Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence for September 29, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:33 a.m. to study the Parole Board of Canada's User Fees Proposal, User Fees Act, S.C. 2004, c. 6, sbs. 4(2).
Senator John D. Wallace (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to my committee, colleagues and invited guests — whom I will be introducing shortly — and members of the public who will be viewing these proceedings on the CPAC network. I am Senator John Wallace from New Brunswick, and I am chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Colleagues, the matter that is before the committee today is our study and consideration of the most recent proposal of the Parole Board of Canada, PBC, to increase the user fee that it presently charges for processing each pardon application.
Briefly, and by way of background information to put this proposal in context, on June 29, 2010, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, the short title of which is Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, formerly known as Bill C-23A, came into force. This act amended provisions of the Criminal Records Act to place restrictions on applications for pardons in certain cases. Bill C-23A also added new criteria for the Parole Board of Canada to consider when determining whether or not a pardon should be granted for an indictable offence.
Before the amendments made by Bill C-23A, the Parole Board of Canada charged $50 for each pardon application. On June 22, 2010, during this committee's study of Bill C-23A, officials from the PCB informed the committee that the board planned to propose a fee increase for pardon applications under the User Fees Act following the enactment of the bill.
On September 27, 2010, a Parole Board of Canada user fee proposal was tabled in the Senate and referred to this committee. This proposal sought to increase the pardon application fee from $50 to $150 on an interim basis. The text of the proposal indicated that a new user fee proposal, taking into account the full costs of the more complex pardons approval process introduced by Bill C-23A, would be put forward by the board at a later date.
Last October, this committee heard testimony on the interim user fee increase proposal, and in its twelfth report this committee recommended that in accordance with section 5 of the User Fees Act, the Senate approve the proposed increase to the Parole Board of Canada's component of the pardon user fee. In anticipation of a request for a further increase in the pardon user fee, this committee encouraged the PBC to make the consultation process it undertakes prior to making such a request as comprehensive as possible.
In the current proposal to increase the pardon application user fee, which was referred to this committee on September 27, 2011, the Parole Board of Canada states that the current $150 user fee, which came into effect on December 29, 2010, does not cover the indirect costs of processing a pardon application nor does it address the additional requirements of Bill C-23A. As a result, the current proposal that has been referred to this committee for study is to increase the user fee from $150 to $631.
To discuss the current proposal in greater detail today, I am very pleased to welcome before this committee from the Parole Board of Canada, Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy, Planning and Operations; Denis Ladouceur, Director, Clemency and Pardons; and Anne Gagné, Chief Financial Officer.
Ms. Brisebois, I understand you have an opening statement.
Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy, Planning and Operations, Parole Board of Canada: Good morning and thank you for inviting us today.
Almost a year ago, Parole Board of Canada, PBC, representatives spoke to this committee on the proposal to increase the pardon user fee from $50 to $150. At last October's appearance, board witnesses gave historical background on the Criminal Records Act, CRA, and the pardons program. They also spoke to the operational pressures that caused the board to seek a fee increase for the first time in 15 years.
A new fee was introduced in December 2010 following a review by Parliament. As signalled to this committee at last year's appearance, the board is seeking a further increase.
This new request is due to significantly higher costs of administering the program since the modifications were made to the CRA. New legislative requirements have changed the way the program operates and the Parole Board of Canada must secure additional resources to fulfill its mandate. The increase will ensure the pardons program is sustainable, and stop the diversion of funds from the board's conditional release program.
In order to carry out the government's direction to seek full cost recovery for the pardons program, the PBC took steps over the last year to meet the requirements imposed by the User Fees Act. The results of this work are outlined in this proposal, which was tabled by the Minister of Public Safety.
Allow me to highlight a few key elements contained in proposal.
The Parole Board of Canada carried out a comprehensive costing analysis using methodology developed by Treasury Board and endorsed by the Office of the Auditor General. Based on these calculations, the cost to process a pardon application under the Criminal Records Act is now $631.
The higher fee takes into account a number of new factors, including the time required by board members to review and write decisions based on new criteria. The factors in statute require board members to measure the merits of each applicant and to consider public safety; the time required by staff to screen and investigate cases; the need for more highly qualified staff as well as training for board members and staff; the work involved to process the growing number of incomplete applications, due to the requirement for more detailed information from applicants; the need for increased communications with the public about the pardons program; and the increase in clemency requests, which require considerable time to analyze and investigate.
The cost estimates are based on the board receiving 25,000 applications per year, with an estimated acceptance rate of 60 per cent for processing. In addition to the costing analysis, the board undertook a cost-benefit review. The board recognizes that a fee of $631 represents a substantial change from the $50 fee charged only a year ago.
However the review demonstrated that the benefits of a pardon, even at this price, are significant to the recipient. Recipients often apply for a pardon to access employment, higher education and housing. A sound pardon system benefits recipients as well as Canadian society overall. Timely pardons support safe community reintegration and help to ensure that individuals can fully and productively participate in society. The benefits of the increase also clearly outweigh the alternative, which is growing backlogs and a much longer wait time for pardon applicants.
With respect to consultation, the User Fees Act requires that regulating authorities consult with users about proposed fee changes. The board undertook a number of initiatives as part of the consultation and complaints process, which took place earlier this year. The Parole Board of Canada held consultations in February with government partners, such as the RCMP, Public Safety Canada and Correctional Service Canada, CSC, as well as non- governmental organizations that work with potential pardon applicants. The board also held public consultations aimed at users, which was promoted in a number of ways. The PBC received assistance from the CSC to distribute and post notices of the consultation within institutions and parole offices. The board also sent notices to legal aid offices; public legal education and information organizations; the Association of Canadian Court Administrators; non- governmental organizations working directly with offenders, including the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, the National Association of Friendship Centres, among others; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; third-party service providers; provincial parole boards; heads of corrections; the National Joint Committee of Senior Criminal Justice Officials; and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as well as others.
The consultation was promoted on the Government of Canada's Consulting with Canadians website, as well as other government departmental websites, including Service Canada, Public Safety Canada and Correctional Service Canada. The board promoted the consultation as well through its toll-free pardon information line, which can receive up to several hundred calls a day. Notices of the consultation were included in pardon-related correspondence during the consultation period. This represented approximately 800 letters. The PBC received more than 1,000 responses from the public over the 18-day consultation period. Twelve respondents expressed support for the proposal while 1,074 did not support the increase.
The board responded to every individual and organization that participated in the consultation and the concerns that they raised. A consultation summary report was prepared and posted on line. This report has been included in the tabling package. Respondents were informed of their right to submit a formal complaint if they were not satisfied with the board's response. A total of 16 official complaints were submitted by participants.
