Skip to content
RIDR - Standing Committee

Human Rights

 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights

Issue No. 16 - Evidence - April 5, 2017


OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 5, 2017

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:34 a.m. to study issues relating to the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system.

Senator Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good morning, senators, and good morning to our witnesses of this Human Rights Committee.

I have to leave in about 30 minutes and then I'll come back. I'm associated with the autism community in this country, and we're having a little rally on the Hill. I'll make a speech and continue to fight the good fight with those who have autism in Canada. I'll ask a steering committee member, Senator Ngo, to replace me. We will continue.

I would like to have the senators introduce themselves, starting on my right. Then we'll go right to our questions on the study on the human rights of prisoners in the Canadian system.

Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ontario.

Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling from New Brunswick.

Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba.

Senator Pate: Kim Pate from Ontario.

The Chair: I'm Senator Munson from Ontario.

Our witnesses today are with the Parole Board of Canada: Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy and Operations; and Michelle Van De Bogart, Regional Director General, Prairies Region.

Our second panel will be very interesting as well. We're going to have guests from the St. Leonard's Society of Canada. It will be a busy and informative day, we hope, in our study.

Suzanne, are you up first? Welcome. Thank you very much.

Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy & Operations, Parole Board of Canada: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for inviting the Parole Board of Canada to speak to you today in relation to your study on the human rights of prisoners in the correctional system. We are pleased to appear before you and to provide the committee with information about our mandate and help inform your study.

As you are likely aware, the Parole Board of Canada is an independent administrative tribunal responsible for making decisions on the conditional release of offenders. The board's conditional release mandate is prescribed by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA. The board is guided by core values that respect the inherent potential and dignity of all individuals and the equal rights of all members of society. The CCRA provides the legal framework for the board's composition, policies, training and operations, as well as the corrections and conditional release system in Canada.

The board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating, as appropriate, the timely reintegration of offenders back into the community as law-abiding citizens on temporary absences, day parole and full parole releases. In addition, the parole board can impose conditions on statutory release and long-term supervision orders, as well as terminate or revoke statutory release. Upon referral by CSC, in exceptional circumstances, the parole board may also order that an offender be held in custody or detained until warrant expiry date.

Parole decisions are made by board members who are appointed by Governor-in-Council, that is, by the Governor General on the advice of the federal cabinet. Board members are located at the PBC's national office in Ottawa, as well as six offices in five regions across the country. Our board members come from all walks of life, and their diverse backgrounds help to ensure that the board represents Canada's broad range of community values and views.

On appointment, all board members receive extensive training in risk assessment and interviewing techniques, as well as policies and legislation that govern the board's activities. Board members also receive ongoing training within their regions, as well as annual training at the national level. This includes specialized training in relation to offenders with mental health issues, indigenous offenders, women offenders and diversity.

The act requires that the protection of society must be of paramount consideration in all decisions made by the board. The board must determine whether the offender will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to society before the expiration of their sentence, and whether the release of the offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating their safe reintegration as a law-abiding citizen. In addition, any conditions imposed on the freedom of the offender must be limited to what is necessary and reasonable to protect society and to facilitate their safe reintegration.

In order to maintain the highest-quality decision-making possible, the board has developed a highly structured risk assessment framework that grounds all of its decisions in a sound analysis of risk-relevant information. When conducting reviews, board members assess risk by considering and weighing relevant components of this framework. These components include the offender's criminal and conditional release history, nature and gravity of the offence, institutional behaviours, program participation, release plan, as well as any other case-specific factors. Board members also consider information provided by victims, including formal victim statements.

For indigenous offenders, board members consider the Supreme Court of Canada's Gladue principles as part of their decision-making. In addition, and to further address the needs of indigenous offenders, the board provides alternate models of parole hearings — specifically, elder-assisted and community-assisted hearings — which are responsive to the cultural values and traditions of indigenous peoples but involve the same rigorous risk assessment. As well, the board has policies and specialized training that recognize the unique societal and cultural factors related to indigenous offenders, victims and communities.

The board also has an advisory committee known as the chairperson's indigenous circle, which provides strategic advice to the board on ways it can improve its efficiencies and effectiveness in meeting the needs of this community.

The PBC's policies also respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences among offenders, the special needs of women offenders and other groups with special requirements.

This concludes my opening comments. We would be pleased to respond to any questions that the committee may have.

The Chair: Our deputy chair is away today. Senator Ngo, you're on the steering committee. Would you like to ask a question?

Senator Ngo: I'll leave it to Senator Pate.

Senator Pate: Thank you very much for attending.

I have a number of questions, so I'm happy at any point, Mr. Chair, for you to interrupt if someone else wants to ask a question.

The Chair: Sure. As soon as I see another senator put his or her name down.

Senator Pate: Thank you.

I want to pick up on the comment on indigenous prisoners now having the Gladue principles apply. That was just since the Twins decision last year, because prior to that, the board, as well as the Appeal Division, had turned down arguments where the Gladue factors, section 718.2(e), had been applied; is that correct?

Ms. Brisebois: We have incorporated the Gladue decision for some time now. Michelle can explain the training that's involved. It is integrated in our policies prior to the Twins decision.

Michelle Van De Bogart, Regional Director General, Prairies Region, Parole Board of Canada: Part of the orientation training that our board members get — and that's the training they get before they render decisions — includes understanding how to incorporate Aboriginal social history within the risk assessment. That focuses on policy 2.1 that speaks to not only looking at the individual's history but also to look at the societal discrimination, racism and perhaps historical impacts. That's been in 2.1 for a while.

Twins was a recent court case and, in response to that court case, we provided national training to all of our board members over the last few months on how to ensure that we are more rigorously applying Aboriginal social history into the risk assessment and ensuring that that is documented as effectively as possible in our decisions.

Senator Pate: That's great to hear. I'd be interested in the statistics you have. As you know, the Correctional Investigator has many times, as have many other groups — the Canadian Human Rights Commission and others — pointed out the fact that the release rate for indigenous prisoners is lower than the release rates for non-indigenous prisoners; the classification is higher.

I'm curious as to what efforts you've taken to actually change that and what the actual numbers are at this stage in terms of release rates and have they improved since you've made those measures.

Ms. Brisebois: I can speak to the statistics to a certain extent.

Forgive me, I forgot to introduce my colleague. She is responsible at the Parole Board of Canada for the indigenous portfolio as well as board member training.

With respect to the statistics, yes, we are aware that indigenous offenders are over-represented in the criminal justice system. They're seen by the board at a lower rate. They tend to waive their reviews at a higher percentage, and they're granted at a lower rate than other groups of offenders.

We can provide more of a breakdown of those statistics with respect to other groups of offenders that you may want to see specific to the board's activities. We can provide that information.

With respect to what we're doing, I think Michelle can probably speak to some of the activities that are under way under with the board for outreach and in-reach.

Ms. Van De Bogart: I would say our approach is a multi-faceted approach. My colleague mentioned we provide elder-assisted and community-assisted hearings as an option. That's a culturally responsive format for the hearings.

We are also continuing to increase the cultural competencies of our board members and our staff who work with indigenous offenders. The training I just mentioned in relation to increasing or more rigorously applying Aboriginal social history is one of the examples of the training to increase the cultural competencies.

We are also focused on our outreach and what we all "in-reach,'' so outreach to indigenous communities, but the Parole Board of Canada goes into the institutions where we speak to Correctional Service Canada staff and also to the offenders. We do that to be able to share information about parole and what they can expect during a parole hearing. We allow an opportunity to share information on elder-assisted hearings and community-assisted hearings during those educational sessions because, as my colleague mentioned, indigenous offenders apply for conditional release at a lower rate, and they're waiving their legislated reviews at a bit of a higher rate. So that in-reach with the institutions and the discussions with the offenders is an attempt to ensure that they have as much information as they can about the parole process prior to rendering that decision.

Senator Pate: That's very interesting and encouraging to hear. In the 35 years that I was going in and out of the prisons for men and women, I only ever saw that kind of activity once. I and the committee would be very interested in the number of times you've gone, which institutions, how many people in prison have participated and what the nature of that training is.

I'm also interested in how many parole board members you have currently who are indigenous, as well as the makeup of the backgrounds of all of the parole board members. I know for a period of time we had an awful lot of former police officers, which was great, but it didn't seem to be balanced out by people with other experience within the system.

I also know that fewer and fewer prisoners are applying for parole. That's been documented again by the Correctional Investigator. We're seeing situations where increasingly Correctional Service Canada seems to be unable to prepare cases in time to avoid waivers, whether they're discouraging people from going or whether there are other reasons. I'm curious what the current waiver rate is now for all prisoners: male, female, as well as indigenous, non-indigenous and other racialized groups.

