.

º (1640)

Mr. Chuck Cadman: So what you're saying is that.... I mean, there are specific guidelines set out in the sentence plan as to when a person is eligible for escorted or non-escorted absences. Do those have to be adhered to by the provinces, or is it up to them to make their decision on their own, even though it's a federal sentence?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I don't know the particulars of this case. When a young offender is under the Young Offenders Act, if it's transferable to adult court, then it would be...if at the age of 18 they're transferred to the federal institution, then I take over jurisdiction. If they're under provincial jurisdiction, then it's the provinces that manage their sentences.

But because in the province of British Columbia they have noticed there is a definite incongruence between the regimes in terms of release and access to the community, where we are much more, dare I say, rigorous, and there are many more delays in our system, they are asking themselves the very fundamental policy questions. But the jurisdictions are absolutely separate.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I guess I'm having some difficulty here considering that it's a young person doing adult time, serving an adult sentence, yet they're still covered.... I mean, a person could be up on an unescorted absence after two months, and it's seven years before parole eligibility.

Ms. Lucie McClung: It's my understanding, sir, that they are changing their system.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Lucie McClung: They're proposing changes, I know that. I don't know what level the decision is at in the provincial jurisdiction.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: If we incarcerate individuals close to their family for support reasons, what is the situation with inmates from the far north? And can you give me some indication of what proportion of people in our facilities are of aboriginal ancestry?

Then moving to another tack, dangerous offenders, are they simply warehoused, or are there programs for them? Are there instances when dangerous offenders have in fact been released? Under what circumstances would that happen?

Ms. Lucie McClung: The proximity of the community is respected, pretty much to the extent possible. We had a major problem with women offenders, of course, because they were all incarcerated in one institution until a few years ago. We now have more centres across Canada, so we're getting them closer to their positive support communities.

In terms of the Inuit, in particular, they are being temporarily housed now in Fenbrook Institution in the Muskokas, so they're in Ontario. The Government of Nunavut and Corrections Canada are having conversations to provide for a better regime up north, because they are finding out that for the Inuit to be in Ontario is particularly distressing, not only in terms of proximity to their families but just the weather--the fact they are unable to operate within their own culture. So they are having an extremely difficult time adapting.

So we are in conversation with the government to propose new regimes through the exchange of services agreement between the provincial and federal governments.

Do we simply warehouse dangerous offenders? No, sir, we don't. Most often they present psychiatric profiles, so there are psychiatric services available to them, mostly one-on-one counselling. When they are able to understand better--once they have put some order in their own heads, if you wish--they are put into more systematic group programs, such as cognitive skills, on how to control and prevent their anger and violence.

Right now we have 290 dangerous offenders under federal jurisdiction, and 10 of them are on conditional release. So some do make it out into the community, but under an intensive supervision regime because of their potential to basically disintegrate, psychiatrically speaking.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Maloney. I hate to cut you off, again.

Mr. John Maloney: One question wasn't answered. What's the rate of your aboriginal population?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We have 17% to 18% representation of aboriginal offenders in our institutions.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Lanctôt is next for three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know, if possible, the statistics on murders, suicides and mutilations. Do these things take place at the beginning of incarceration or later on during detention?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I am able to answer, Mr. Chairman, but I admit that I was only prepared to do so for those serving life sentences. However, I have the statistics and I will answer. If my answer is incomplete, I would like you to say so, so that I can give more details.

With respect to violent incidents within our institutions—May I answer in English? The chart is in English.

[English]

For major violent incidents, including assaults, murder, attempted murder of inmates, hostage taking, suicides, major assaults on staff, major assaults on inmates, and major fights between inmates that would lead to incapacitation, the rate per 1,000 inmates in 2001-2002 so far is 4.7, which is the lowest since 1992-1993, which is the chart I happen to have brought with me.

In terms of suicides, eleven this year. We believed that suicides tended to occur within the first few months of incarceration because of the period of adaptation. It is not the case, however. There have been suicides of people released on conditional release. So we must insist that staff be vigilant at all times throughout the sentence, because our experience is not that it is only limited to the first period of incarceration, contrary to what we had believed previously, through research.