As required under the User Fees Act, an independent advisory panel was formed to address complaints regarding the user fee increase. The panel included the chair of the Elizabeth Fry Society, who was elected chair of the panel, a professor-lawyer at l'École du Barreau du Québec and the Parole Board of Canada's Director of Corporate Services. The independent panel submitted a report of its findings and recommendations for resolving the complaints. This report was also included in the tabling package for the consideration of honourable members of this committee.
Finally, Mr. Chair, the Parole Board of Canada's aim is to secure the resources it needs to meet its legislated mandate. Should the proposed increase be approved, the PBC would work swiftly in partnership with our federal partners to register and implement the fee increase. This would ensure that the board can focus on providing Canadians with a sound, sustainable and efficient pardons program.
This concludes my remarks. Thank you for your kind attention. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Committee members have a document entitled ``Pardons Statistics by Province, Fiscal Years 2006-2007 to 2010-11.'' Was this document provided to us by you?
Ms. Brisebois: Yes, it is for this committee.
The Chair: Do you wish this to be part of the record?
Ms. Brisebois: Yes, please.
Senator Fraser: Welcome back to this committee and thank you for being here.
I have been reading the background documents with some interest and listening to your presentation today. I am a little confused about the way this process played out. When you called for public comments, I believe that 1,074 responded, of whom 12 supported the proposal. When you consulted with other government departments, such as the RCMP, Correctional Service Canada, Justice Canada and Treasury Board, they said that the costing exercise was well done, according to Treasury Board guidelines and that although you need money, such a large increase would pose a financial burden and impediment for many potential applicants. It could have a potential negative impact on women and Aboriginal people and so a waiver of the fee should be considered in certain cases. As well, there might be charter challenges or litigation.
When the independent advisory panel reported, among the unanimous recommendations of the panel was one to maintain the current fee of $150. It also recommended that there be some administrative changes so you could charge the first tranche of the fee for the first examination of the application, since many of them are rejected. In that way someone would not have to cough up the full $631 for something that would be rejected. In particular, the panel recommended that the government not base its practices on the principle of cost recovery.
We have had experience with civil servants and independent agencies and we know that you are not responsible for ministerial decisions, but you were responsible for running the consultation process. Faced with such an avalanche of negative reaction to this proposal, what happened then? How did the process take into account this quite extraordinary level of negative response?
Ms. Brisebois: As you mentioned, the board is responsible for administering the pardons program. The cost of the proposed user fee of $631 represents the cost of processing a pardon under the new legislation. To amend the fee, we are required to follow regulatory processes and the User Fees Act. It is our responsibility to conduct the consultations, collect the results and comments from the public and various organizations and provide that information to the minister as well as to committees, the House and the Senate. It is up to the government to decide whether or not to implement the fee.
To reframe it, our responsibilities are to implement the pardons, to follow the regulatory and user fees requirements and to collect that information for the government to consider.
Senator Fraser: From your point of view, the mere fact that an extensive number of negative reactions were received does not affect the outcome of this ultimate process. You consult but you do not change the policy. That is the government's decision.
Ms. Brisebois: Yes.
Senator Fraser: As my last question, might I ask — and I had seen this in several documents and also in your presentation this morning — why the board has said that there is only one way to go other than increasing the fee to $631, which is to face growing backlogs and much longer wait times for pardon applicants?
We know that many jurisdictions have different approaches to pardons that do not necessarily involve the path that Canada is going down of full direct cost recovery. Why did you say that the only alternative was essentially to muddle along with the amount of money you have now and have the whole process become even more bogged down?
Ms. Brisebois: The board's goal is to make the pardons program sustainable. It is the government's decision to proceed to full cost recovery; however, our goal is to provide an appropriate level of service to pardon applicants. At the current $150, we are accumulating a backlog of pardon applications. Ultimately, our goal is to have the program be sustainable. I am not sure whether that answers your question.
Senator Fraser: It does not but I promised the chair that would be my last question. Please put me down for a second round, Mr. Chair.
Senator Munson: Is cost recovery part of a normal practice in the Government of Canada? If not, why is cost recovery chosen in this instance?
Ms. Brisebois: I cannot speak to other government departments; however, I know that the government has decided to move toward full cost recovery for the pardon applications. That is all I can say at this point.
Senator Munson: Do you know the difference between the application for a passport — the monetary amount between applying for a passport and applying for a pardon?
Ms. Brisebois: There is obviously a different fee and a different service provided through Passport Canada.
Senator Munson: Do you have the figure?
Ms. Brisebois: The cost for a passport? I do not have the current figure at this point.
Senator Munson: This is a 300 per cent increase. That is a lot of money for families that probably could not afford this.
I was curious about how the breakdown works because the figure is $631. Why not $630 or $650 or $700 to round it off? You have applications processing listed at $401.50. How does that cost breakdown work out to the 50 cents?
Ms. Brisebois: We conducted a comprehensive cost analysis. Ms. Gagné can probably speak to the specifics of how we calculated the cost of a pardon.
Anne Gagné, Chief Financial Officer, Parole Board of Canada: The $631 fee was derived after we conducted a series of workload impacts throughout the organization with the potential legislation and the impacts from that legislation. Then we went to every responsibility centre involved in processing pardons and from there we gathered information to see exactly what the costs were.
We knew the sensitivity of this would be great and we knew we had to be accurate. Therefore we engaged an individual as a contractor to come and work with us, who was referred to us by Treasury Board Secretariat as being one of the premier costing experts in Canada.
He accompanied us through the process and verified that we were gathering information appropriately. We were challenging that, because our job in the finance function is also to challenge the program assessments coming in to us. We did that, and the $631 is what it adds up to when we take into account all the costs involved.
Senator Munson: What is your response to those who say the large increase in user fees is an additional punishment?
Ms. Gagné: It is not my place to respond to that. I was in charge of providing a costing of the impacts of the new Bill C-23A legislation. We did that as appropriately and scientifically as we could to ensure our information was accurate.
Senator Munson: Will the minister appear before us or has the minister appeared on this issue? It would be important.
We realize you have a job to do and we respect the job that you have to do so this is not an inquiry in that way. We respect that you have to be careful in what you say — and, of course, you follow the rules.
However, there is a political responsibility as well here. Are we going to invite the minister to come to see us on this particular thing? I want to use a better term than ``pardon me,'' but this is a big issue. If we are talking 25,000 applications across the country, perhaps I could recommend that we have the minister come to see us.
Senator Runciman: I think this is more than a cost-recovery exercise. It is also your backlog. I hope this is an effort to reduce, if not eliminate, the backlog.
We talked about the relationship between jobs and pardons. To me, if you have someone sitting on a waiting list for two years or more, they are in need of employment — if they are a truck driver crossing the border or that sort of thing. That is one of the key reasons I think why people apply. Hopefully, that is also a significant part of what we are doing here.