Ms. Brisebois: We can provide further statistics as well, but I can use last year as an example. For federal day parole, we had 709 offenders that withdrew their application and 4,144 full parole reviews that were waived. There's a significant number. You're right, that's something the board is looking to address through the in-reach within the institutions and, again, through our work with CSC. We do have interlinkages and various meetings where we do try to look at ways that we could work cooperatively.

With respect to the board member complement, we have six indigenous board members. We currently have 65 board members in total; six of them are indigenous, eleven are women and three are visible minorities.

The Chair: I'm just going to get a question in and then, Senator Pate, we'll have you on second round as well. Because I am leaving in 15 minutes, I feel it's important for me to get this question in because of the work we all do in terms of those who have intellectual disabilities.

First of all, are there translators available for federally sentenced persons who are unable to communicate in either of the official languages of this country? In a similar vein, what's important to me, does the parole board provide support and accommodation for persons who may have intellectual disabilities or mental health problems?

Ms. Brisebois: We can speak to our mandate. Again, in terms of support, in terms of managing the sentence, CSC is responsible for the care and custody of offenders, but with respect to our decision-making and our policies and training, we do address and look at the systemic needs of those special groups of offenders.

As Michelle mentioned, within the legislation, section 151(3) requires that the board's policies respect cultural, ethnic, gender and linguistic differences. It also requires the board to be responsive to the special needs of women offenders, indigenous offenders, as well as offenders with unique needs, which would include cognitive impairments and mental health problems.

Our policies — and this is what Michelle was referring to — also require board members to consider systemic and background factors that may have resulted in the offender becoming involved in criminal activity. Part of that includes cognitive impairments and mental health.

Michelle can speak to the training aspects of board members as well in terms of helping them understand and manage hearings with respect to that.

The Chair: The reason I ask is that in the past in the province of Ontario, there have been horrific stories about not the criminal mind or nature of a person who ends up in prison and then is paroled. In this case I'm talking about a "he'' who did not know what he was doing was wrong in simply touching a support worker and then ending up in prison as opposed to into a rehabilitative environment to help him long.

This has happened, and people have ended up in Penetanguishene prison. I'm very concerned about that, that those with intellectual disabilities are treated with the respect that we all would like to be treated with.

Ms. Brisebois: I can say that each case is reviewed on its individual factors on a case-by-case basis. Each offender is assessed individually. Again, there's various within the risk assessment infrastructure that the board would consider. Again, as part of our training, board members are very well trained in understanding the various aspects of that area.

Ms. Van De Bogart: If I can add from a training perspective, during the orientation training, in addition to board members receiving training on risk assessment, there is a specialized module on risk assessment with mental health offenders.

Our board members learn a bit more about mental health needs, assessing that risk and understanding aftercare for offenders that come before them that may be in the community.

There are two additional modules that I think are important. One, they receive training on hearing management and also interviewing techniques. Part of that training is to be able to recognize and interact with people that are coming before the members who have perhaps some cognitive concerns, perhaps educational levels are different, perhaps there's mental health challenges. So we provide that training.

In addition to the orientation training, we also provide continuous learning and development training for all of our members throughout their mandate. That's training done at both national and regional levels. Oftentimes those workshops and modules include areas such as learning more about mental health in general and how we can apply the risk assessments, learning how to interact and interview with people. Those are all part of the workshops that they continue to receive throughout the training.

The Chair: Senator Pate has a supplementary.

Senator Pate: In terms of that, how do you reconcile that kind of training with doing more and more video conferencing? I've been at a number of parole hearings over the last couple of years that have been done by video conference. How do you do that interpersonal connection if it's by video conferencing?

Ms. Brisebois: Again, the use of video conferencing is assessed case by case. There may be instances where video conferencing may not be used. For instance, you referred to the use of interpreters. Video conferencing doesn't lend well to the use of interpretation, so there are times when the board members will be on site in person. With cognitive impairments or areas where they feel that video conferencing may affect the ability to communicate or may affect the offender's ability to perceive the board members, they would be looking at that and attending on site.

Senator Pate: In fact, one that I attended, an elder-assisted circle hearing, was done where the elder and I in the prison with the individual and the case management team and the parole board was not. It was by video conference. It struck all of us as particularly unusual, if I can put it that way, that that was seen as a legitimate way of doing it.

I notice that the Quebec Court of Appeal recently struck down the decision that in-person hearings for post-suspension reviews were legitimate. In fact, all post-suspension hearings were now being conducted not in person. Certainly the court has said that that should never be done. I'm curious as to how that has changed or what the rationale was for doing that beyond cost efficiencies.

Ms. Brisebois: There are two aspects to your question. One is the video conferencing for elder-assisted hearings. For the board, we look to use that as infrequently as possible for elder-assisted hearings; for example, when we looked at the number of elder-assisted hearings, it was used in 3 per cent of the cases due to jurisdictional time frames or whatever the situation may be.

Senator Pate: I'm sorry to interrupt. Three per cent of the elder-assisted are done by video conference?

Ms. Brisebois: Yes. Again, there could be various factors that might play into it.

With respect to the case you're referring to in Quebec, which is Way and Gariépy, yes, you're correct in the sense that our legislation was amended a couple years ago with respect to post-suspension termination revocation hearings. The legislation changed so that it was discretionary. The Quebec court struck that down, so in Quebec the board was required and proceeded to require hearings rather than doing in-person reviews. Sorry, rather than doing reviews by paper. Excuse me. Rather than a paper review, the board was required to conduct a hearing.

Our policies have recently changed so that we can do this across the country. The board has amended its policy so that we are now conducting hearings, unless an offender waives his hearing, with those types of cases, so post-suspension revocation and termination cases. The change is as of January.

Senator Pate: I apologize for my confusion. You're saying in Quebec they're held in person, but in the rest of the country it is discretionary?

Ms. Brisebois: I'll be careful. Just for Quebec, as a result of that court case, as of the date of Way and Gariépy, the cases in Quebec that were seen by the board were required to have a hearing for post-suspension revocation termination. Because it was a Quebec decision, it didn't apply to the other regions, so the board was able to do a paper review as opposed to a hearing.

More recently, as a result of the discordance between Quebec and the other regions, the board decided to move ahead with a policy change so that it is consistent across the country that all offenders for those types of cases would have a hearing unless they waive their right.

I want to be careful. I did say in-person. I apologize for that. When we say video conference hearing versus on-site hearing, we consider those to be the same in terms of a hearing.

Senator Pate: Would it be possible to get numbers in terms of how many in-person hearings are video conference versus in-person with everybody in the same place?

Ms. Brisebois: Yes. We can give you a breakdown. Generally I'd say 40 per cent of our hears are conducted by video conference. We can get you more information.

The Chair: I don't normally interject as chair. I wait until the end. I am leaving in about seven minutes to talk about issues dealing with autism and those with intellectual disabilities and those who might find themselves on the wrong side of the law because they've just didn't know. They just didn't understand. I look at you through an empathetic lense that the parole board keeps all of these questions in mind as they're doing their work.

During the course of our conversation, Senator Unger from Alberta has arrived, and Senator Martin from British Columbia.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you for being here with us. I want to refer to the ruling of the Federal Court in January of this year, so it's really recent. It found that the Parole Board of Canada failed to meet its duty of procedural fairness in a case called DeMaria v. the Attorney General of Canada. Could you provide us with some background on context on that ruling and, more importantly, describe to us what steps you have taken to ensure procedural fairness?

Ms. Brisebois: I'm reluctant to speak to that case specifically because I don't represent Justice. I think that's something that perhaps Justice could speak to in terms of the interpretation of that particular ruling.

The board has a number of procedural safeguards in place as part of working with offenders. Some of those procedural safeguards are within the charter, the duty to act fairly, but as well within the Correctional and Conditional Release Act and in terms of the requirement to provide information that the board is using for its decisions in advance of a review. There are time frames required. We also provide reasons for our decisions to offenders. They are provided copies of our decisions.

Again, as you mentioned, they can have the hearing in any of the official languages, and if they are unable to speak either French or English, we are providing an interpreter.

At hearings, the offenders have a right to an assistant, and I think this is an important point particularly for persons with cognitive impairments or persons who have difficulty perhaps operating and being able to respond to board members in what is probably a very difficult situation. Assistants can provide support to an offender during a hearing. They can provide advice. They can privately confer with the offender during the hearing and make representations to the board on behalf of the offender during the hearing. I think the assistant is very important.

The offenders also have the ability to appeal a decision within two months. We have an internal appeal process that the board adheres to.

I forgot the right to information and the right to representation. They also have a right to make representations on their behalf, either written or by way of at the hearing, right to an assistant, and obviously the decision is provided to them, and the right to appeal and a number of other things, but those are the major areas, of course.