º (1645)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Are you going to pursue that research or create a program to try—?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We have suicide prevention because, when we compare ourselves to others, there are more suicides in Canada than in other federal systems. We have always studied the issue, but we have never been able to find the reason for it, since our security is dynamic and our intervention system is based on the interrelationship between persons.

Despite all the research, every two years we systematically review where we are at with the situation and with the research, which could help us out. We have not really found a reason or a program beyond those we have in the service.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Are investigations done? Are there papers? Often, people who commit suicide leave notes before taking their life. Are you working—?

Ms. Lucie McClung: There is an investigation by the psychologist or the psychiatrist, depending on the case, after each suicide. There are investigations for each situation and then an analysis of the investigations is done to see whether something systematic could be put in place.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Are things getting worse?

Ms. Lucie McClung: The situation is stable.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Stable. Okay.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. John McKay.

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

One of the controversial issues is the release of sexual offenders into the community, particularly those who have been convicted of sexual offences against children. With respect to your temporary absence programs and any other release programs you have, what special preparations do you have, if any, with respect to the release of these kinds of offenders into the community? Are those preparations any different from the release of any other kind of offender? Is there any special community notification of release of these people, particularly pedophiles, into a community?

The second question is with respect to your designation of dangerous offenders. I think you said you had 209 or 290; I can't recall. What percentage of that designation of dangerous offenders are sexual offenders, particularly those against children?

A sub-question of that is on the designation of long-term offenders. How many long-term offenders do you have? Similarly, what is the percentage of those who are convicted of sexual offences and particularly sexual offences against children?

Ms. Lucie McClung: In terms of our release programs under the jurisdiction of the service, access to the community on temporary absence or work releases, ranging from a couple of hours up to 120 days in any given year, is about 98% successful. I can't tell you because I don't have the stats here, but I have that back in my office and if you wish, I will give them to the chair for distribution. What is the proportion specifically of success as it pertains to commission of offence or respect of conditions for these releasing programs for sexual offenders? I will give it to you, but I suspect that it's at least 98%.

Is there any special preparation for all offenders? There will be conditions set to safeguard the success of the temporary absence. In the case of the sexual offender, the sexual offender must have demonstrated that he or she is able to access the community in such a way that it will not lead to any reoffending. In the case of sexual offenders, they necessarily have to have a proven treatment program that leads to results, an accredited program, a viable and professional program. They have to successfully complete that program. We know that with sexual offenders, in particular pedophiles, the tendencies are very real. So we need to make sure that the treatment program has been successful. Then the first time they access the community would be under close supervision.

As to questions directly related to outcomes from dangerous offenders, again, Mr. Chair, I must apologize. I got ready to address questions specifically pertaining to the administration of the regime for lifers. I will get that information to you, sir.

º (1650)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McKay.

It's understood that the expectation was that it was around life sentences.

Peter MacKay.

Mr. John McKay: We do have life sentences for dangerous offenders--it's indeterminate sentence.

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

Ms. McClung, I want to ask another question on this general rule you referred to about the two-year time of incarceration before this cascading or option to go to another institution occurs. Where does that two-year decision come from? Who makes that decision? Why has that particular rate of time been chosen? And when that two-year period has been reached, is the full range of options available as to the next institution? For example, could a person potentially go from a maximum to a minimum institution after that two-year period?

One further question in that regard is what happens when an inmate requests to max out their sentence--that is, to serve their full sentence? The most highly reported case that comes to mind, although it wasn't requested for the full sentence, was Karla Homolka, where she suggested she didn't want to be eligible for release. What happens when that occurs? I suspect it's a rather unique situation when an inmate asks not to be released.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chairman, this two-year timeframe was determined by me, through my executive committee. Let me explain my reason behind that.