You talked about how you arrived at the $631 figure. I would like to explore that. You are saying this is a flat fee. We are talking about a single conviction for a summary conviction offence. We can contrast that with multiple convictions for a sexual offence or a single conviction for a child sexual offence, but you have applied a flat fee.
I am assuming if you have a multiple offender or someone who has committed a serious offence that there is a different process in terms of how you approach making a decision on whether or not that individual should receive a pardon. Why should that not be weighted into any fee process as well?
If you are going to spend X amount of time dealing with a single conviction for a summary offence versus a more serious offence, it seems to me there should be a staged process here with time devoted rather than a flat fee for anyone who may have been involved in a relatively minor offence. Did you look at that? If you did, why did you not move in that direction?
Ms. Brisebois: I can speak to that. It was a question we had as well. We also wrestled with ourselves regarding those questions.
When we look at the processing of summary convictions versus indictable, again the complexity of the file can vary. It could be a summary conviction but there could be some complexities within the file.
We looked at the processes, and the level of the cost between those two processes was close. If we implemented a two-tiered or differentiated system of fee application, it would incur additional administrative costs to administer a different-tiered process. It is something that was considered.
Senator Runciman: I have trouble with that concept. Perhaps it is something we can pursue more in depth later, but I still have serious problems with that.
Is there a hearing required for every application?
Ms. Brisebois: No, a hearing is not required for applicants. There are specific circumstances where a hearing may be provided. Mr. Ladouceur can probably speak to that.
Denis Ladouceur, Director, Clemency and Pardons, Parole Board of Canada: To respond to both questions, the administrative process of the pardon application is counted in time. Be it a summary or an indictable offence, there is a screening portion involved that is about the same amount of time.
It is the assessment and decision-making process that is different. How long a board member takes to render a decision depends on the severity of the offence. That is primarily the mechanics behind it.
A person who applies for a pardon can certainly ask for a hearing if there is a proposal to deny. If the board decides to propose a denial of a pardon, the person has the right to make representation.
More often than not, that representation is made in written form. They have 60 days to make representation. That representation is considered by the board and then a decision is rendered. They have a year after that to come back to the board if the board holds up the decision to deny the pardon.
The decision to grant or not a hearing by a pardon applicant who has been denied the pardon is up to the vice-chair of the board.
Senator Runciman: Was there ever any consideration given to streamlining the application process? What kinds of materials are required when someone does apply? Did you look at that issue as well?
Ms. Brisebois: That is a good question. Leading up to the exercise, even preceding the increase to $150, the board recognized that the increasing volumes of applications were exceeding its capacity to meet.
In 2007-08, the board undertook a number of efficiency measures aimed at trying to improve the processing of pardons, which included such things as enhancing our pardons database and some HR efficiencies. We had to manage fluctuations in volumes as well as various processes. That is something that was taken into consideration when we realized there was an increasing volume of applicants. At a certain point, even with those efficiencies, we realized that the capacity to process a pardon obviously exceeded the original fee of $50, which is why we moved to the interim increase for $150. Last year, the Criminal Records Act was amended, which then introduced new processes and amendments as a result to the legislation, which increased our costs as well.
Senator Runciman: When you look into good conduct, is there a standardized approach to that? How is that dealt with?
Ms. Brisebois: Our director of pardons could deal with that.
Mr. Ladouceur: There is policy direction on that. We will measure the fact that they have not reoffended; that they have not been involved with law enforcement over the period of the time since the date of the last conviction; that there were not any charges, stayed charges or anything withdrawn; that they had not dealt with law enforcement; that no patterns were established. We also look at the meritorious nature with the new legislation. We would look at what they have done since then. Have they tried to get employment? Have they involved themselves in their community? That is all given to the board, who will then turn around and assess that conduct before rendering a decision.
Senator Runciman: Do you keep statistics on people who reoffend once they have received a pardon?
Mr. Ladouceur: We do that, based on revocations.
Senator Runciman: Those revocations are all based on reoffending, are they?
Mr. Ladouceur: Not all are based on reoffending. They are also based on conduct. The board can revoke a pardon if the board has information to suggest that the person is of poor conduct or if they have also misled the board in their original application as well.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In your proposal to increase pardon user fees, submitted in June 2011, you explained that you were expecting 15,000 pardon applications. Today, you talked about 25,000 pardon applications. Could you tell us why the number has gone from 15,000 in June 2011 to 25,000 today?
In the same proposal, you say that this increase from $150 to $631 per application would generate $85 million in net benefits. The document qualified that projection as conservative.
Could you explain to me how you arrived at $85 million? Because if I just subtract one fee amount from the other and multiply that by the number of applications you expect to receive, it does not match up with your projection.
[English]
Ms. Brisebois: Again, in terms of the number of applications we are receiving to date, we are currently in a transitional process. We had the legislation change in June of last year; we have previous applicants that fell under the old legislation as well as new applicants that fall under Bill C-23A. The legislation changed in June; we had some aspects of persons applying that were under the old criteria of the legislation versus the new criteria. We then had the change in fee in December. All to say is that there has been some transitioning in terms of volumes. We are still monitoring, but our estimates in terms of volumes I think are actually on track for where we are at. Our specific focus again is on that $631 fee, which is a part of the costing exercise that Ms. Gagné, who is our CFO, explained in terms of the calculations of how that arrived and the volumes. If you want further information, Ms. Gagné could probably provide that.
Ms. Gagné: The first question you asked was in relation to the number of applications received. The applications that we had always put forward as an estimate under the $631 fee is 25,000 applications received but only 15,000 accepted for processing. I think that probably explains the two different numbers that you are looking at.
In terms of the cost benefit analysis and how that was calculated, again, it is one of the requirements by Treasury Board with a change in user fee that a cost benefit analysis is conducted. This analysis is conducted by an economist, which, again, was engaged through a referral from Treasury Board Secretariat because we wanted to make sure that we had someone who was very good and knowledgeable in the field. He prepares a complete assessment, which actually has some complicated mathematical formulas in it that only economists seem to be good at understanding. The overall aspect and objective of this is to determine whether the benefits of a pardon outweigh the costs of a pardon. At the end of the day, it was found for every dollar that we spend for a pardon, we get $2.83 of benefits, Canada as a whole, and the board.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Is that based on real figures or on speculation like: in such a case, it may bring in such an amount?
[English]
Ms. Gagné: Overall, it is based on a 10-year period from 2011 through to 2020. They take into account all of the anticipated revenues that will be coming in, as well as lost revenues as a result of backlogs that results in lost business, so to speak, money that is not being collected, and the fact that pardons applicants are not being well served because they are sitting in backlogs and not getting their pardons in a timely manner. He applies all of those costs projected over the 10- year period and then he brings those costs back to today's dollars using a net present value calculation. That is how he quantifies whether he is looking at the benefits or the costs. He quantifies all that to come up with his net benefit amount.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: There are already people who are eligible for a pardon but cannot afford the $150 fee. Do you have any data on the percentage of people eligible for a pardon who cannot afford the fee?
