Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 23, Evidence - December 4, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 4, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We are continuing our public hearings on Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), which proposes to transfer the authority to grant an escorted temporary absence for inmates sentenced to life in imprisonment, from the head of a penitentiary to the Parole Board of Canada.
As a reminder to those watching these committee hearings, they are open to the public and are also available via web cast on the parl.gc.ca website. You can find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under ''Senate Committees.''
For our first panel today, we welcome from, Don Head, Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada; Harvey Cenaiko, Chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada; and from Public Safety Canada, Angela Connidis, Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections & Criminal Justice Directorate. We welcome you all.
We will begin opening statements with Ms. Connidis. The floor is yours.
Angela Connidis, Director General, Crime Prevention, Corrections & Criminal Justice Directorate, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It is pleasure for me to be here today.
The bill before you focuses on amending the escorted temporary absence scheme for offenders serving a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. I'm going to first provide you with a quick overview of the existing escorted temporary absence scheme to better situate the proposal.
Broadly speaking, there are two types of escorted temporary absences, or ETAs. There are ETAs for rehabilitative and non-rehabilitative purposes.
Rehabilitative ETAs are those that contribute to an offender's rehabilitation and community reintegration, for example, ETAs for family contact or community service.
Non-rehabilitative ETAs are those that are granted out of necessity. Two examples would be ETAs for medical appointments and to attend court proceedings.
Correctional Services Canada, CSC, has authority to grant non-rehabilitative ETAs at any time in an inmate's sentence.
At all times during an ETA, whether for rehabilitative or non-rehabilitative purposes, an offender is accompanied by an escort.
Currently the Parole Board of Canada is responsible for authorizing rehabilitative ETAs, from the start of a life sentence up until the inmate reaches day parole eligibility. Once an inmate reaches day parole eligibility, decision-making authority for the ETAs shifts from the Parole Board of Canada to CSC. CSC maintains decision-making authority for all ETAs for the remainder of the inmate's life sentence. That's how it works today.
The bill before you would amend the scheme to extend the parole board's decision-making authority for rehabilitative ETAs past the day parole eligibility date. In other words, no longer would there be an automatic transfer of release authority for rehabilitative ETAs from the board to CSC at day parole eligibility. Instead, the board would maintain authority for these ETAs until three criteria have been met. First, the inmate has passed day parole eligibility; second, the inmate has been granted a rehabilitative ETA by the parole board; and, third, the inmate successfully completes the rehabilitative ETA. If those three criteria are met then decision-making authority for rehabilitative ETAs would move to CSC.
That being said, if a subsequent rehabilitative ETA granted by CSC is not successfully completed, decision-making authority for that would revert back to the parole board.
That is the essence of the proposal before you. With that Mr. Chair, I will close my remarks and be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have for me. Thank you, very much.
Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada: Good morning Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I'm pleased to have a second opportunity to appear before the committee on private member's Bill C-483, which addresses escorted temporary absences, or ETAs.
On March 27, 2014, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the House of Commons to discuss this bill and its various elements. As you are aware, several amendments have been made since the bill was first introduced.
Bill C-483, as amended, is proposing that the Parole Board of Canada has releasing authority on ETAs for offenders serving sentences of imprisonment for life as a minimum punishment for the purposes of community service, family contact, including parental responsibilities, personal development for rehabilitative purposes or compassionate reasons. This specific group of offenders includes those convicted of the most serious crimes — first or second degree murder, or high treason — and often are referred to as ''lifers.''
For clarity, it does not include offenders with a dangerous offender designation serving indeterminate sentences, as they are not considered lifers in the context of the law. Furthermore, this bill would have no impact on work release as this type of conditional release is not considered to be an ETA, and therefore CSC would retain granting authority for this group of offenders.
Lifers represent approximately 20 per cent of the Correctional Service of Canada's total offender population. Almost two thirds of lifers are residing in institutions, while the remaining offenders are supervised in the community on a conditional release. As of April 2014, there were approximately 4,500 lifers. Of these, 1,400 had not yet reached day parole eligibility.