When I first joined the service, way back in 1980, there were guidelines. Prior to the CCRA, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, there were guidelines offered to corrections staff for the first penitentiary placement of these people. The guidelines were around 18 months to two and a half years. So two years seemed to be, just like a return to the past, the best of our experience so far. That explains the two years.

After two years, will the full range of options be available for decision-making purposes? In theory, yes. It would be extremely surprising to me--and I would like to know about it before the decision is made--if indeed somebody believes this person should go from maximum security to minimum security, with the view that this person has 23 years to serve. I would need to satisfy myself that this was indeed the best way to go about it, because I have preoccupations. How do we hold the person dynamically without any static measures for 23 years when they know and see their peers, if I can put it this way, go out virtually, sometimes, on a daily basis? That's how it would be characterized to me. So we would need to have a full discussion of the situation. It would be extremely surprising to me, and I would like to know about it.

Every policy in corrections must be monitored for results. So I fully expect national headquarters, the service through Ms. Kelly, to assess whether or not this policy makes sense from a corrections perspective.

So what happens after two years? What is the average stay? Where do they go? Does it make sense? And if there is something in the environment or in the results that shows us that we must adjust our policy, we will take it under advisement.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's new, since your tenure--

º (1655)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: --this two-year period?

Ms. Lucie McClung: February 2001.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And it's not, I take it from your remarks, automatic? That's sort of the rule of thumb, if I can use that phrase?

Ms. Lucie McClung: That's right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Correctional Service Canada is responsible for supervising offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. Do you supervise them to the same degree as you would someone with a lesser sentence? Are there any special programs or systems of checking in that you do that perhaps don't apply to others?

Ms. Lucie McClung: You raise a very important aspect of supervision and one we must be vigilant in keeping in mind. When you supervise somebody who was twenty years old when he committed an incident and who has, let's say, been successful in his judicial review and is released on parole after 18 years, he is now 38 years old and must be supervised until his death.

Correctional staff, parole officers in the community, in the first few years will be very vigilant, and then they tend to enter into a relationship and to expect that the person in his twentieth year of supervision will be the same model citizen, if you will, as in the fifth year of supervision. That's where there is the risk of lessening their vigilance.

A few years ago there was an instance when that happened. We had lost track of people convicted of murder who had been released for a long period. We noticed that people were putting in to the National Parole Board provisions for a “five-two” regime, a lessening of supervision.

There was a correction made to the policy such that, no, there is no lessening of supervision. You must check in according to the conditions of supervision, the same way as a person having a lesser sentence. There was a tightening up of the supervision, so that staff are vigilant for the full period of supervision. Are there programs? Yes, there are programs, but mainly accompaniment-type programs, because usually these people are successful in the community. They have jobs. They don't get into contact with the police. But we must ensure that remains the case. That's where programs such as LifeLine come into play.

Thank you.

The Chair: I think LifeLine is the St. Leonard Society.

Mr. Sorenson, you have three minutes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Just for clarification, I received a letter from you December 19 in which you gave me a chart of total numbers of indeterminates by security level, yet maybe I misunderstood your initial comments when you said the number of those incarcerated in maximum security institutions was approximately 1,900. Is that correct? But it says here that in maximum security institutions it's 557, in medium it's 1,557, in minimum 519, and it goes on. That's the first question.

Secondly, when Clinton Suzack was on conditional release--he had been paroled out when he killed Constable Joe MacDonald--it cost the parole officer a job. The parole officer was let go, according to the information we had. If Mr. Suzack had walked away from William Head, and if he had reoffended, who would have been liable? Who would have been answerable in a corrections system that might take someone with a life sentence and move him to what's been commonly referred to as the Club Med of penitentiaries? Who would be responsible for that?

The third quick question is this. In your preamble, or your initial remarks, you said for first degree murder they would receive at least two years in a maximum security penitentiary, but there is a provision for exceptions. How many times have exceptions been made?

My fourth quick question: when you refer to periodical periodical reassessment every four months--I think Ms. Kelly referred to every four months being the periodical reassessment--how much does it cost? How large a review is it?