You have told this committee in the past that there are organizations that can help those who cannot afford the fee. However, those organizations also said that, should application numbers increase, they would be unable to help everyone who needed help.
Do you have any data on the eligible people who cannot afford the $150?
[English]
Ms. Gagné: We in finance would not accumulate data like that, so I will turn this over to Mr. Ladouceur.
[Translation]
Mr. Ladouceur: Unfortunately, we do not gather that type of data. When we receive pardon applications, we do not ask about applicants' income. Under the Criminal Records Act, we are not allowed to gather that type of data.
There are many NGOs, or charities, that provide assistance when they can, but I do not have any demographic data.
Senator Chaput: Who do you think would have that data?
Mr. Ladouceur: That is a good question. I do not know.
Senator Chaput: I will get back to this in the second round, Mr. Chair.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to talk about a matter that may be difficult for you to discuss. It is something I find to be a major contradiction for those who are against this increase.
I looked up on the Internet the number of private companies that offer inmates the service of preparing their pardon application. Seventy-five per cent of pardon applicants are paying up to $1,000, while you are offering the service almost free of charge.
In addition to paying the current $150 fee, those people pay a private company up to $1,000 to apply for pardon. Three-quarters of applicants use those companies.
My question may be difficult for you. How can we oppose a $500 fee increase for people who are already paying that money to private companies, while the federal government is already offering that service through your board?
The quality of your service is probably good. Why then are there so many private companies, which I think are profiting off people who may be down on their luck, while the applicants do not have to pay that money at all?
What do you think about that situation?
Mr. Ladouceur: I have two remarks. First, in terms of data on how many people use the services of private companies, our data indicates that it is about half. Half of our clients use the services of a third party.
I am unfortunately unable to answer your question about the cost.
As for our services, I want to go back to the calculations that were done. That covers the costs; we are not in the profit-making business. The private sector certainly does try to make a profit from the service they offer.
[English]
Ms. Brisebois: Again, we are in a situation where we are accumulating backlogs. We have a straightforward process for applying for a pardon. We have the ability for applicants to obtain an application online, and we have a 1-800 number. With a more sustainable program, we are hoping there would be less reliance on some of those third-party service providers and that the applicants would come to the board directly.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I see that you mostly advertise in municipalities and police forces. Should you not have more visibility among ex-inmates and directly target those people to tell them not to pay $1,000 for a pardon application because the board offers that service?
[English]
Ms. Brisebois: Currently, we are struck with the dilemma that we are trying to process the applications we are receiving. In terms of outreach and information services, we do engage in those activities, but our focus is on trying to process the pardons that are coming in. Yes, with a sustainable, fully funded program, we may be able to do more outreach and reach some of those areas or communities that are under the assumption that there is somehow an advantage to going through a third-party service provider when they can come directly to the board.
Senator Baker: The statistics you provided give a total number of pardon applications received over the past five years. It then states the total number returned, and then the total number accepted. What do you mean by that? I know what you mean by ``total number received''; that is the number you receive.
Mr. Ladouceur: That is right.
Senator Baker: Then you say, ``total returned.'' Is it because they had insufficient postage? What do you mean?
Mr. Ladouceur: It would not even come to us if they had insufficient postage. They are returned for a number of reasons: they were ineligible when they applied; the application that they provided was incomplete; the fee that they provided was insufficient; or they are out of jurisdiction. There is a whole series of reasons why we would return the application.
Senator Baker: Then you have ``total number accepted.''
Mr. Ladouceur: Indeed.
Senator Baker: You do not tell us the number that was approved of the total number that were accepted and the total number that were rejected in the final analysis.
Ms. Brisebois: We can provide statistics with respect to grant rates. Is that what you are asking?
Senator Baker: Yes, that is what I thought this was, but all this does is tell us what the postage stamp was. Is this it? Total number received, total number returned for various reasons, and total number accepted, but you are not telling us what happened after they were accepted for processing. Is that true?
Mr. Ladouceur: In that specific piece of statistics, no.
Senator Baker: Oh my goodness; that does not tell me very much.
Are the same statistics applicable to those that were adjudicated successfully and those that were rejected? Does it follow along the same percentage? I am asking you these questions because you reject only one third of those submitted from Manitoba; one fifth of those submitted from Ontario; one quarter of those submitted from Quebec; but you reject one half of what is submitted from Newfoundland and Labrador. What is the reason for that? Surely, you have examined it. It is consistent for the last five years; I have looked at the figures. Why would you be returning half the applications from Newfoundland and only returning one fifth from Ontario?
Ms. Brisebois: We can only speak to the fact that we process applications based on the criteria outlined in law and in terms of our requirements for the applications. When the application comes in, a screening process takes place, and, at a certain point, if the application is not complete, it is returned to the applicant explaining what additional information is needed or whether or not they are not eligible. Again, in the case of the persons to whom we return the applications, they do not pay the fee. It is only when the application is accepted and we process that pardon application that that fee is accepted.
In terms of explaining the differences between the regions, we cannot necessarily determine why there would be a regional difference.
Senator Baker: Well, it is a consistent regional difference. Could it be because of what Senator Boisvenu has raised here, the payment of $1,000 to consulting companies to handle their applications? Could that be the answer?
Ms. Brisebois: Again, the parole board has a 1-800 line, so if pardon applicants have questions or issues that they need to deal with as part of their application, they can phone our 1-800 line and speak to someone to follow them through the process.
Again, in terms of distribution of third party service providers, I do not believe we have that information. I would be unable to tell you the trend if there was a trend between the Atlantic region and other regions.
Senator Baker: That is my major concern, Mr. Chair, that if you live in Newfoundland and Labrador, half the applications are sent back, but if you live in Ontario, only one in five is sent back. Those are my only questions.
Senator Angus: Maybe the crimes are worse.
The Chair: I guess the reason for that remains, but you have made your point.
Senator Lang: I would like to thank the witnesses for coming here today and going over some old ground and, perhaps, some new ground. I understand that with the passage of the legislation the scrutiny of the process will be greater than what it has been in the past. Obviously, the responsibility goes to the board and there is more cost.
I want to respond to Senator Munson, who is commenting about the cost or the charge being put on here. We have to remember that, at the end of the day, the individuals we are talking about have done something that they should not have done against society in one manner or another, some of it at times very great. I do believe they have a responsibility to pay for the final step when they go back to society on that side of the coin.
I want to go back to the question that Senators Baker and Boisvenu raised, that so many feel they have to go to a third party and pay a substantial amount of money for a process that is already outlined on the Internet. I believe one of the witnesses responded that due to the backlog and what they are dealing with, they have done everything they possibly can at this stage to meet the applications that have come in through the process in place.