Under this bill, as amended, the releasing authority for ETAs for lifers may be transferred from the Parole Board of Canada to the CSC, when a lifer has reached day parole eligibility; a positive ''rehabilitative'' ETA by the board has previously been granted; and the ETA was not cancelled after its commencement due to a breach of condition. In the event that an ETA is cancelled due to breach of condition, the releasing authority for any subsequent ETAs would revert to the Parole Board of Canada.
CSC would retain decision-making authority with respect to the ETAs for federal offenders serving sentences that fall outside the scope of this bill. To be clear, CSC would continue to make ETA decisions for all offenders who are not lifers, for example, offenders with dangerous offender designations serving indeterminate sentences. Additionally, CSC would retain the responsibility for the case preparation and assessment associated with ETA applications, regardless of their releasing authority.
Under the current legislative framework for ETAs, once a lifer reaches day parole eligibility, the releasing authority is automatically transferred from the Parole Board of Canada to CSC. When a lifer applies for an ETA, the case management team scrutinizes the application thoroughly, evaluates the objective of the ETA against the objectives listed in the offender's correctional plan, and assesses the risk posed to public safety.
This transfer in decision-making authority allows CSC to work towards reintegrating lifers into the community. In other words, temporarily releasing these offenders under escort for short periods of time assists the CSC in deciding whether to recommend or not recommend parole. They provide a first opportunity for lifers to be observed in a community setting and assess their ability to function safely.
Of note, when CSC becomes the releasing authority, it considers both victims' concerns and previous Parole Board of Canada concerns and decisions during case preparation. If at any time the known safety concerns of registered victims cannot be adequately addressed, the ETA is denied or cancelled. Importantly, if a CSC decision to grant an ETA is contrary to a previous parole board decision, CSC carefully documents the rationale for its decision and demonstrates how concerns previously raised by the Parole Board of Canada have or have not been addressed within the context of the overall assessment of risk.
To provide some context, the total number of ETA permits for lifers has fluctuated since 2006, reaching a low of 14,955 permits in fiscal year 2009-10 and a high of 19,400 permits in 2013-14. Since 2006, the percentage of successful ETAs for lifers has remained constant at around 99 per cent and reflects all decisions made by the Parole Board of Canada and CSC.
Over the years, the majority of ETA permits issued to lifers, excluding medical ETAs, were issued to those residing at minimum security institutions, while almost no permits were issued to lifers residing at maximum security institutions.
Historically, the majority of ETAs for lifers that were deemed ''unsuccessful'' have been attributed to the offender returning to the institution late. It is no surprise that very few lifers breach conditions or have ETA permits cancelled, given the stringent risk assessments completed prior to ETAs and the diligence of my staff during temporary absences.
In line with CSCs commitment to provide the best possible services to registered victims, the CSC Victim Services Unit contacts all registered victims in advance of an offender being released on an ETA and disclose the date and time of the ETA, the destination, the duration and the reasons for the ETA, and any special conditions.
To illustrate, as of April 13, 2014, there were approximately 3,700 registered victims for lifers. Almost 50,000 ETA-related disclosures were made to these victims by CSC's Victim Services Unit between April 2013 and March 2014. Of course, in cases of emergency medical ETAs, this advance notification does not take place, given the short time frames.
Although there is currently no stated requirement for CSC to advise registered victims of a transfer in the releasing authority for ETAs when a lifer has reached day parole eligibility, CSC is able to, by providing context within which to understand the specific notifications.
Mr. Chair, CSC values receiving information about the impact of offences on the victim. CSC is committed to ensuring that victims of federal offenders have an effective voice in the federal correctional and justice systems. As such, I encourage victims of offenders to continue to register with CSC to receive timely information about the offender and to provide a victim impact statement.