Senator Omidvar: I have a follow-up. It sounds like you have a fairly articulated system and processes to ensure procedural fairness, and yet the court found that you were short of these.

I know you can't comment on the particular case, and I appreciate that, but can you describe to me what improvements or changes have been made since January 17 to today? I imagine that if the court made the ruling that you were wanting in procedural fairness, then your institution has to take some steps. Could you describe those particular steps to us?

Ms. Brisebois: With respect to particular steps, again, I'm unable to comment because in that particular case, I'm not sure whether or not that ruling related specifically to that case. Sometimes those procedural safeguards or those steps are specific to that particular case.

I'm not sure whether or not they were broader.

When we have cases such as Way and Gariépy that Ms. Pate referred to that are all-encompassing in terms of applicability to all offenders, we do obviously have to assess it with the other cases that we have.

I would have to confirm on that particular point. I'm sorry.

Senator Omidvar: I appreciate the point.

Senator Hartling: Thank you for being here, and thank you for asking the question. That was one of the questions I wanted to know, so I'm really happy you asked that so I can ask another one.

What are the criteria for federally sentenced persons to meet to obtain parole, and what would be some of the obstacles and maybe some of the reasons they would be refused?

Ms. Brisebois: The eligibility dates are set within the legislation, and the board is required to review an offender for full parole at one third of their sentence. Offenders can apply for day parole. So there is where we see some differences in the numbers because some offenders won't apply, but they will be reviewed by the board as part of the legislated review. Again, there may be some offenders that will waive that review. So there are reasons for some variances. Particularly with the indigenous population, this is an area that is of interest to your study.

In terms of the criteria, the legislation is really relating to the risk the offender poses to reoffend and the goal of facilitating their successful reintegration, so there are two prongs to parole criteria within the legislation. I'm simplifying it, but it basically relates to risk and whether the release of the offender facilitates their successful reintegration.

In terms of obstacles, again, that's probably something that Correctional Service can speak to in terms of some of the areas that they look at in terms of addressing these in programming, but there could be aspects when we're talking about special needs offenders — community resources or programs or treatment — that might be factors.

Senator Pate: The CCRA, as you know, was amended so that certain categories of offences were no longer required to be reviewed within two years after the parole denial. The period then changed, of course, to five years, as you know. I'm curious as to what stats you have on how many prisoners have been affected by this regressive change and if you have the stats on how many have been refused or not been able to apply, as well as how many have been released on statutory release in that period as compared to the period before the changes to the legislation.

Ms. Brisebois: Again, that's 479 you're referring to, and we are starting to see some of the effects of that. I can ask our staff to see if there is the ability to provide statistics on that area.

Senator Pate: That would be great.

Ms. Brisebois: It's fairly new because we're looking at a two-year versus a five-year. We also know that offenders can apply for parole, either day or full parole, within those time frames. So there is the ability to apply, but we're not sure if those offenders are applying. I can confirm whether or not that information is available.

Senator Pate: If there are other people, I'll wait. I have another question.

Senator Ngo (Acting Chair) in the chair

The Acting Chair: Go ahead.

Senator Pate: The CCRA was also amended to re-divide the authority between CSC and the parole board on temporary absences for those serving life sentences, and I know that there have been a number of people, both privately and, I think, more officially in at least one region, who have said that this has caused considerable uncertainty. Certainly, it has amongst those who are serving life sentences with whom I've had the privilege and responsibility to meet, and it seems to be also creating a bit of chaos in terms of what people know is happening in terms of people who might be good candidates. Can you comment on this? What are the stats since the decision has been made that the parole board is supposed to be making decisions that, previously, wardens used to be able to make?

Ms. Brisebois: I don't have those statistics with me, but we can definitely provide them. In terms of our operations, it's a new legislative amendment, so there are obviously, in terms of implementing, some challenges sometimes. We've had a lot of legislative amendments. In terms of providing an opinion on that particular legislative amendment, it's beyond my ability to provide.

Senator Pate: Certainly the stats would be very helpful.

Ms. Brisebois: We can provide the statistics for sure. But, again, it is an interesting area, and you're correct that CSC used to do the escorted temporary absences for certain life sentences reaching day-parole eligibility date and now it's referred back to the board. There are some differences in the language with the escorted temporary absences and "authorized'' and "approved.'' There are some nuances within that legislation.

Senator Pate: And some delays in terms of passes as a result of that?

Ms. Brisebois: I'm not sure about that; I don't know.

Senator Pate: If you have any stats on that, that would be great, too.

The Acting Chair: Before I give the question to Senator Omidvar, I wanted to follow up on Senator Munson's question about people with mental health issues. Is it more difficult for some groups, people with mental health issues or indigenous persons, to obtain parole than others? If so, why?

Ms. Brisebois: For indigenous offenders, that group is quite clearly defined statistically for us, so, yes, I can say that indigenous offenders don't see the board as often as non-indigenous offenders because they tend to waive at a higher rate and are not granted parole at the same rate as non-indigenous offenders. There are some factors with indigenous definitely that have resulted in our in-reach activities and outreach activities to increase the numbers of these offenders seeing the board.

On the mental health side of the house, it's more difficult statistically because an offender's mental health status isn't necessarily shared with the board unless it's applicable to the release decision and the release itself, and, in some cases, the mental health issues may be transitory. So we don't have statistics specifically regarding mental health, how many offenders with mental health issues do see the board versus don't see the board or are revoked or successful because we don't have the ability to track those offenders as clearly as we would with an offender who self-identifies as indigenous.

The Acting Chair: Could you elaborate more about the criteria for the indigenous people?

Ms. Brisebois: In terms of criteria, you're referring to —

The Acting Chair: The criteria to obtain the parole.

Ms. Brisebois: It's the same criteria as all offenders. The criteria in the legislation applies to all offenders. It relates to the risk that the offender would pose in the community, and the board determines whether the offender poses an undue risk and whether the release would facilitate their safe reintegration into the community. So the criteria for offenders are the same for all offenders.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much for providing us with, in your written statement and in your answers, greater clarification on the training of board members, who make really important decisions. Can I flip the question and focus on what training support assistance the prisoners receive? This is an important time, a very important decision for them, so can you describe to me how they prepare for the parole hearings? Do you play a role in that, or is it left up to Correctional Service Canada?

Ms. Brisebois: Correctional Service Canada manages the offender's sentence, so they have parole officers, program officers, case management teams, psychologists and psychiatrists, so they would be involved in preparing the offender, interviewing the offender and helping them to understand the process. It really is under the purview of Correctional Service Canada. We are really decision makers. The board members would come in, review the information and assess the information.

Senator Omidvar: I understand that you're the decision maker, but have you, in the history of your institution, made observations about the preparedness of prisoners and made recommendations back to Correctional Service Canada that it could serve the entire system better if five steps were taken? Have you done something like that?

Ms. Brisebois: We do work closely with Correctional Service Canada, so we look at areas where we identify aspects that we could work cooperatively on. We have our own separate mandates, so we have to be careful in terms of our role. But, at the same time, in speaking about offenders and preparing them, I think the in-reach is another area that really helps offenders to understand the perspective of the board.

Ms. Van De Bogart: If I may, in addition to going into the institutions, we actually have prepared some additional materials. We have a video on what to expect during an elder-assisted hearing, so you can see what the process would be. We have some materials on what to expect during your parole.

We leave that in institutions and we share that so that if offenders have questions about what an elder-assisted hearing looks like, they can experience that as well.

One of the avenues that the board wants to ensure is that offenders have information on their rights to parole when they're choosing to apply or choosing to waive. That's part of the focus on the in-reach part that I spoke about earlier.

Senator Omidvar: I misspoke when I said, "prisoner.'' I should have said, "offender.'' Old habits die hard. I apologize. For the future, I will always use the word "offender.'' "Prisoner'' is the right thing? I'm sorry. My brains are scrambled.

Senator Pate: You've been busy.

Senator McPhedran: Welcome. I have a three-part question. Let me begin by setting the tone for the question. Public perception is that persons serving life sentences are hard core forever, the worst, et cetera. There are all kinds of stereotypes attached to a life sentence. However, as your own statistics demonstrate, they are among the lowest risk for reoffending.

Part one of my question is this: Do you regularly review the cases of individual lifers to reduce the number of conditions on them, to determine if that's appropriate? Part two: How many people, lifers or non-lifers, are currently on parole-reduced status? The third and last part is: How many times has the board granted discharge from parole?

Ms. Brisebois: With respect to the conditions for lifers — and this would apply for any offender who has received a special condition that's imposed by the board specific to an offender's risk — as part of the case management process, let's say that the offender was on full parole. They're in the community for a number of years. They may have a condition imposed. At some point, the parole officer may identify that condition is no longer necessary. In that instance, the case would be brought forward to the board to ask for a modification or a relieving of that condition; or there are other instances where a condition may be imposed. It is managed by a parole officer who manages the case in the community.