Would you be prepared to make a commitment to review the processes you have available to see whether we could broaden them along the lines that Senator Boisvenu spoke about by going directly to those who are interested, namely, the inmates who have gotten into public life and have taken the final step to exonerate themselves? How can we communicate the fact that this is a simple process? I understand that it is laid out simply and that the board has made the effort to make people available if one needs help. It is not as if they have turned their back on these individuals.
Would you be prepared to make a commitment to have it further reviewed as to how we could expand the information out there so that individuals are not paying that $1,000 or $1,000 plus, which is going toward an exercise that does not have to be done?
Ms. Brisebois: That is something the board has been continually looking at to ensure that the application process and the application itself are in simple language that is easy for a person to understand. Given the accumulating backlogs, it is difficult for us right now. However, with a fully sustainable program, I think we could make further advancements so that pardon applicants could come directly to the board and understand that they can call our toll- free number. We could provide additional outreach to groups so that they understand that they do not need to go to the third party service provider.
Senator Meredith: Thank you for your presentation today. It was enlightening to hear your presentation about the process that you have gone through to arrive at this fee.
Out of curiosity, what was the cost of this consultant process across the country?
Ms. Brisebois: The board absorbed that cost internally; I do not think we maintained the cost of the consultation. Ms. Gagné, is there anything?
Ms. Gagné: I will speak to that. We had some help from the portfolio on the finance side, the costing side, to engage and pay for our consultant who came in because we are trying to focus all of our resources on our operational requirements. We had some help. The total amount that we paid for the Bill C-23B consultant was $15,000 on the finance side. On the cost benefit side, it was not much more.
Senator Meredith: Senator Fraser and Senator Baker talked about the application process. Could you walk us through the process from the time that an applicant makes an application until the time that they receive communication back about whether they are approved or are denied? Can you walk us through that, just to ascertain the amount of human resources that are involved? You have come to us saying that we should support the $631. I am trying to see the process involved in that. Senator Runciman picked up on that earlier but I want you to elaborate on that.
Ms. Gagné: Mr. Ladouceur is the director of the program.
Mr. Ladouceur: It varies, depending on the method for trial, but from the administrative start it is the same. The application will be received. It will be assessed for completeness. If it is incomplete, if data elements are missing — in response to Senator Baker's initial question — we will return it to the applicant, explaining to him or to her what is missing in the application. It could be a local police records check, a missing address or a telephone number, that sort of thing.
Senator Meredith: Do they have to go back over and resubmit a new one or do they resend it with the missing information?
Mr. Ladouceur: They have to resend the missing information. That piece of correspondence is sent to them with the information that is missing. The unfortunate thing is that sometimes we lose track of an applicant, but that is another issue.
Once the application is received and complete, it will go through a screening process. That screening process will look at whether there are any additional charges or convictions. Once that is done, we actually deposit the fee. We do not deposit the fee until we are sure that all the data elements are there. If it is a straightforward summary conviction, then we do measurement of good conduct, for example, CPIC verifications and other police data bank verifications to ensure that there were no other involvements with law enforcement or additional charges. That is then sent off to the board.
I do not have a specific time frame because it varies, depending, as Senator Runciman pointed out, on the number of offences we are dealing with. If it is an indictable offence, then the act compels my staff to do more exhaustive verifications. We need to go back to when the offence or offences occurred, the nature and the gravity of those offences and measure that. Sometimes it means archival information.
I can give you a specific example of an individual who had applied for a pardon and was found guilty of a sexual offence in 1976. That was the one offence. The sentence was two years less a day. It was a provincial sentence, so I could not go into federal data banks to find anything. Basically, I tried to find my way into some federal data banks and obtain the information, which I did. It then went to the board. The board looked at it and reserved its decision as it wanted to go back to get more data. That took approximately 9.5 to 11 months because we were going back in time.
We are looking at data that could be 20, 30, or 40 years old. It varies, depending on the type of offence and the sentencing involved.
Senator Meredith: Regarding the percentage of applications that you receive, can you elaborate on that in terms of individuals who are working or who are on social assistance?
Ms. Brisebois: Again, getting back to earlier questions, it is information that we would not gather as part of the pardon application because it is not relevant to the process of receiving a pardon. Under the law, we are only allowed to gather information with respect to what is required to process a pardon. We would not necessarily have their economic status or demographics as specific as that.
Senator Meredith: Would you not say that is important? I think the senators here would agree with me. If someone trying to gain employment is on assistance while they are waiting for a pardon that is a further burden on the system for the length of time it takes to do so. That process could be expedited. If you knew that this individual was dependent upon receiving this pardon so that they could get employment to carry on with their lives, would that not be information that could be collected in a generic way?
Ms. Brisebois: It is a factor as part of the processing in the sense that when we ask applicants to identify what is the measurable reason for receiving a pardon, they can express those types of issues and say, ``I am looking for employment,'' or ``I am attempting to get housing.'' Again, it would become part of that explanation that they would self-disclose to us as part of the application.
Is there anything else, Mr. Ladouceur?
Mr. Ladouceur: Ms. Brisebois is right. We would not outright collect that demographic data but it is part of the measurable benefits. The vast majority of those who are required to demonstrate measurable benefit often argue employment — not that they are necessarily out of work. They could say, ``I can get better work. I have a job waiting for me. This is why I need the pardon.'' As far as quantifiable data, no, I do not have that and I do not need to collect that.
Ms. Brisebois: To add to that, you were asking if we expedite a pardon. Again, we do not have that system. For example, with passports you can expedite the process if you pay extra money. Our pardon application is the same for everyone in terms of when you are in the system. We do not have a tiered system. Basically, the application is processed.
Senator Meredith: Senator Fraser raised this already. Given the barrage of negative responses that you received, you only had 12 supporters but you still felt compelled to move forward with this process to raise the fees to $631.
You highlighted financial impossibilities of getting a job and further punishment as three reasons. What were possibly some of the other reasons given for them objecting to this large increase in fees?
Ms. Brisebois: There were various reasons. Some respondents came back — and we are excluding the 16 that were referred to the independent advisory panel — with a simple no to the increase in user fees. There were some respondents that did not explain why they were not supportive. Again, returning to the range of reasons, there is also the inability for certain persons to pay. We had comments with respect to Aboriginal people and the ability for them to access the program; with women as well. We received various responses about the increased fee making it more difficult for people to access the program, particularly people that have limited means. There were some concerns that there should be some scaling based on needs that the board could consider, for example the person's economic status. Again, under the current legislation in the pardons program as it stands, that is not within the purview of the board to make those determinations. We are an independent administrative tribunal; we implement the pardon process. Again, I am not sure if that fully answers your question.
Senator Angus: I was intrigued by Ms. Gagné saying that for every dollar spent, there was $2.83 of benefits. I might have missed this earlier, but I am interested in knowing how you describe these benefits and how you measure them.