» (1700)

The Chair: Excuse me. Just before the commissioner answers--and I think notice has been taken of all the questions--in specific cases there's a limitation on how much officials can say.

The reason I point this out is that it would be impossible for the commissioner, if a point was made that was inaccurate--and I'm not saying an inaccurate point was made, because I don't have any idea--it's very important for everybody to understand that if a point is made and the only way for the commissioner to respond is to bring to the attention of the committee the inaccuracy of the point, that might reveal information the commissioner is not allowed to reveal.

So I'm placing on the record the fact that the commissioner's not responding to a statement of fact does not necessarily suggest the statement of fact is accurate. I think it's critically important that we establish that, because ultimately there's a limitation on what the commissioner can say. I or any member of the committee could say something as a statement of fact that they couldn't rebut, and it might be left hanging.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Which statement are you referring to?

The Chair: None in particular.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Oh, okay.

The Chair: To the commissioner.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, the question related to a difference in facts. In my statement the 1,900 referred to the total offender population, not to offenders convicted of first and second degree murder. My point in my opening statement was that we are talking about...in the next two years, about 4% of our population. The point I was trying to make is that we need to ensure we have a system that can respond to the full range of programming and security needs of all offenders incarcerated.

For the record, there are 640 people incarcerated for life sentences in a maximum security institution, 1,570 in a medium security setting, and 600 in a minimum security setting. The statistics in my opening statement referred to the total of individuals sitting in our institutions. There is consistency, therefore, between the chart and those numbers I've just shown you.

The second question was on who is ultimately responsible for the commission of crime in the country. It's the person who committed the crime. I often find we forget this. My staff and I are not responsible for the commission of crimes by other people. We are responsible for defining and then setting before you, proposing to you, the best of our knowledge and for making sure we implement this on a daily basis. Our staff, however, are absolutely responsible and accountable in performing their duties accordingly. When they do not perform their duties accordingly, there must be accountability.

How much do periodic reviews cost and what do they entail? It means a multi-disciplinary team of people who act directly on the correctional plan of each inmate--including the correctional officers, the parole officer in the institution, the psychologist, volunteers--everyone who has contact with the offender--meet periodically, at least every four months, to make sure the correctional plan is on track. The correctional plan is a series of expectations designed to transform the offender into a law-abiding citizen. It is absolutely imperative that it be well-handled and monitored.

As for your question on the exception, there has been one. It's basically the answer I gave to honourable member Peter MacKay. One person was incarcerated with a life sentence for first or second degree murder--I don't know which right now--who was a young offender, an 18-year-old. Special consideration was made for that person.

The Chair: Monsieur Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the same issue, it's public knowledge that the rule of thumb is two years with few exceptions. A first offender for first degree murder who receives a life sentence benefits from this two-year rule of thumb, and so does a person on parole who executes a police officer because he would do anything not to return to prison to serve the balance of his previous sentence. This is what I have a hard time selling to the people I represent. Those two individuals benefit from the same privileges of the system, and this is what most of the people who are so adamantly against the system are concerned about.

The few who are animals, because they have chosen the life of an animal, benefit from the same laws, the same privileges, and the same breaks as the first offenders. That's my problem.

» (1705)

Ms. Lucie McClung: The way I would answer the question, sir, is that in front of the court the taking of a life, independently of the person or the characteristic of the person, is important. For each family who would suffer the loss of their own because of a murder it is significant, regardless of who that person is, because there's a life sentence and the court and the criminal justice system in Canada, which reflect the values of this country, have deemed that a life sentence is warranted for all situations.

That being the case, once within the correctional system there will be consideration of the factors that are inherently intrinsic to the commission of the crime.

In the same way that a sexual assault in this country sometimes leads to sentences of five years or sentences of four months, the conditions of sentencing and the conditions of incarceration will be distinct. And in my experience, for those people who present different facets in the commission of their crime, that aspect is taken into account.