With respect to the parole-reduced statistics, we do have those statistics so I can provide them — I don't have them here with me now, though — as well as the other question with respect to discharge. I think you're referring to Royal Prerogative mercy or the clemency side of the board?

Senator McPhedran: If we can include both scenarios in that, it can be broken out by definition.

Ms. Brisebois: Okay.

Senator McPhedran: It's to get at the number of times this has occurred using one label or other.

Ms. Brisebois: Okay. Again, I don't have the statistics with me but I will come back.

Senator Hartling: I'm thinking about the caseload of parole officers. How many would they handle? Is that different for men and women? Is it standard across the country?

Ms. Brisebois: Again, parole officers are under the responsibility of Correctional Service Canada so they work directly for Correctional Service Canada. I wouldn't be able to comment on their caseloads. I'm not necessarily aware of their exact caseloads at this point in time. That's a question that can be referred to CSC, because the board just deals with the decisions and our board members are the ones involved.

Senator Hartling: They would be able to tell us if the number is different for men and women and across this country?

Ms. Brisebois: Correctional Service Canada would be able to provide that information to you for sure.

Senator Pate: One of the issues that has been a concern for many is the number and nature of conditions, the specific conditions and the fact that those reporting conditions have been increasing for those on parole for some time. I would be very interested in the statistics or the numbers. You may not have them available, but if you could provide them to the committee, namely the number and nature of conditions, particularly special conditions, I would appreciate it. I think, for instance, of relationship and disaggregating those by gender and race, as well as non-association conditions, all the special conditions that can be imposed but particularly those. I don't know if you have any comments now, but if you could provide that information it would be useful, as well as how that has changed.

My understanding is that you have trend data. If you could provide that trend data as well, that would be very useful.

Ms. Brisebois: We definitely do have information on special conditions. I will qualify that by saying it can be complicated in terms of pulling out some of the minutia or the data itself with respect to categories and groupings. With respect to your question, we'll take a look to see how best we can do it.

Conditions can be imposed at various points during a sentence on various offenders but the way our system works it can be very difficult to track whether or not a condition is a continuation from day parole to full parole and that sort of thing. We'll look at your questions and see if we can break it down as best we can for you.

Senator Pate: That would be great, and the more disaggregated the better. My understanding is that now with the computerized component, it's easier to do that. In my previous position, I asked for that information about 10 or 15 years ago, and I was told it would take five years to find it, which tells me there are an awful lot of special conditions. It would be useful to have that data, so thank you for letting the committee know about how that impacts on release.

My other question was in terms of LifeLine — particularly in light of our next witnesses. LifeLine has been struggling for some time for funding and has been de-funded essentially by Correctional Service Canada. Certainly in the experience of many, including a number of board members with whom I had the privilege of speaking, it has provided incredible peer support and, beyond peer support, professional interventions for those who are serving life sentences and for those serving long sentences. The funding for that program is minimal, but CSC has still refused to cover it for the past number of years.

Do you have any comments or have you heard anything from other board members about the value of those individuals who have already served parole and are assisting others, in particular LifeLine workers, and the value of those programs and supports for individuals going for parole? I'm looking at you, Ms. Brisebois, but I'm speaking to both of you.

Ms. Brisebois: I have heard various persons speak about it. However, again, it falls beyond the purview of the board and my purview to be able to comment on that program. However, I do understand the various benefits that persons have spoken about with respect to that program.

Ms. Van De Bogart: I have nothing to add.

Senator McPhedran: I'm an independent senator from Manitoba, and I'm hoping you can shed some light on probably the single most troubling case that has come out of Manitoba for some considerable period of time. It still a high level of concern at the community level, without necessarily a deep understanding of the decision. I'm referring to the case where a young man was killed on a bus in Manitoba and his body was mutilated. There were unquestionably mental health aspects to the case. The most recent decision, as I understand it, is that the prisoner has been released. From the community perspective, and from many members of the community, there is no way to know if there is a regression; no accountability for those who made the decision to release.

I'm not asking this necessarily from a critical stance. I'm really asking it more from what happens in cases like this where you have such a high level of intensely charged emotions and fears and regrets — the whole package that embroils a case like this. Once a decision is made, once the person is released into the community, and in this case the name changed, is there any track back to the parole board for the decision that has been made if indeed he turns out to have further endangered —

Ms. Brisebois: I will clarify. For that case you were referring to, that offender was found not criminally responsible. That means that offender does not fall under Correctional Service Canada, nor under the authority of the Parole Board of Canada to make any sort of decision. It falls under a separate mental health psychiatric review board that assesses that offender.

By virtue of an offender being deemed not criminally responsible, they are really outside of the correctional system. I don't have any comments with respect to that particular case, but so you are aware, there is a difference between offenders found not criminally responsible and offenders sentenced under a federal or provincial sentence.

Senator McPhedran: I'm aware of that, but I was trying to frame my question more from a community perspective of those who don't make that kind of distinction.

I guess the short answer on that would be that they are completely separate, parallel systems; they have no connection whatsoever. The decision on that case has no connection whatsoever to the parole board process.

Ms. Brisebois: No.

Speaking to the board's process, the board is transparent, so any member of the public can observe our hearings and receive copies of offenders and decisions that have been made. We are very transparent and the decisions are accessible. As you will often see in the media, cases are reported and information is provided about particular cases.

Senator Martin: Having experienced the complexities of caring for someone with mental health issues and the importance of monitoring medication, I understand the two separate spheres and your jurisdictional limits.

Between spheres, there is often the space where these cracks naturally exist. Is there a third-party bridge provider? What happens between these two spheres when it's outside of your jurisdiction, but we know that unless there is a very clear transition, an oversight, that there is this crack? Does the board communicate with such third parties?

I suppose it could be the organization you referred to, Senator Pate; it could be civil society. My concern, as a senator, is that in so many studies that we have undertaken, we see there are incredible people working hard, such as yourself and others, serving on the board. But as soon as it's outside of your jurisdiction, it doesn't mean that someone will suddenly pick up and take over where you may leave it, because there are these cracks. I'm just concerned about what I'm hearing and whether you have communication and/or participation of third parties that will help in this transition. Because as the public and a senator at this table, these siloed circles are very concerning.

Ms. Brisebois: I will speak to our authority. Even though there are areas that would be wonderful for Correctional Service Canada or perhaps ourselves, I'm not sure, to provide support and assistance, it extends beyond our authority to be involved in not criminally responsible cases that aren't sentenced to federal custody under the courts.

It is prompted by the court's decision on whether that offender is sentenced to custodial in a criminal sentence or whether they're found not criminally responsible. That determination is at the court's level in terms of determining whether they'll be identified as not criminally responsible.

I do appreciate those gaps, because we see a lot of offenders. I will say it anecdotally, because again we don't have the statistics, but we know from the appearances by CSC as well that a number of offenders have significant mental health issues. There is the need for our communities to work together, but we are responsible for our mandate, and within the legislation our authority is very prescribed and very specific.

Senator Martin: I don't know if you can answer this. I understand that there are jurisdictional limitations and your mandate ends here. Who could provide the oversight and/or find a way to ensure that we bridge these gaps?

Where would that be? Senator, maybe you know. I understand that these operate in silos, and it's because it's your mandate, and in the act it asks you to do very specific things, but I see there is a great danger of these gaps. It's more of an observation than a question.

Senator Pate: The bar is very high or low, depending on how you look at it, for not criminally responsible, and there is a lot of supervision within the mental health system, just going from those who are being supervised within it and review, and there is a mechanism to have other initiatives put in place, like peace bonds if there is an ongoing concern. In my experience, the police do continue to monitor individuals if there are any concerns. That is one.

In the prison system itself, there are many people who don't meet the test of not criminally responsible but clearly have significant mental health issues who are not transferred out under section 29 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and do end up overclassified.

I would like to provide an opportunity for you to comment on what my colleagues are raising by talking about what happens to those individuals who, because of their mental health issues, end up being classified as higher and what the chances of them being paroled are from your perspective and experience.

Certainly one of the obstacles to obtaining parole is people being reduced in security classification. If you're not able to follow the processes expected of you by corrections, you tend not to cascade down in terms of security level, so we end up seeing large numbers kept in custody for extended periods of time. I'm curious as to whether you have monitored the number of people with significant mental health issues still classified as a higher security because of their institutional adjustment because of those mental health issues who actually get parole?

Ms. Brisebois: Security and the classification of offenders is completed by CSC. We wouldn't have those figures with respect to those areas.