Ms. Gagné: The benefits that were measured in the cost-benefit analysis were largely attributable to the revenues collected as a result of implementing the fee versus the wait time and the lack of processing that would happen as a result of backlogs by not raising the fee. As well, there were dollars that were assigned to things like additional access to employment and family benefits of being able to travel together. All of that was put into the equation to come up with this $2.83 versus a dollar of cost. There was an extra measure that was done in the cost-benefit analysis, which was an overall analysis of the pardon applicant's willingness to pay. Part of that analysis took a look at what they would pay — what they would value — for a pardon because of the benefits that would accrue to them. That amount came up to a ceiling of between $845 and $1,425. That was the number of maximum willingness to pay by pardon applicants.
Senator Angus: This program is designed to be revenue neutral is it not?
Ms. Gagné: Yes it is. This was just information for the cost-benefit analysis. Ours was purely based on the workload.
Senator Angus: So the $2.83 of benefits, vis-à-vis a dollar of expenditure, does not include revenue as such. It is these other intangibles.
Ms. Gagné: That is correct. It is unrelated to the cost.
The Chair: Before moving to second round, Ms. Brisebois, I have a question for you. I was interested to hear that, in your view, the impact of the fee increase would be to stop the diversion from the board's conditional release program.
Is that diversion occurring now, or is this something that will happen?
Ms. Brisebois: Yes, that is occurring now, and Ms. Gagné can explain about how we have to manage our internal resources.
Ms. Gagné: As Ms. Brisebois was saying, that is happening now and has been happening all along. We have had difficulty meeting the numbers of applications, which have gone up considerably over the years. As part of our 2008 strategic review exercise, we identified that we were using funds from the conditional release program to prop up the pardons program. This was to ensure people were getting their pardons.
Rather than saying that we are taking money out of the program and giving it away, it meant we would put forward measures where we would not go ahead with initiatives that we knew needed to be done in the conditional release program. We deferred to the future until we could either obtain funding from the fiscal framework or go to a cost- recovery framework to manage the program appropriately.
The Chair: Ms. Gagné, you say that the consequence of having to financially back into the conditional release program is that there are measures that you would otherwise not be able to implement. What is the consequence to those who would be subject to conditional releases? Would it be to their detriment if these shortcomings occur in the conditional release program?
Ms. Gagné: No, we made certain that it would not put the conditional release program at risk in any way, shape or form.
Quite often we would look at deferred staffing and whether we could delay staffing. The majority of our funds in the board are salary. Eighty-five per cent of our resources are salary. Deferred staffing in various areas can help us considerably to be able to go forward. Other initiatives, such as providing additional support to the very taxed area of scheduling, had to be put off to the future. When we see the funds return to the conditional release program then we can fully support them.
The Chair: Thank you very much. In second round, we have seven senators who wish to ask questions. We still have a fair amount of time left but I will ask each of you to try to restrict your comments, questions and the time of the response to no longer than five minutes. This is so we can ensure everyone has a chance to ask their question. If we have time, we could go to a third round, although I am not encouraging that. However, I want to ensure all senators get their second round questions on the record.
Senator Fraser: I will come back to the cost-benefit analysis. One of the themes that came up in a number of the responses, including from the independent advisory panel, was that the benefits of the pardon system do not go only to the person receiving the pardon. There is a general societal benefit when you make it easier, by granting a pardon, for someone to be better integrated into society, to become a more productive member of society and to continue on a productive, law-abiding path.
When I listened to your description of the cost-benefit analysis, it seemed to me that the $2.83 was essentially measuring the benefit to the person pardoned, and to some extent to that person's family, but not so much to society in general.
Just to set the framework here, I will read you a passage from the report of the Auditor General in May 2008. The Auditor General is not a bleeding heart type of person. She said, of course, that you have to do a proper cost analysis of the cost to the government. She also said there are other factors that need to be taken into account, including some that she described as key factors. The first one listed is:
. . . considering what proportion of costs or value the fee payer will bear, and what proportion the general taxpayer will cover through tax revenues. This is a challenging but key task to ensure that the fee payer and the taxpayer carry fair burdens. . . . If organizations overcharge fee payers for benefits or services, the fee payers may be subsidizing benefits that are enjoyed by the general public.
Did your cost-benefit analysis take into account the equity of having the person applying for a pardon bear the entire cost when, in fact, there is a benefit to society at large?
Ms. Gagné: We referred to the report you mentioned as well. We were interested that she had done that. For the original work that we pursued, we consulted with the organization that came out the best in that group to see exactly how they had done their costing.
What she is saying relates more to the costing rather than the cost benefit. The cost benefit is to show that there is a benefit. What is key with costing is that you do not want to collect more than the program costs, nor do you want to collect less. Then you are not collecting enough to sustain the program.
Often there is a difference between the price of the fee versus the cost of the program. Because we are going full cost recovery, we try to ensure that our fee is as close to the cost as possible. However, there were some things I consider that we probably were conservative on to make sure we did not exceed. Additionally, our costing does not include anything that is one time. With all of the set-up costs that are coming into play because of Bill C-23A implementation, many new things need to be done that are one time. We are only allowed to put ongoing costs into our costing.
My assessment as an accountant is that the risk for us is greater; that we are not going to collect enough rather than collect too much.
Senator Fraser: ``As an accountant.'' That is a really good qualification.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, I —
Senator Fraser: One more question please.
The Chair: I am going to have to move that to third round. I am sorry; I am looking at the clock —
Senator Fraser: I was so restrained on my first round. Other people took way more time than I did.
The Chair: That is why I took time to explain on the second round that equality would rule the way. If we move along we can perhaps come back to you and I hope we are able to do that.
Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: I will not ask a question then, I will just have a statement. I guess crime does not pay, right? You are just going to pay a hell of a lot more to get a second chance in life.
On the passport business and the idea of what it costs to get a passport, I understand it now costs $87 to $92 to get a passport. In your statement you said, ``In order to carry out the government's direction to seek full cost recovery for the pardons . . .'' and the question I had before was whether this is part of a pattern. Will this be an all-comprehensive thing in government? Will we wait now for a new government directive on applying for passports? Surely to goodness it does not cost $92. It costs a heck of a lot more than $92 to process passport applications in this country.
I know you cannot answer this but I will just throw it out there. Will we be seeing something new in cost recovery with this government in all departments? If you are going to have it for pardons you may as well have it for passports.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Senator Munson. You are not a regular member of this committee, senator, and we have had discussion. Our role is to question the witnesses and not to put forward our own views. I realize the time — I am sorry.
Senator Munson: Can you explain that to Senator —
The Chair: I am sorry, Senator Munson.
If other senators would restrain themselves accordingly, I would appreciate it.
Senator Chaput.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I want to get back to people who are eligible for a pardon and cannot afford the application fee, which used to be $150 and is now $600.