So after two years, or when we get close to the first two years, it will be interesting to see what happens to subsequent placements or what happens to the continuance of the placement in maximum security institutions with respect to the types or facets of the crime.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, we have twenty minutes left.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I am going to talk to you about figures again. I would like to know how many inmates serving life sentences will remain or be in maximum security institutions their whole life.

How many such inmates do you have, and what is the profile of this kind of inmate?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I have here the number of inmates sentenced for first and second degree murder who are in maximum security institutions. Right now, there are 640 of them, compared to approximately 1,570 in medium security institutions and 600 in minimum security institutions. I also have the figures for those on parole.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But it is not known how many of these 640 inmates are there after 25 years and are still being held in a maximum security institution.

Ms. Lucie McClung: I do not have the distribution of these 640, but I can tell you that the average incarceration time in a maximum security institution is 27 months. But I could give you more information.

» (1710)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Are there really some who are there for years, for their entire life?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, their entire life. I can think of some. In the special detention unit, there are individuals who have psychiatric problems making segregation practically essential. The profile is such that, despite their international reputation, psychiatric hospitals in Canada and the Province of Quebec cannot accept them. One person who is there will probably stay there until they die.

Yes, there are people whose incarceration in maximum, or super maximum, is excessively long because we cannot take chances with them.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: What percentage? Is it 1%? Is it less?

Ms. Lucie McClung: It is less than 1%.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: And my final question—

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before taking decisions on the future of these cons, and we call them cons for a reason, I'm sure that you take into consideration the victims of the crimes committed. Do you?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We take into consideration the circumstances in which the crime has been committed, along with the victim impact statement that is read at the court, and the pre-sentencing report for the judge's consideration.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: In our communities we entrust the police officers to protect us. Do you consider, when you consider victims, that when a police officer is executed the community is a victim? Or do you only attach victimization to family members?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I think the crime affects the people who immediately surround the victim, and society as well, because crime is a societal problem. So I view it as a societal problem in addition to particular circumstances of individuals.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I accept what you say, and that's what leads me to believe that your employees have made serious errors. I'm not saying you, because if they had applied what you say, errors would have been prevented.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

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

Madam McClung, I have a question, and perhaps Ms. Kelly can answer this as well. When an offender commits an offence while on statutory or conditional release, I understand there's a process of investigation, but another option that's available is that of file review, which is not as extensive and inclusive as a full investigation. I'm aware of instances where there have been serious offences committed by persons on conditional release, one in particular where an individual was badly beaten by an offender on statutory release in the province of British Columbia.

Who makes the decision as to whether a full investigation occurs, and what goes into that? Why is there this difference, a full investigation versus file review? File review, I would suspect, is used sparingly in instances when the crime committed and the offender are viewed as less serious.

Ms. Lucie McClung: The question raised is under consideration within the service. First of all, we have a commissioner's directive that governs the process of investigations or reviews. The seriousness of the offence committed is part of our deliberations to determine whether I will sign the convening order, or whether it will be the regional deputy commissioner or the warden. So it's a local, regional, or national investigation. I am not satisfied that this is sufficient, so it's under review right now. When it's driven by national headquarters, it tends to be a more comprehensive review. I will not preclude the results of our internal policy review, but I suspect that there must be more clarity brought to the investigation process.

Part of the review will also focus on staff willingness to participate as full members of the national investigation process, where they say it's fine that you ask us to account for our behaviour, but we would also like you to ask us to account for recommendations for improvements. So we are looking to see if employees may be part of formal review processes.

I guess, Mr. MacKay, there have been instances in the past where national investigations would have been warranted, but the decision was taken not to do so. We are reviewing the process to instill more rigour into the decision-making process.

» (1715)

Mr. Peter MacKay: Would violence be the bottom line? When violence occurs, shouldn't there be a full investigation in every case?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We'll take it under advisement. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'd just like to follow generally what Mr. Bonin said in his line.