In terms of board's perspective, we would look for programming and various release plans and factors that would play into supporting these offenders in the community, and the board members would assess the risk and look to see whether their supported release would facilitate their safe reintegration. Often, with the support of a halfway house or programming in the community, these offenders can do well.

Senator Pate: Finally, as part of the statistics and the information you're going to provide to the committee, if you could include the number of people released on conditional release at various security levels, that would be useful because that would give us some indication.

Ms. Brisebois: Correctional Service Canada would have to provide that because they would have the specific data on the security classification.

Senator Pate: Thank you very much.

Senator Omidvar: Senator McPhedran always reminds me of questions to ask. She talked about the community, and I will talk about your latest decision to release Inderjit Singh Reyat from the halfway house to his residence in B.C. under special conditions that exist until 2018. Can you describe those special conditions and who supervises these?

There are more than 1.6 million South Asians in Canada. All of us find our way back to that Air India bombing, one way or another, the most significant terrorist act against Canadian citizens in our history. We want to know what those conditions for release are and who is responsible for making sure that they are adhered to.

Ms. Brisebois: I'm not at liberty to speak to that particular case and the circumstances of that case in specifics, but I can talk more generally in terms of releases.

There are different types. There would be a day parole release and a full parole release, which are under the authority of the Parole Board of Canada. Statutory release, which is an automatic legislated release, the board wouldn't necessarily have to make a decision on with respect to releasing the offender, but they can impose special conditions, to which you referred, which would include residing at a specific facility or adhering to certain types of conditions that the parole officer would be responsible for monitoring and supervising.

Senator Omidvar: It's the parole officer, then.

Ms. Brisebois: Yes.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Brisebois and Ms. Van De Bogart. You can see that the issue we're studying here is very important to us. If needed, we will invite you again before this committee.

For our second panel, we welcome, from the St. Leonard's Society of Canada, Anita Desai, Executive Director; and Rick Sauvé, LifeLine In-Reach Worker.

Ms. Desai, please go ahead.

Anita Desai, Executive Director, St. Leonard's Society of Canada: Thank you very much for the invitation, honourable chair and committee members. I would like to focus my time considering the human rights of prisoners from the standpoint of improving wellness within Canadian prisons.

As an organization that champions safe, effective community corrections, St. Leonard's believes that practices within prisons that foster wellness inside will ultimately contribute to improved opportunity for wellness in the community. This contributes to the broader mutual goals of all of us to enhance public safety.

I'm joined today by my inspiring colleague Rick Sauvé. He and others like him have been part of the St. Leonard's family for more than 20 years. While Rick will share his perspective with you in a moment, I'd like to preface his presentation by stating that we at St. Leonard's know first-hand the importance of having peer influence within our institutions and that lived and shared experience fosters wellness across the various vulnerable groups that this committee has been focusing on.

The importance of peer influence should not be underestimated. It is a cost-effective approach that enhances reintegration and rehabilitative processes and can be used to enhance the capacity of prisoners to support themselves, as well as their capacity to support others. We recommend that peer mentoring be given serious consideration as an initiative that should be expanded across prisons to support prisoners with some of the greatest reintegration needs.

I know you have heard about the challenges within the prisons to obtaining adequate access to health care. From a community corrections standpoint, this is reflected by St. Leonard's halfway houses, which have noted considerable challenges as they shift to try to meet the health care needs of their residents. We have noted significant increases in the needs for aging and elderly parolees, those with mental health problems and illness, and the ever-present challenge of supporting people with a history of problematic substance use.

In addition to peer mentoring, I would suggest that the timing is right for exploring alternative options for the provision of health care in our prisons. We are now seeing good examples in Alberta and Nova Scotia, where the provinces have shifted to providing health care within the prisons. While we recognize that there are jurisdictional challenges between the provincial and federal systems, it is likely that this type of shift would greatly improve healthier transitions to the community, and we are getting a clear picture of how to make this work.

Another consideration we'd like to highlight is the potential to utilize something similar to a section 84 release planning opportunity that could be applied for aging and elderly inmates, especially for those considered low risk, in the spirit of meeting health care needs of prisoners and reducing strain on existing systems. There are community corrections agencies that are ready and willing to be active partners in the release planning process for such individuals. For example, a voluntary sector agency has collaborated with a multidisciplinary research team to develop modules that were presented to CSC and are ready to be utilized to improve wellness.

I was asked to provide specific recommendations for change in the field of community corrections. To that point, I would suggest the following: There needs to be more effective support from CSC in order to have effective reintegration practices at the community level. We would suggest that they should look at their contracting procedures to ensure greater efficiency and to include increased discussions with contracting partners so that CSC can more effectively respond to current needs and concerns. Community partners should have an opportunity to renegotiate their fee-for-service contracts so that they are better able to meet concerns at the community level. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to facilitate ongoing dialogue regarding the timeliness of contracting.

Finally, I think it's important for CSC to recognize that while many volunteers provide excellent support within prisons, they do not replace the need for experienced and trained staff. As you have undoubtedly heard over the course of your investigations, there is no shortage of complex issues within our prisons. Utilizing staff from community-based services to provide in-reach creates an opportunity for improved, smoother transition and increases effective reintegration. Since the vast majority of prisoners will eventually end up in the community, it only makes good sense that people who work in the community are included as reliable components of the release planning process.

Before I conclude, I was also asked to provide concrete and specific recommendations for changes to federal policy that would improve respect for human rights. I would like to encourage the committee to consider acknowledging the expertise and experience of the NGO sector within the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, for example, using the voluntary sector accord as a starting point. Doing so would legitimize increased access for community-based services to have the authority to support human rights within corrections.

As you consider your work on this topic, I'd ask you to keep in mind that when we turn citizens into prisoners, we also have the responsibility of turning them from prisoners back into citizens. Making human rights for prisoners and maintaining those rights is an integral part of this process.

On behalf of St. Leonard's Society of Canada, I would like to thank you for looking into these important issues and for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to your questions. If there's anything that St. Leonard's can make available to you, please let me know.

The Acting Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvé.

Rick Sauvé, Lifeline In-Reach Worker, Collaborative Lifeline Program, St. Leonard's Society of Canada: Thank you. I'm pleased to be here today. For the past 38 years I've been a prisoner.

I served just over 17 years from maximum security down to minimum security. Since 1995. I've been on full parole.

Shortly after my release, I worked in Toronto for an agency called the Toronto Boys' Home, working with inner-city youth. Many of them were involved in gang culture. Then at the end of 1998, I was hired on to work as a LifeLine in-reach worker sponsored by St. Leonard's Society of Canada. It was a tripartite agreement that was set up between the national parole board, Corrections Canada and independent community organizations. I've been continuing to do that, even since the funding was cut in 2012. That's the lens that I'm going to be sharing my experiences and hopefully answering your questions.

I've assisted or observed at well over 400 parole hearings, which is kind of unique in itself that somebody who's still serving a life sentence does that kind of work. We used to provide a service, taking people back into the community, walking back into the community with them. After the cancellation, I had the opportunity and the privilege, actually, of one national parole board member from Ontario put my name forward to provide some of the training that was held here in Ottawa for board members. When she asked me, she said, "We're starting to see people coming back into the community or coming before us that have served 20, 25, 30, 35 years, sometimes even longer periods of time, in incarceration. We don't know the challenges that they're going to face. We feel, with your own experience and the work that you've been doing, that you can shed some light on that.'' To me, it was a privilege.

I've often been asked what it's like to be out of prison now, and the reality is, I'm not. I still go into prison on a regular basis. I have flashbacks about being in prison. It's something that I've raised with the parole board and with Corrections, that when people come back into the community after such a long time, many of them experience post-traumatic stress, and that's an issue that hasn't been dealt with, in my view, adequately. So I continue to do this work.

Recently, there is new work inside the mediums. We started a program working with men who have come from the gang culture. One in eight lifers over the past number of years that have come in have identified their crimes associated with the gang culture. There is no programming in corrections to deal with that, so we developed that program and we've been delivering it. What we're hoping to do that same kind of work in the community.

It was mentioned that we lost our funding. The community agencies of St. Leonard's pulled some resources together and they've kept it alive. When LifeLine was cancelled, I thought, well, finally I don't have to go back into prison. Then one of the community board members said, "We have a moral responsibility to know who's coming back into our community, and we feel that your organization is one of the best to be able to provide that. Would you continue doing it?'' So I have.

Those are my opening comments. Thank you.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much to both of you. That chuckling was in no way a devaluation of your presentation. We just tend to get into a friendly competition about who's going to get to the microphone first.

This is primarily to you, Anita, but please feel welcome, Mr. Sauvé, if you have something to add. This is a question that is just to help us understand more about the work of St. Leonard's, with some specific aspects. This is a multi-part question. The first is options.