I am coming back to this issue because of Senator Boisvenu's comment. He said that he went on the Internet and saw that 75 per cent of people eligible for a pardon were paying $1,000 for their applications. Clearly, those people have money or a support network. But there is also the remaining 25 per cent.
I am also thinking about what Senator Baker said with regard to statistics and a very interesting point on why a high percentage of applications are rejected in Newfoundland and Labrador.
All that to say that a percentage of eligible people will be unable to pay the pardon application fees. What are we going to do to remedy that situation? That is obvious even without statistics.
For instance, in Australia, applicants can be exempted from paying application fees if they cannot afford them. I think that is one possible solution.
Since we follow up with pardoned ex-inmates anyway, why not put off the payment of the new fees until the rehabilitated citizens are able to find a job? Why not adopt that way of thinking and take a preventive approach?
Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a reality here. In my head, it is rather clear: the reality is that a proportion of the people most in need — and I am talking about women and aboriginals here — will be unable to pay that money.
Have you thought about prevention? Have you thought about exempting those people from paying? Or does that not come under your responsibilities?
[English]
Ms. Brisebois: Again, under the current fee structure we do not have the authority to waive fees. We can implement the pardon program under the current legislation as well. When you are speaking about Australia, I believe they also have automatic dispensations or setting aside of pardons so it is under their legislative authority. Again, it is beyond the scope of the board to be able to do that.
Senator Baker: You are in the business of examining applications for those who wish to be pardoned for criminal offences that they are on the record of having committed.
We have heard evidence previously in this committee that the numbers of people in Canada with criminal records approximates about 10 per cent. In other words, 10 per cent of the population of this country has a criminal record. The breakdown of those people who are adults who have criminal records, I do not know. I have not worked it out, but it is an astronomical figure.
In view of your last answer regarding Australia, in which there is an automatic system of remission if you want to call it that, and other nations, is there any other nation in the world that you take as your model in the National Parole Board for the adjudication of applications seeking pardons?
Is there any other nation in the world from which you can draw upon for precedent or for suggestions as to improve your systems? That is my main question.
Mr. Ladouceur mentioned that we consult with and he mentioned the phrase ``police data banks.'' We know about CPIC and we do know as a committee that there are about three other data banks; some of them based upon hearsay, some of them certainly would not stand up to even on a balance of probabilities and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. I wanted to ask you which data banks you would consult, but my main question is whether this is an astronomical number.
The Chair: Is this a third question?
Senator Baker: No, that is my main question, Mr. Chair. This 10 per cent is what keeps bothering me — 10 per cent of the people of Canada have criminal records and your process in trying to deal with these application models.
The Chair: I would ask the witnesses if they could keep their responses as concise as possible; it would be appreciated.
Mr. Ladouceur: On the first point of the question, there are no other international comparisons. Canada is the only country that actually sequesters the file. Others actually either pardon, spent, and there is very little assessment. We can get into the details later as far as processing is concerned.
As far as databases are concerned, we use CPIC as a portal to other law enforcement agency databases that provide us with additional pieces of information, where we would go then to the law enforcement agency and ask what is up with this. It is up to the law enforcement agency to say you cannot use or do not use it. That is at their discretion because when the board renders a decision it has the obligation to disclose all of that information to the pardon applicant.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to remind Senator Munson that the user-pays principle is already established within the federal government. Obtaining a visa is just one example of that. A visa for entering Canada currently costs $474. That is the real cost. So I do not think that applying the user-pays principle to pardons would be a first. Also, an ex-criminal who is pardoned by Canadian society is fortunate.
Ten years ago, 30 per cent of criminals or ex-inmates applying for a pardon were using private companies.
Today, the figure I have for 2009-10 is 74 per cent. We are faced with a real problem here. For me, raising the fee to $600 is not the issue. Three-quarters of applicants are already paying that much, and more. We have seen some cases where they pay up to $1,000.
[English]
The Chair: Senator, if you have a question, could we move to that?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Would it help if you conducted a survey of people who paid from $600 to $800, in order to find out why they did not use your services, which I am sure are very good?
It would be interesting to find out why those people are using private companies instead of the board.
[English]
Ms. Brisebois: Our goal right now is to process applications and to ensure that we have an effective pardon program. Our problem is we are backlogging applications.
If we had the authority — and we would have to confirm if we had the authority to poll or survey potential applicants on why they used third-party service providers — it might point to ways we could better reach out to pardon applicants. At the same time, you can understand we are in a situation right now where we are accumulating a backlog. That type of activity is difficult for us to do even if we had the authority — and we would have to confirm if, under the Privacy Act, we had the ability to provide an additional survey.
The Chair: I sense you have another question, senator, but I will ask you, as I did with Senator Fraser, if there is a point you want to raise that you do it at third round. I want to make sure everyone has the opportunity at second round.
Senator Meredith: I believe in second chances and giving individuals an opportunity to redeem themselves and carry on with their lives and not further put burdens upon them. They have made their mistakes in society and it is incumbent upon us as a government to provide the mechanisms whereby they can redeem themselves and become contributors to society.
In terms of communication, we understand that there is a burden that has been placed upon these individuals already. With respect to the service that the board provides, is there a mechanism to communicate effectively to these individuals that you are charging $631 and not $1,000 or $1,200 or $1,500 that they are paying to these consultants? Not that I want to put anyone out of business, but it is important that there is a communication piece that goes forward to the populace to say this is what we are doing as a government body to ensure Canadians have access to the support that is there to complete their application.
Is there a process in place? Are you contemplating that to mitigate the burdens that are placed upon these individuals?
Ms. Brisebois: With the $631, we are hoping that we can better explain to pardon applicants that they can come to us directly.
Senator Meredith: Is there a process to do that?
Ms. Brisebois: We have a 1-800 toll-free line. We have information on our website. Perhaps Mr. Ladouceur can explain further.
Mr. Ladouceur: We have done a lot of plain language work, trying to simplify the language in the application process. We have that on our website and, as Ms. Brisebois pointed out, we have the 1-800 line.
We try and deal with many of the NGOs out there, using them as funnels to be able to explain the pardon process. However, we are certainly not in a position right now as an organization to do considerably more outreach than that.
Senator Meredith: It is important to mention NGOs and non-profit organizations that are doing some great work for individuals, especially for young people who have made some errors in their lives and want to change their ways and move forward.
Many non-profit organizations are helping these individuals. It is important that you look at a mechanism within the board in terms of outreach. You provide great service.
The Chair: Senator, is there a question?
Senator Meredith: Communication is essential.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on Senator Baker in respect to the number of individuals that are applying on an annual basis for a pardon. It is on the average of 30,000 to 35,000 a year, which is a lot of applications for you to deal with.