An internal CSC policy was promulgated in January 2014, reinforcing the requirement that CSC's Victim Services Unit inform registered victims that they can, in fact, submit up-to-date statements for consideration, intended for the decision maker, outlining any concerns that they may have with respect to release destinations and special conditions. I'd like to emphasize that this CSC process is in fact strengthening victim consideration in the decision-making process by allowing registered victims to provide and have their statements be heard and considered.
In closing, CSC's day-to-day activities could be impacted in the area of case management workload, potentially increasing in relation to the preparation for more Parole Board of Canada hearings and delivering presentations at the hearings should Bill C-483 become law. I have confidence that my staff will continue to produce the same thorough assessments for all ETA decisions and will assist our colleagues at the Parole Board of Canada in making the decisions which appropriately balance the rehabilitation of an offender with the concerns of victims and the safety of Canadian communities.
For the sake of time, Mr. Chair, I will stop there.
Harvey Cenaiko, Chairperson, Parole Board of Canada: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, I have been asked to appear today before the committee to speak to private member's Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I have prepared a brief opening statement to provide the committee with a summary of how the bill would affect the operations of the Parole Board of Canada, after which I would be pleased to take any questions honourable senators may have.
By way of background and as the committee is no doubt aware, the Parole Board of Canada is an independent administrative tribunal. The board has exclusive authority under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, to make decisions on the conditional release of federal offenders.
For certain offenders, the board also has the authority to authorize escorted temporary absences, or ETAs. ETAs, as you've just heard, are short-term releases during which the offender is supervised at all times by the Correctional Service of Canada or a person approved by the warden of the institution.
Unlike other types of conditional release, offenders may apply for ETAs at any time during their sentence. ETAs serve an important function in corrections by permitting offenders short, safe and supervised access to community resources and to family at specific times during their incarceration. Such ETAs might be, for example, to attend addictions programming and are referred to as rehabilitative ETAs.
Currently under the CCRA, the service has the authority, under section 17, to authorize ETAs for all offenders. However, section 746.1 of the Criminal Code requires that for offenders sentenced to life, ETAs authorized by the CSC must be subject to the approval of the parole board until the offender reaches day parole eligibility, that is, three years before the offender becomes eligible for full parole.
For example, an offender who is serving a life sentence with a full parole ineligibility of 25 years, the board is the decision-making authority for most ETAs for the first 22 years of the sentence. Once this offender is eligible for day parole, CSC presently has exclusive authority to grant ETAs.
The first time an offender serving a life sentence who is not yet eligible for day parole applies for an ETA, the board convenes a hearing at which two board members review the application. Just as with any board review, registered victims are advised that a review is scheduled. Victims may provide risk-relevant information before the review for consideration. They may also attend any hearings held by the Parole Board of Canada if they wish, and they can provide and present a victim statement.
As with any type of conditional release, public safety is the first consideration in the board's decision to grant an ETA. Decision criteria include risk-relevant information, the desirability of the absence, the offender's behaviour during sentence, and a structured plan for the absence. Board members may impose any conditions considered reasonable and necessary to protect society and to facilitate the reintegration of the offender.
If the board approves the ETA and the ETA is successful, reviews of subsequent ETA applications from the offender are usually conducted in office by two board members. There is no hearing. The only exception is an ETA requested for compassionate reasons — to attend the funeral of a close family friend, for example. Since decisions are required quickly rather than convene a full hearing, these reviews are typically conducted by the board in an office review.
As explained earlier, Bill C-483 would amend the CCRA to extend the parole board's authority to include ETAs for offenders serving minimum life sentences, that is, those serving a sentence for first- and second-degree murder.
The proposed bill would see the parole board retain authority for ETAs until an offender has successfully completed one rehabilitative ETA at a time past their day parole eligibility date. At that point, the authority for the ETAs for offenders serving life would transfer to CSC.
Under the bill, CSC will retain authority for ETAs for medical reasons or to attend judicial court proceedings or a coroner's inquest for these offenders. The net effect is that passage of Bill C-483 would mean more than double the number of hearings and in-office reviews conducted by the board related to rehabilitative ETA applications.