I guess the overarching tone or theme of my question would be along the lines of, can we actually envision a high-functioning, inclusive democratic society without prisons? That's the theme, but with all the various steps along the way to that possibility. You've obviously got lots of laws and lots of programs and lots of procedures to navigate.

So the first is in relation to mental health and various options that you have either developed or the envisioning on what is needed that's not in place. We won't worry about dollar amounts or price tags at this point. Let's just look at optimizing what we currently have and whether that could move us to a better place.

There's the question around those with mental health challenges. Then there's the notion of prison in communities, and here we'd look at section 81 probably as a starting point. Then there's the conditional release into the community, hovering around section 84 considerations. If you could, please, wherever it's appropriate, tell us a little bit more specific information about prisoners of indigenous origin and/or prisoners with mental health challenges.

Ms. Desai: Sure. Regarding the mental health piece, I'll sort of break it down into two different parts.

The work we've done has looked at preventing people with mental health problems and illness from entering the criminal system to begin with. We've done some research in that area. I'd be happy to make that available to the committee if it was of interest. We have looked at that as one component. The other is looking at tertiary crime prevention and how do we ensure that those who are released from prisons, who have mental health problems and illness and are released to halfway houses, are better supported within the community?

Part of my opening remarks referred to the challenge around contracting and ensuring that we have the right kinds of staff and the right funding in place to have staff who can support people who are discharged to the community with mental health needs, to have their mental health care supported into the community, so that smooth transition I'm talking about from prison to the community is well addressed. I think that requires a lot of trained professionals who can work with the halfway house community to ensure the safety and well-being of those individuals.

I think you sort of have to look at it in those two parts. What we can we do to keep people out of prison? There are good examples from across the country that are looking into that and are creating some unique opportunities in different communities. Usually that has to do with the individual police programs that are in place and how creative they can get with their options and their networking.

As far as the indigenous populations, St. Leonard's doesn't claim to hold a specific expertise in this area, but a number of our agencies work within their local areas to reach out to or have had indigenous communities reach out to them to say that we've got this group of people coming back into our community that have been incarcerated and we're trying to do that wrap around care. How can St. Leonard's help out in their community? We've seen that kind of partnership taking place.

I think it's important that our agencies are not claiming to be experts but are interested in the collaboration piece and looking at breaking down, as somebody was saying earlier, some of the silos around these issues.

Senator McPhedran: Looking into parole in the community, if you could speak more about that, please?

Ms. Desai: I'm just trying to clarify. Are you looking at ideas around abolition?

Senator McPhedran: Yes, both the long-term vision, but also what's working or not working now with the existing parameters that you have to work within.

Ms. Desai: Sure. I'll let Rick speak to parole.

Mr. Sauvé: Prisons are necessary, but I think sometimes we have an over-reliance on prisons. There are many people inside prisons who could be easily managed in the community. I know of many people who are in prison who are well past their dates who could be effectively managed in the community.

As far as indigenous populations — and I can only speak mainly about Ontario — there's not enough community resources put into specialized halfway houses or community resources for that.

My belief is, yes, if somebody is a risk to the community, by all means, keep them inside. But if the risk can be managed in the community, it makes more sense, because they are going to be coming back into the community, and society as a whole would be better served by them serving their time in the community.

Ms. Desai: Particularly around the level of risk, there is pretty clear indication that those who are considered low-risk are effectively managed in the community, with the right resources in place. I wouldn't see an increase in access to day parole. We know that graduated release is the best practice, not holding people until stat release and then releasing them to the community. It's obviously not ideal. It doesn't allow for good preparedness to reenter the community.

Looking at increasing access and awareness for people to have access to day parole options and escorted temporary absences and those options that are in place on paper, but trying to put that into practice so you have the opportunity to get people involved in that graduated release process so they can be connected to community services and start that healthy path towards wellness in the community.

Senator McPhedran: You've probably heard me reference the fact that I'm an independent senator from Manitoba. Until this job, I've had a fairly deep engagement at the community level, even though I'm in a university setting. I'm really struck by part of the answer to the prevention and also some of the reference to addressing the practical realities of gang seduction and perpetuation of the culture.

If I heard you correctly, one of the key points you made was about the significance and the importance and the essential aspect of having the community-based policing being adequately resourced, but not just resourced, also the connection to the community.

I'm thinking of the recently retired police chief in Winnipeg, Devon Clunis, and I think his successor, Danny Smyth, has continued this, where there's an extensive community advisory system put in place throughout neighbourhoods in the downtown core and areas where gang culture is most obviously thriving. I don't know enough about the details of that to say, "Oh, this is obviously a best practice.'' My question is more general. From where each of you is working, what are the features of the community-based policing or policing that connects to community that you've seen be most effective in countering the grip of gang recruitment and then gang culture?

Mr. Sauvé: When I think of crime prevention and trying to deal with youth becoming involved in the gang culture, I don't think there's enough resources put into other community-based organizations to do that. There used to be some programs in Toronto, for example, conflict mediation at Downsview that provided services in the Jane and Finch area. I know they're no longer happening.

There should be more emphasis on community-based organizations partnering with police. That's where I see things.

When I think of combating crime, it's preventing crime. So if we can get programs into the schools and try to encourage youth to stay in school, to become active and a part of their community, then we can keep them out of prison. Many of the young men that I work with inside that were part of the gang culture said they didn't feel they had a place in the community; there was no place for them to go.

That's where we need the resources to partner with community-based organizations to keep people away from that kind of lifestyle. We're hoping to utilize some of the guys that are successful going through our program in the institution, to encourage them to work with youth in the community, to produce a film so they can take that into the communities and talk to youth in the community to say, "Hey, I never thought I would be sitting in a cell serving a life sentence. Nobody ever talked to me about that.'' That's the kind of thing.

Yes, you can partner with the community police. When I was in Frontenac Institution, I had the Chief of Police from Carleton Place come to the institution, because he had just become the new Chief of Police in Carleton Place, and he asked if I would partner with him and go into the high school. So we had an assembly. That was a number of years ago, but we did that, and it was very well-received.

The thing about prisons is you have fences to keep people in, but it also keeps the community out. To bring innovative ideas into the prison, you need to encourage people from the community to come in. Over the last number of years, a lot of the activities that used to be done to encourage the community coming in to work with men and women in the prisons have been fenced out.

Senator Pate: Thank you for coming. It's great to have you here, especially someone like Mr. Sauvé, whom I've known for a better part of four decades.

I have a question in terms of St. Leonard's, but I'd like to start with Mr. Sauvé.

One thing that would be useful to hear is how much success or lack thereof you have had trying to challenge Corrections policy where it interferes with the law. To pick up on my colleague's question, Senator McPhedran talked about sections 81 and 84, but also section 29 by implication, when she talked about mental health, and how that has worked when you've tried to challenge Corrections policy where the policy interferes with the legislative intent. I'll let you think about that for a minute.

Rick, you started into it a few minutes ago, and I'd invite you to expand upon how things have changed over the number of decades that you've been involved in terms of community access, like the ability for people to go out and start their lives anew. I think particularly of all the restrictions that have been placed on lifers who sometimes have been not having to report for as many as 20 years and then suddenly have to go on regular reporting. Any of those experiences would be useful. I know of some, but I know I don't know of all of them, so I would be happy to have you expand upon that.

Mr. Sauvé: As for challenges in policies with Corrections, it's difficult when you're serving a life sentence, but we try to bring awareness to it. One of the things that tends to happen inside is that there are so many people that get screened out of programs inside the institutions, that don't have complete access to programming within the institutions, and the programs are changing so often.

Many of the men that I have been working with in our program have been screened out of programs.

We used to do a lot of fundraising and working within the community. A number of years ago, we had a thing called Con Walk, and it was working with the Muscular Dystrophy Association. We used to start on the front steps of Parliament Hill, and we were dressed in the old striped convict uniforms. That's where we would start our fundraising, and, in over four years, we raised over $120,000.

We had the Special Olympics in Collins Bay, where people with developmental challenges were coming in and working with men, and we'd bring some women over from P. for W., when it was still open. So it was that kind of engagement with the community. What it did was not only help the prisoners but help the community to have an understanding of what was taking place inside. Pretty much all of that stuff has gone by the wayside.

As far as some of the challenges with policies, with the cost factor for prisoners, because they have to pay room and board and they have to now pay for over-the-counter medication, many prisoners can't afford to go out on their passes. They don't have the funds to do that. As to a lot of the education programs that were taking place, I educated myself while I was in prison, and I paid for pretty much most of my education, and so I should. But I had some disposable income in there. Now, men and women serving time don't have that kind of disposable income. I've seen prisoners coming back into the community with $80 after being in prison for decades.

So those kinds of challenges coming back into the community, those are some of the policies that we try to make Corrections aware of, but to sit down and challenge some of those policies, I'm not sure that we're in the best position to be able to do that.