There have apparently been problems in the past with the parole board getting the proper information, the proper police reports, court reports, victims' impact statements, and such. I don't suggest where the problem is. Is it with you folks or is it with the provinces, or is there a communication problem? We know there have been problems in the past. Is that getting any better? Are you getting the information you need?

Ms. Lucie McClung: It's getting better, but I'm still not satisfied. There is no reason why in 2002 there is not a consistent commitment by all involved in the criminal justice system and in social systems to give us the information, not 700 pages of information, but a consensus of information. I think there is a better way, a more efficient way, to provide the bottom-line information that our parole officers need to make statements. They are absolutely overwhelmed with reams and reams of information.

During an investigation process, there is something in there on page 475 that should have been taken more into account, because we know what this person did three or four or seven or twenty years later. I don't think that's a fair system. I would like to see more tightening, more precise and clear direction about what needs to be taken into account for decision-making purposes by each organization.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Are you pursuing that with the provinces?

Ms. Lucie McClung: We are, sir, and it is difficult.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'll take that under advisement.

The Chair: I take it Mr. Cadman is finished.

We have time left. I'm going to go to Mr. MacKay, and then I'm going to come back to Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This is my last question.

Commissioner, I thank both you and Ms. Kelly for coming. I'm encouraged by signals coming from your department and your office on the approach towards victims.

I'll go back to a question I asked you in the first round. I wonder if you would be willing to go on record as stating whether you would be supportive of the creation of a victims' ombudsman to help coordinate efforts with your department and those concerns faced by victims.

Specifically, I was made aware of the fact that you had instituted or were looking at a pilot project involving victims being able to access information about offender treatment programs, the behaviour in prisons, and the concerns that victims have about release, all that information being made more accessible and more timely. Is that the case? Is there a project underway or about to be embarked upon, and would you favour a victims ombudsman office?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I am speaking outside my immediate jurisdiction as a person involved in the criminal justice system, because I don't know enough about it and I have not spent all of the systematic time with victims associations to be able to represent clearly a professional view. But allow me to speak as Lucie McClung, who happens to be, at the same time, Commissioner of Corrections.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Understood, and you're not making government policy here. But I'm interested in your perspective on this.

Ms. Lucie McClung: My view is that in the criminal justice system everybody needs to be recognized. Access to programs should be available to victims in the same way that they are available to offenders. I don't think it would serve Canada well to reduce the number of programs that are there for offenders, but rather to increase the level of service and programs available to victims. That would be my first statement.

My second statement would be that the more people are aware of the offender's progress--victims and the community where he or she will return--the more they are ready for that return, the better it would serve Canada.

One of my priorities specifically within my area of responsibility is outreach, because it's no use for Corrections Canada to do what it considers the best possible job without talking to the community. Having the community say, well, I don't know, because the picture I have of this offender is the worst individual ever.... We are dealing with the worst individuals. We are dealing with criminals, and we are dealing with people who needed to be separated. I think we need to recognize that. So I would prefer a situation where all the information is on the table, absolutely, because I think we have an obligation to respond to Canadians' expectations to be part of decisions that affect their lives, and the return of an offender among them is a decision that affects their lives. So I encourage and my strategic direction for the service is to start talking to Canadians, because they are the people we serve.

My third statement.... There was talk of a pilot to ask offenders, if they wanted to, to disclose more information than is provided by the law to victims. I'm all for it, because it goes with what I fundamentally believe in terms of values of the criminal justice system in Canada. My preoccupation, however--and that's why I and the executive committee stopped this pilot--is how will that be viewed?

We need to have a conversation so that it does not become a prerequisite, because the first question I will be asked, and of course should be asked, is that the offenders are calling the shots here, because it's based on the offender's willingness to give information. I think that's the wrong policy frame for this decision. I believe we need a policy that says these are the services, a more comprehensive and clearer set of expectations. These are the programs and services offered to victims and citizens in difficulty. It does not belong to the Solicitor General or the Commissioner of Corrections, but it's there. These are the services provided to offenders; what is the mediation and the relationship between both?