At present, the board conducts an average of approximately 142 rehabilitative ETAs per year. We estimate some 230 to 240 additional rehabilitative ETA reviews would be required in the first year of implementation of the bill. This number would increase over time, as this authority would continue over the life of the offenders serving life sentences for first- or second-degree murder.
As mentioned, victims would be, as with all board reviews, notified of any upcoming ETA review and would have the opportunity to provide information. Information provided by victims will continue to be part of all reviews by the parole board, and registered victims will continue to be notified of the result of all board ETA decisions, as well as the date of and location of the temporary absence. If there is a hearing, victims would have an opportunity to attend and present a statement.
In conclusion, I would note that ETA decision making is based on strict criteria. While assessed on a case-by-case basis, the board considers the reason for the temporary absence, the supervision plan during release, the offender's behaviour to date and any risk the offender might pose on release.
All ETAs as approved by both CSC and the board currently have a success rate of more than 99 per cent. Last year our grant rate was 75 per cent. This is not unexpected given the detailed assessment process and the fact offenders are accompanied at all times while outside the penitentiary.
I would like thank the committee for its time and attention and would be pleased to take any questions you may have.
The Chair: I will begin with the committee's deputy chair, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Thank you to the presenters here today for the job that you do on behalf of all Canadians.
Yesterday we heard from some expert witnesses, one of whom suggested that perhaps this amended provision is in the wrong place, that is, that it should have been placed under a different section of the act. I don't know if you had an opportunity to read this testimony. Would either of you wish to comment?
Mr. Head, do you wish to comment on that particular argument?
Mr. Head: I will let Ms. Connidis comment on it as well.
From our perspective, the act governs all the corrections. Part I has traditionally governed operations in institutions; Part II, conditional releases; Part III, the Office of the Correctional Investigator.
The fact is that when we talk about escorted temporary absences, and section 17 of the act, it's in Part I. This is a clarification to Part I, so I don't see that it has any significant bearing on how the business was done. The act guides the parole board and us. Whether it's in Part I or II, our professionals are smart enough to know the law is the law and that is what they need to follow.
Ms. Connidis: I would have nothing to add to the commissioner's response.
Senator Baker: Then it's a matter of opinion.
The argument presented to us was a particular case based on its own facts. There was a witness that appeared before this committee, and her main argument was that she had an opportunity to present risk relevant information to the parole board, and she had an opportunity to present a victim statement prior to a decision by the parole board concerning that person's release.
As matters unfolded in her case, the parole board turned down an application, and it was at that point in time three years prior to eligibility. Corrections then approved the release. Her point was that she has no opportunity to give the same presentation to corrections that she gave to the parole board in the short period of time of a decision being made. Is she correct in the facts that she presented to this committee in her argument?
Mr. Head: I have a couple of comments, senator. At the time of the case that's being referred to, it possibly wasn't as clear to victims that they could provide updated victim impact statements or —
Senator Baker: To corrections?
Mr. Head: To corrections. We have clarified that in our policy since January 2014, so she's correct.
But it is safe to say that whatever had been on file at that time would have been available for the warden's review in decision making. Although the victim may have had additional or new information they wanted to present, they would not necessarily have been advised or given the opportunity.
Senator Baker: So factually she was correct in what she presented to the committee.
Mr. Head: Yes.
Senator Baker: The other expert testimony before this committee yesterday was that upon assuming this new responsibility by the parole board could bring ''the administration of justice into disrepute.'' Our committee pointed out to her that that phrase is from our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a remedy. It's a very serious matter and has been considered by the courts over the years to constitute such a serious matter that it could lead to the exclusion of evidence before a trial and so on.
My question to the parole board is this: With assuming this new responsibility, does the chair agree that the administration of justice could be brought into disrepute in this country in that you could not process and you are not today processing matters in a timely fashion, and with this new workload, things would become so bad that the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute?
Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, senator, for your question.