Senator Pate: I'm not sure we are, either, but, certainly, we're in a position, through this study, to make some recommendations. So what are some of the top recommendations you think we should make around human rights for people being released into the community but also for people inside?

Mr. Sauvé: One of the things is I think that, when people are ready to come back into the community, that should be encouraged. There is a point where you can keep somebody in prison too long. There is a threshold where you can keep somebody too long, and they start to lose hope. Once they start to do that, then that chance of successful reintegration is somewhat diminished.

One of the things is our LifeLine Program. Recently, I took an elderly gentleman to Toronto on his first UTA. He's in his 70s, and I believe he's suffering from early signs of dementia. He had a breakdown. There is no way he would have been able to take the bus, and that was his option, either to take the bus or for me to provide that transportation. So I took him to Toronto, and, when we got to the parking lot where the parole office is, he collapsed. He physically couldn't make it up to the parole office. So I took him over to the halfway house, and I called the parole office and told them, "I can't bring him up there. He's over at the halfway house.'' So the halfway house staff, along with me, made sure that he was okay, and we asked him if he wanted to go to the hospital. Then the parole officer came over there. But I wondered, what would have happened if he had been on the bus and that had happened? All he had was his pass and his ID card. He doesn't have good command of the English language. He had been in well past his full parole eligibility. So what would have happened to him? Somebody would have called the police, and how would you deal with that? So that kind of thing of assisting them in their reintegration, and that's what we used to do with our LifeLine program. We would work with people at the earliest stages of their sentence on into the community.

When somebody went to segregation, one of the first things that we would do is go into segregation and see the prisoner in the hole. That's what it was called. It was called the hole. We would first make sure that they were okay. We had an outreach line so that they could reach out and talk to somebody, because we wanted to keep them alive first, and then we could work on trying to transition them back into the population. I had many wardens over the years ask me and some of my coworkers to go to see people in segregation, to make sure that they were okay, or to try to get them off of a hunger strike or to try to get them to start taking their medications. It was that peer support work that is so important. Those are some of the things that we could do.

Quickly, one more thing: I just did a parole hearing with a young man who is a few years past his full parole eligibility. He's in minimum security and is only eligible for full parole for deportation. He went before the board, and the board said, "Sorry, at this time, we can't make a decision to grant you parole for deportation,'' because he wouldn't be supervised in another country. So what's his option? To stay in prison until he dies?

There are many prisoners that are in that same situation. It's left up to the prisoner to try to develop a release plan into a country. Some of the people were raised here in Canada, but they are going to be deported. So it's up to them to try to develop a release plan to another country. Then, when they go before the board, it is the board that has to determine whether or not that release plan is going to be viable. Those are some of the policies that should be looked at.

It was unfortunate. When the young man said, "What are my options,'' it was, "You may never get out of prison.'' I sat with him in the visiting room afterward to make sure he was okay, but to send that kind of message that you may never get out of prison is pretty traumatic for somebody to face.

Senator Pate: You've outlined, Rick, a couple of things — and that last one is a very good example — where the parole board is exceeding its jurisdiction. That is an area where, I would suggest, this committee could make some recommendations about it not being the jurisdiction of the parole board to determine supervision around the world. It's the determination of the risk in Canada to the Canadian public. It strikes me that that scenario we could be looking at.

It also strikes me that some of the other areas that you talked about are restrictions that are policy, not the law. There have been areas where the law has changed, and another one that, once Anita has commented, I would love to hear your comments on, is the whole issue of the use of video conferences for parole hearings and how that's impacting people, as well as the number of indigenous men and women, lifers in particular, who you've seen actually exit the system and how that's best achieved. So thank you for raising those issues.

Senator Martin: I'm listening to you and learning a lot. I want to thank you, Mr. Sauvé, for your testimony because it gives us insights that we otherwise would not have, so I think it's quite valuable.

I wanted to clarify with Senator Pate regarding recommendations we are discussing, that it would be something we would consider as a committee. I don't want to mislead our witnesses in any way. With recommendations, we will consider all of them and we will be discussing them with the full committee.

Senator Pate: My apologies; I overstepped.

Senator Martin: No, this is just a clarification.

Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for being here and thank you, Mr. Sauvé, for sharing your story. I always find that brings a reality to what we're studying. Thank you for your work, Ms. Desai.

I come from the community and I really value community-based services. I know the risks involved with funding. Can you tell me a bit more about where your funding was coming from and what's happening in that funding base? I know the value, because when you don't have funding, then the good work you're doing won't be happening. Can you talk a bit about those issues?

Ms. Desai: The funding for LifeLine was ended in 2012. A few agencies stepped up to contribute some money to keep a small portion of that work alive. Rick was involved with that as well. He's one of the in-reach workers that continue to do this work. We joked that it's on life support and that we've been waiting for it to be reinvigorated in some way.

I know Senator Pate had some questions around policy and mental health. I think I can overlap these together a little. As community partners tackling mental health policy, it's not like we have an easier time than Rick does. Sometimes it's a bit of a challenge for us. However, the point I would like to make around in-reach specifically is there has been a misconception that this work is being done by volunteers since the work was ended. Frankly, that's not true. The NGO sector stepped up to try to find ways across the board to keep it alive. In some places, that hasn't worked out in the last five years, so I think that's a real detriment to our correctional system.

I think it's important to recognize that while many volunteers provide excellent support with our prisons, they don't replace the need for experienced and trained staff to do this work. From the stories that Rick is sharing with you, you can appreciate the amount of effort, time and dedication that this individual has to the work that he does. It is something that connects with people. It's what I mentioned in my opening remarks around "lived and shared experience''; that is, the ability to make a connection with somebody who has been through a similar experience. To have that individual be trained and work with community partners in a structured way is a well-known approach within the community corrections sector as a means of addressing issues within the prison, which also improves the transition to the community. It's one of those pieces that overlaps nicely. We've struggled from a policy perspective in terms of getting some sort of support from CSC to advocate for the efficacy of peer mentoring within our institutions.

Senator Hartling: So where did the funding come from in the past?

Ms. Desai: Correctional Service Canada was funding it. The contracts were held by community-based agencies. There was a criteria in place. It was a minimum of five years of parole served in the community and demonstrating positive role model qualities. They were then hired by the community-based agencies to hold the contracts. Then the guys went in and did the work and were compensated for that work. Their travel was covered. The agencies were able to take on a small administrative fee so they could administer the program and work with these individuals to do that program, and it was quite affordable.

Senator Hartling: Do you feel you're at risk right now to keep struggling for the funding?

Ms. Desai: Absolutely.

Senator Hartling: What would you say, 90 per cent?

Ms. Desai: It's 100 per cent at risk. I would say we're at risk of losing this program within a year.

Senator Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.

The Chair: So the public is not confused, I was away at an autism rally on the Hill, in a very important personal advocacy role in the world of intellectual disability. I was here at the beginning for the testimony with the parole board. Welcome again. I'm hearing whispers that the testimony has been fascinating.

Senator McPhedran: Are we broadcasting?

The Chair: Yes.

Senator McPhedran: Shouldn't that sign be on to tell us that?

The Chair: It sort of says that.

Senator McPhedran: There is nothing, is there?

The Chair: It should be on. This will be aired on Saturday evenings forever.

Senator McPhedran: If I may make a request, it would be very good to be told that.

The Chair: Normally it should be lit up.

Senator McPhedran: Well, it's not.

The Chair: Well, we'll talk to somebody.

Senator Ngo: I would like to follow up with the comments made by Mr. Sauvé just now. In that case, do you think the parole board's hearing procedures are not fair? If it's not fair, how do we improve it?

Mr. Sauvé: How do we improve the parole board? The structure is kind of like a tribunal, so it's more questions than answers. With the circle hearings — and I have participated in them — everyone in the circle has an opportunity to speak. Sometimes I'll be an assistant at the hearing but they may have observers or support people there that, in my view, could offer valuable input to the board. Some of these people are going to be the supports to keep the person in the community, to help them, and so I think they could have a valuable contribution. I think the idea of the circle hearing could be extended to other hearings as well.

I was listening to how prisoners get prepared to present at parole hearings. I don't really prepare people to present at parole hearings. I prepare them for life on parole. That's the kind of thing I do. I encourage people to think of this as a conversation and that for the crime that they're serving, they are the best witness to do that, so to be honest and open.

I'm going to sound like I'm being critical about the file information, but I could read over all my files — I have stacks and boxes of files, and I have kept them all — and have no idea who I was reading about. Sometimes there is an over-reliance on files and sometimes there is misinformation in the files. It's difficult to get that misinformation changed. Quite often the individual parole officer or case worker will say, "I'm not the author of that, so I can't change that. You have to get those changes done yourself.'' Sometimes there is an over-reliance on the file information, and it may not be accurate. That's where, when the board is evaluating risking, there's also an opportunity for the support people to be able to speak and to say what kind of supports they will have as opposed to simply reading a piece of paper in the file.