In the absence of that better policy frame, I am hesitant to go in uncharted waters, because I will not be able to respond to, well, this offender wants to, therefore good things happen, or this offender doesn't want to and therefore will not access parole.

» (1720)

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thanks for your honesty there at the end. I'm looking forward to the blues coming out tomorrow, the written record here, so I can study some of what you said, because I think some it is very good and helps us to understand a little more.

I don't so much have a question as I do have a statement. I really respect you as a commissioner and I respect some of things you want to do. But today's meeting confirms for me that our opinion regarding the objective of the penal system here in Canada differs greatly from that of the governing party and that also of the Correctional Service Canada officials.

In our party we believe that the first and the guiding principle of corrections should be the protection of society. One of the key foundations the protection of society is built on, in our opinion, is that of deterrence. Deterrence doesn't seem to be a very popular word with the governing party or with the Correctional Service, but we believe in having in place a significant sanction for committing a crime, and in the case of murder a penalty that not only deters others from committing the crime but also validates the life of the person whose life was taken.

On the case of Joe MacDonald and other police officers who have been killed in the line of duty, the time that Clinton Suzack has spent incarcerated in a maximum facility is not enough, simply not enough. I think the Canadian Police Association would say that, other police associations would say that, victims groups would say that. The public is saying that, and we're saying that.

It's quite apparent that it could be viewed as being enough if reintegration and rehabilitation is the guiding principle. If the foundational argument of a government is to reintegrate them, to get them back into society, then a lesser incarceration time would be sufficient. And it seems that's the primary goal of Corrections Canada.

Now you know, and we've talked about it today, and it's been brought up a number of occasions, that many people believe that CSC has set out to achieve this 50-50 quota. Although it is not a sign on the mantel or above the doorpost, it's in enough memoranda and it's in enough memos that although it may not be a formulated policy, it is a clear directive of corrections services.

Although I do realize that inmates who will eventually be released on our streets need programs, they do need to be rehabilitated, they need to be gradually released into the community. I do not accept that they should be moved into medium security facilities, that they should receive escorted temporary absences and be paroled within such a short period of time.

I think Mr. Cadman, in some of the testimony that he brought out, and in the case of the young offender we referred to.... We saw that someone who had been placed in a provincial institution after committing murder could be on an escorted temporary absence after two months.

So on this side of the table we do not accept that killers should be released before serving at least 25 years of their sentence. Although we differ, I appreciate your attendance and I appreciate you coming and voicing your responsibility as Commissioner of Corrections.

» (1725)

The Chair: Commissioner McClung, do you have any response?

Ms. Lucie McClung: I would like to respond by saying two things. One is that our overriding goal, our mandate--and it's not just one of our priorities, but it's actually what we do--is to contribute to the protection of society the same way and with the same rigour and gusto and pride as police officers. We take it extremely seriously. I take it extremely seriously, and I expect my staff to take it extremely seriously.

The best way we know to do this is by preparing offenders for release in as quick, swift, efficient, and appropriate a way as possible, because that's what research tells us. And Mr. Chair, were it not the case I would be remiss if I were not to point out to you research out there that shows that imprisonment in and of itself, punishment if you would like, serves that purpose. It is the opposite. Research everywhere, including in the United States, demonstrates that there is more crime as a result of imprisonment than there is as a result of our correctional system. That's what I would say.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, did you have a question?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have one very quick one.

Commissioner, this is something that just came to mind. I recall talking to a couple of wardens and hearing some of their complaints about the amount of their time that was being consumed in dealing with offenders who were challenging their transfers to other institutions. Is that still a problem, or is there some way that's being addressed? A number of wardens have brought that to my attention.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Yes, it is still a problem because of the number of venues, and among them judicial venues that are available to offenders. Sometimes it takes an incredible amount of time to demonstrate to others everything we do, and the documentation is especially a preoccupation.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Thank you all, members of the committee.

I believe this is the commissioner's first solo before the committee. I think Mr. Sorenson expressed it for all of us. We very much appreciate the candour and your being here today.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.