I think the gist of the bill is in relation to victims and the case that you present is a very good one. If the bill goes through Parliament, and through the Senate, we will have an additional 234 reviews per year. There will be workload pressure, but we have estimates for the additional funding that may be required for additional staff and/or human resources that we may need.
However, it's extremely important that the board takes the point of view that the information victims provide is critically important in relation to an offender's file. That information is assessed each time a review take place on an offender's file whether it is for an ETA, a UTA for day parole or full parole. Whether the victim can attend the hearing or make a submission by written form, video conference or videotape, the board always takes very seriously the victims' statements and their concerns or comments if they present at a hearing, and it is truly important for them to be there.
Senator McIntyre: There is no question that the parole board deals with the most severe crimes, first- and second-degree murder. As a matter of fact, they deal with the matter until the expiration of all but three years of the specified number of years of imprisonment. During the last portion of the sentence, the granting of authority is shifted to the prison warden.
Bearing this in mind, I would like to know a little bit more about the three-year window. My understanding is that that three-year window is a historical issue that predates the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and probably goes back to the old penitentiary and parole acts then they were in place. Is there anything special or magical about those three years? Perhaps you can comment on this.
Ms. Connidis: I think we have three years before full parole eligibility to allow the parole board and Correctional Service Canada to assess how successful an inmate will be on full parole. The ETAs provide an opportunity for correctional staff to observe how well offenders will perform on parole, and this will go towards helping the parole board assess full parole eligibility when that time comes.
Senator McIntyre: So the three-year period has been there for a long time; it is nothing new.
Ms. Connidis: It's not new. It was in the act before.
Senator Joyal: I would like to come back to page 6 of your brief, Mr. Cenaiko, whereby you comment on the impact that bill would have on the operation of the parole board activities. You mentioned in answer to my colleague Senator Baker that the expected increase would be around 239 cases. In the following paragraph you mention that it might even increase over time.
In my opinion, there are two ways to address an increase in terms of workload: either get additional resources, so you would have to come back with a budget request and expect it be processed by Parliament every one or two years; or you slow down the overall activities because of the number of requests.
We were told yesterday that the time needed to process requests at the parole board was two to three and months. Can you confirm that?
Mr. Cenaiko: Senator, that would be the approximate time for a rehabilitative request, for rehabilitative ETA. However, for compassionate ETA, it would be four or five days.
Senator Joyal: If you want to attend a funeral, it is more time sensitive.
Mr. Cenaiko: The board does not take risk lightly, and our main goal is to ensure the protection of society. So we want to ensure that all relevant information is in the offender's file and the most up-to-date statements from victims are there as well, and all that information is reviewed in relation to that.
The new or additional rehabilitative ETA reviews would be, for example, between that twenty-second year and the twenty-fifth year of an offender's sentence. It's the first review; these would be additional reviews. Once it has been approved by or granted by the board, any additional reviews between that time and the twenty-fifth year, for example, before day parole eligibility or full parole eligibility, then CSC would take over. It's those first ones between that time period. We do them before that anyway; however, between that time period, the twenty-second and twenty-fifth year, we would do an additional in-person hearing.
Senator Joyal: Could you put a figure on how much longer it would take to proceed on those additional requests that the bill would invite you to do?
Mr. Cenaiko: We make 19,600 reviews each year, so this is adding 239. We make about 27,000 decisions each year. This will add 239 decisions to the 27,000 that we make now, so it's not a large amount of work, but there will be an additional workload for us.
Senator Joyal: We can expect that if you have no additional resources that there will be a delay from what you face normally in terms of the day a request is made and the day a decision is achieved?
Mr. Cenaiko: There would be some additional costs regarding HR, regarding resourcing the additional hearings, obviously because, of course, there is travel to the institution, unless it is by video conference. There would be additional costs related to the additional 239 reviews.
Senator Joyal: Could you translate that into person years in terms of your workforce?
Mr. Cenaiko: The estimate we have, because this is a private member's bill, is approximately $750,000 to $800,000 per year.