I have great respect for the board. It's challenging. They get to read the files, but they have maybe an hour or two hours in the hearing to evaluate whether that person is going to be a risk to the community. They're going to my neighbours. They're going to be your neighbours. When I work with people, I don't necessarily try to prepare them for the hearing. I tell them what the rules are, but I prepare them for life on parole and to be successful on parole. I tell a lot of the guys I work with, "I don't care whether you get parole. I care that you stay out and you're not at risk to the community.''

The Chair: Did you say an hour? That's amazing.

Mr. Sauvé: Parole hearings usually take one to two hours, two and a half hours tops, but a lot of that is procedural kind of stuff, so the parole board members don't have a long time to do that kind of evaluation. Yes, they get to read the files, but the files may not be all that accurate. It is a very short period of time that they have, and that's why I think is there should be more input from the support people. Quite often I've seen family members that are going to be taking the person back into their home and don't have an opportunity to speak. Victims have an opportunity to read the victim impact statement, and there is an important aspect to that because the victims are still in many cases, most cases, are still traumatized, but they don't have necessarily an opportunity to fully participate in the hearing. So I think there are vast areas of improvement.

Senator McPhedran: Just picking up on that point, they may seem unrelated but I don't think they are. I've done quite a bit of work over the years in administrative law around various tribunals and decision-making. That's really what you're speaking to. I want to comment in support of your observation that the decision-making process can only be based on the evidence as presented to the decision makers. Often, the narrow interpretation of who are the parties to a decision, often the applicant and then the formal board, limits hugely the information that board members can have in reaching their decision. For members of the community, the victims, the much larger picture of those that are involved, if there is not some allowance for some input into that decision-making, including those that are providing support for the applicant, then I just wanted to reinforce the point you made. The decisions are not being made on the best evidence that could be available to those who have to make the decision.

Ms. Desai: I would like to add to that as well. Part of the challenge from what we hear is that having access to institutional parole officers, having access to a prisoner's own files, is sometimes a pretty significant challenge as well from a policy perspective. A lot of times they don't have all the information or any of it, and trying to get access to their institutional parole officers to get the process started ends up contributing greatly to the issues we heard around being able to get people to parole at their earliest eligibility date. That seems to be something that filters into the challenges that we're seeing.

Senator Martin: I just had a supplementary to Senator Ngo's question. When you say that the files can contain lots of misinformation, I was wanting to see if you could elaborate on a specific example, just to gain those insights. Secondly, how would misinformation be minimized? What needs to happen to minimize information that could not necessarily help the person that is up for parole when it comes time?

I know with health records, with educational records, when files are pretty thick and it's all paper versus e-files, there is a challenge to sort through all of these different pieces of information. Are the files only on paper? Is there a combination of e-files and paper documents? I'm curious how this information also is then passed on for those that need to see it.

Mr. Sauvé: The files are on both e-file and paper. It used to be just paper file at one time. But the prisoners don't have access to e-file or computer access to go over that.

In many cases they have to apply through freedom of information to get their files.

As a specific example, I will use myself. I was in Frontenac and I was preparing to go up for a hearing, and when I accessed my files, they had me serving time in the Joyceville at the same time for bank robbery. I said, "That can't be me. That has to come off. I have to go in front of the board.'' They said, "You have to make those arrangements.'' I just left it because that demonstrates that is a flagrant example of misinformation.

For a lot of prisoners, they may not understand what's in their files. They may not be able to have good command of English. They may not be able to read and write with proficiency to read over their files. What do you read? What do you present? It becomes so overwhelming that it's too much of a challenge for them to do that.

Quite often, when I work with somebody, when I present to the board, I talk about the person, because most often I've seen the person at various levels. I'm talking about the person, how he has changed, the character of the person, how he came about with this plan. The way we present to the board is different than if a lawyer presents to the board. Lawyers will tend to talk about the file information whereas we talk about the person.

Senator Martin: In terms of minimizing the misinformation or potential mistakes, is it just the nature of the process that it's difficult to help reduce the number of mistakes that may be made? Is there a way to do that?

Mr. Sauvé: Well, if there was a process where you could challenge some of the misinformation on there — but the board members will read the file the day before the hearing. So they're not accessing the files throughout the whole sentence. They'll read the files the day before the hearing. If they're doing three hearings or four hearings that day, they'll read the file information the day before. That's a volume of information for them to read. So I think there's a number of improvements that could be made.

Video conferencing, in my view, was a mistake because there is so much more in communication than language. I've sat through so many of the hearings where you're watching the video screen, and it is jumping or the sound breaks up, and it's just too difficult, and especially in some cultures, it's so foreign.

I wanted to touch a bit on indigenous people. When I started with LifeLine, I went into Fenbrook Institution in Gravenhurst. That's the institution that imprisoned the Inuit prisoners. I couldn't understand why they were bringing the Inuit prisoners down to Gravenhurst.

I'm going to share a quick story. I represented a young man at the board, and he was granted UTAs. I was taking him to Ottawa on his pass, and in my conversations with him I asked what he did in Nunavut. He said he was a stone carver and a hunter. So we were driving along highway 7 and I saw a deer and I said, "Look at the deer over there.'' He said, "I don't see it.'' Further down, I saw a great horned owl. I said, "Look, there's a great horned owl up there.'' He said, "I don't see it.'' I said, "I thought you said you were a hunter.'' He said, "I can't see anything for the trees.''

It was one of those moments where I thought: I have to change the way I think about it. Here he was, taken away from his culture, his community, his support, his lifestyle and food, and brought down here. I kept thinking: I hope he doesn't run into a tree when he gets to Ottawa. He's struggled. He's been in and out. I can't help but think that if he wasn't down here, how much better an opportunity would he have had to be reintegrated into the community? There are too many trees down there for him. There are too many problems in this area, where they're separated from their community.

That's one group of our citizens that I feel is being unfairly treated, and they're taken away. How do they get visits? I know the cost to my family to visit when they would drive down to Kingston from my home community. It's difficult for people from indigenous populations to visit their families and to be supportive. Those are the supports that are going to keep them out of prison.

The Chair: Thank you very much. It's extremely important, because we are going to have a real focus on indigenous women in prisons and the overpopulation. What you brought up today is significant for us.

Senator Pate: Thank you for giving a number of examples of exactly how the law has been interfered with by policy and practice, because the file information is just one example. As you know, not only do prisoners not have access to computers, or often their files, but when they do try to correct that information — and I thank Senator Martin for raising that question — oftentimes they're unable to do so and even sometimes have to go to court, and even then have great challenges.

I'm curious how often you've seen people be able to correct their files. We've already had testimony and discussion before the committee. One of the most well known of these examples is what happened to Ashley Smith. It wasn't until after she was dead that all her files became known fairly publicly, but it was clear that the description on the file of who she was did not in any way resemble how staff or other prisoners saw her. I'm curious as to how often you've seen successful corrections of files, aside from having to go to court.

Mr. Sauvé: It's rare. I can think of only a handful of prisoners who have been able to have their file information changed. Something will come up at a parole hearing, and quite often that's the first time the prisoner knows there's some misinformation there. They'll be asked about charges or about something in the institution, and they'll say, "Well, I'm not aware of that.'' This isn't a criticism of the board. The board is going by the information that's in front of them. They'll say, "Well, that's on your file. Did you not read your file beforehand?'' Quite often they don't have access to the file information.

Ms. Desai: Further to that, there are two pieces to that as far as recommendations to be put forward. Increasing access to a prisoner's own information in their files would be a first step. I think this committee has also heard from others about the option for independent adjudication for things that come up within the prison, so that if something needs to be challenged, they could look at having that done independently. That's something we would support as well.

Senator Pate: I'm curious; rather than looking at oversight that is actually controlled or at arm's length from corrections, I wonder if you've looked at things like the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture or some of the other models around judicial oversight of corrections.

Ms. Desai: I think that's something St. Leonard's would be interested in looking at going forward. As an organization, our management has focused predominantly on the transition of community corrections and holding that piece up, but that would be something within our scope, I would think. It's not something we've done yet.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We should have you back. This was so important for us. I'll look at the transcript for the portion I missed in between. Your recommendations are well noted here today as we continue this study. It's going to take some time for the study, but we hope to have an interim report and to work in real time. You talk about the issues that are happening in real time for many prisoners. Mr. Sauvé and Ms. Desai, we appreciate the work that is being done at St. Leonard's Society of Canada.

With that, we adjourn this session. Thank you both so much.

(The committee adjourned.)

Back to top