I notice in Australia that there is the ability after a period of time for what would be termed ``minor offences'' to automatically expunge the record. Have you considered that as something that could be put in place to help offset the number of applications coming in so that they are automatically removed versus the ones that are very serious?
Ms. Brisebois: That would be a legislative change that would be something for the government to determine, whether or not they would consider an automatic expunging.
Senator Lang: Have you ever recommended that to the government?
Ms. Brisebois: The board is an independent administrative tribunal. Our role is to administer the pardon program and make pardon decisions. It would be the government's decision on how they want to implement and propose the legislation.
Senator Lang: Would it not be to the board's advantage to at least make a recommendation to the government as to how they could simplify your job as a board?
Ms. Brisebois: In terms of processing our pardon applications under the current legislation, we continually look at efficiencies working within the legislation because the board is in a position to make pardon decisions. Again, the legislation is under the authority of the government to determine how they want to change that legislation.
Senator Runciman: When you had the costing done, did your consultant do costing on the screening process? You were saying that you reject 40 per cent as ineligible or incomplete. Was there a costing done related to that?
Ms. Gagné: Yes, part of the costing is the cost of doing the screening process.
Senator Runciman: So that is built into the $631?
Ms. Gagné: It is.
Senator Runciman: Going back to a comment Mr. Ladouceur made that relates to my earlier questions on distinctions, you mentioned tiering. I believe you said a more exhaustive investigation is required when you talk about an indictable offense or multiple indictable offenses' convictions. I think there is an inherent unfairness built into this because you are admitting that a much more exhaustive investigation can be required when you are dealing with serious offences and convictions.
Mr. Chair, this may not be possible, but I would not mind having the consultant asked if he would appear before the committee. I would like to talk about that process. I would like to find out what can be done. How complicated is this if certain levels of offences fall into a category, perhaps three or four tiers?
If someone has committed serious indictable offences versus someone who has committed a summary offence, they should not be treated in the same manner. We should recover costs for anyone who has committed a crime, but there is a built-in unfairness in this approach and I would like to see it addressed.
The Chair: Perhaps that is something the committee can consider when we have our deliberations.
We will now go to my much promised third round, back to Senator Fraser.
Senator Fraser: I truly do thank you, Mr. Chair.
In addition to the cost-benefit analysis, the board did an impact assessment. That has not been made public on the grounds, as I understand it, that it is too technical for the great unwashed like ourselves to understand.
I have two questions. The first is a suggestion but I will disguise it as a question, which is to ask whether in the future you would take into account the experience that we have recently seen in my home province of Quebec, where a government minister said he would not make various reports public because they were too technical and might not be understood. These were the reports about falling down bridges, tunnels and overpasses. He is no longer the minister.
The new minister did make them public, and guess what? Experts were found who could interpret them for the general public. That is my suggestion disguised as a question. Will you consider this for the future?
The second question is did your impact assessment consider the differential impact on various groups? Women and Aboriginals have been mentioned in some of these reports. If so, what was the differential impact on those groups? One could also suggest people living in remote communities might face particular difficulty with the impact of this increase.
Ms. Brisebois: I will take the first part of that question, and if there is additional information, Ms. Gagné can probably talk about the differential impact analysis within the cost-benefit analysis. When we talk about the impact analysis, I think you are referring to our cost-benefit analysis.
Senator Fraser: No. According to the documents I have, there were two. There was an impact assessment and a cost- benefit analysis. Or is that not the case?
Ms. Brisebois: Yes. Information from the cost-benefit analysis fed into the information that was used as a part of the costing that Ms. Gagné did as well. We had also taken information from that report and used it as part of our consultation information. In terms of making it accessible to the public, we took information from the cost-benefit analysis and tried to present that information in a way that was clear for the public to understand how the board came to its $631 fee proposal.
I know that the independent advisory panel had indicated some questions about wanting to post that document. When we heard of their concerns about the accessibility of that particular report, we shared a copy of that report with all 16 persons who had been referred to the independent advisory panel, and of course the independent advisory panel had a copy. I just wanted to clarify that we did provide a copy of it.
Senator Fraser: To some people?
Ms. Brisebois: Yes. However, again, it is a 50-page report, it is quite comprehensive, and it was completed by an economist. For us to make our information accessible and understandable to the public, and looking at our pardon application process, we want to put it in plain language and make it understandable and consumable so that people can understand. However, that point is well taken.
Senator Fraser: You will forgive me, though, for having confused the terms. Both terms, ``cost-benefit analysis'' and ``impact assessment,'' were used in the documents that we have, so forgive me if there was confusion. What about the differential impact?
Ms. Gagné: I am not clear on what the differential impact is. I gather from your question that you are asking about the difference between the regulatory impact analysis versus the cost-benefit analysis.
Senator Fraser: Let me rephrase the question. In your analyses, did you single out specific groups to find out whether there would be a greater impact of raising the fee on those groups than on other groups? It has been suggested — again, in the documents that we received from the board — that concerns, in particular, have been raised about the impact on women and Aboriginal persons. Did you break down your cost-benefit analysis to look at different groups, or did you just do one big averaging in this exercise?
Ms. Gagné: In the cost-benefit analysis there is no financial breakdown by those factors. I am unaware of whether there was a breakdown in the impact assessment.
Ms. Brisebois: No. However, again, those considerations in terms of certain groups having more difficulty in accessing the pardon are definitely incorporated. It is difficult to quantify it. Again, getting back to pardon applicants, we do not have the specific demographics because we can only collect the information that we are able to in order to process a pardon. However, that general analysis was done as part of the cost-benefit analysis. We recognize that the increased fee will make it more difficult for persons with limited means. We do recognize that.
The Chair: Our final question for today's proceedings is from Senator Boisvenu.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have been working in the government environment for 30 years, a number of which I spent as a deputy minister. When three-quarters of citizens use private companies instead of government services, as an administrator, I would try to figure out how to improve citizen services.
I am asking you the same question. Are you thinking about conducting a study to find out why citizens are not using your services, but are instead wasting their money on private companies? I think that study is necessary to improve the quality of your services.
[English]
Ms. Brisebois: Again, when we are in a better position, and when the program is sustainable, we are planning to look at those facilities. At the same time, we recognize that we are a government organization. Third-party service providers are for profit, so they have advertising campaigns and various means by which they want to access potential pardon applicants.
Having said that, if the program is in a sustainable position, we could look at ways to better reach out to Canadians to let them know they can come to the board directly and that they do not need to go to third-party service providers.
The Chair: That concludes our proceedings today. On behalf of all members of the committee, I want to thank each of you from the National Parole Board for what you provided. It is most fortunate for us that we have been able to have you for the amount of time we have today. That is not always the case with our panels. I would say we used every moment to the fullest, and we very much appreciate everything you provided us. Thank you very much.
We will adjourn until Wednesday, October 5, at 4:15, and we will continue our review of this matter.
(The committee adjourned.)