Senator Joyal: There will be a cost. There is a cost attached to this bill. Even though it's a private member's bill, it will impact your operation and the workload of your people.
Mr. Cenaiko: That's right, yes.
Senator Joyal: Thank you.
Mr. Head, thank you for the comment you made that you have changed your policy in terms of informing the victims. I understand it is section 25 of the CSC Act, isn't it?
Mr. Head: Section 25 provides a list of information that we can provide to victims, but we went one step further, senator, in terms of our internal policies in being more proactive in reaching out to victims in terms of significant correctional decisions that are being made, letting victims know they are coming up. If they want to provide updated victim impact statements or additional information that we may need, for example, they may have changed addresses and we can then take that into account. Our policy has been geared to being more proactive to reaching out to victims and making sure that the information we have is as up to date as possible.
Senator Joyal: As I understood, the sense of the act in relation to establishing or maintaining a relationship with the victims, a victim has to come forward to express an interest to be informed, to be consulted, to be notified and so forth.
We were told yesterday that one of the changes that the victim's bill of rights is including is the fact that the victim would have a right to be notified. Presently, it is only a matter of I would not say courtesy of the administration but, in diplomatic terms, it's a benevolent intention of the administration. I think I have chosen my terms well. I feel that now we are trying to change the approach to notify, per se, any victims. Is it your policy, or am I expanding it too much?
Mr. Head: No, you are in the right zone, senator. We've taken the spirit of the act and pushed that even further in terms of our own policies so that, clearly, victims need to know what is happening with the offender — if they want to know. This is key. We have victims who do not want to have contact, do not want information, and we respect that as well.
But for those who have indicated that they do, that are registered with us, we meet the intent of law. We are preparing to possibly meet the intent as defined in the victim's bill of rights, but we've pushed the envelope in terms of being proactive in reaching out.
We really want to make sure we have the most up-to-date and current information from registered victims so that we're making good, sound, risk-based decisions at the institutional level.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: In terms of the last part of the sentence of an inmate sentenced to life as a minimum sentence, the authority to grant an escorted absence is transferred from the warden of the institution to the Parole Board of Canada.
First, why is this transfer made? What is the difference in the way in which the two offices make these decisions?
[English]
Mr. Cenaiko: It's the law that it transfers over at three years for eligibility, and this new private member's bill will change that. At the present time, at the three years, once the offender is eligible for day parole, that transfer then takes place. It's just automatic that now CSC and the warden make the decision, not the Parole Board of Canada. Prior to, the parole board did that right through the offender's incarceration, but at that eligibility period it transfers.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I understand that this is not currently the case, but it would be with the bill. In terms of public safety, there are different types of permission; does that produce different results?
Given that this will occur, and I understand that this is not currently the case, there is still the warden of the institution, where you intervene, as with the Parole Board of Canada, once the person is eligible for escorted temporary absences. From a public safety perspective, will that lead to changes? Will safety remain the same? We understand that you may have additional work. If memory serves, I believe that certain unions are complaining about having to provide supervision because, at times, there were too many absences and not enough guards.
[English]
Mr. Head: On the first part of the question, senator, I don't think we'll see any diminution of public safety results. We look at the success rates now under the current scheme and 99 per cent of escorted temporary absences are successful. That includes those granted by the parole board and by Correctional Services Canada.
One of the reasons that there is that success rate, for lack of a better phrase, is that we use almost identical risk assessment tools for assessing offenders: assessing their previous behaviour, their behaviour while in the institution, their plans and their motivation. The tools that the parole board uses are almost identical to the various tools that we use, and I think that speaks to the issue of the congruency of the success rates.
In terms of the workload piece from a correctional service perspective, for our parole officers now, regardless of whether the decision is a Parole Board of Canada decision or, under the current scheme, a warden's decision, they still have to do the write-up. So the transfer of authority to the parole board for that new period of time will not change the workload for the parole officers because they have to do the write-up, if they were doing it for the warden. The only change for us will be that our parole officers will have to now present at a parole hearing for that first review. But in terms of the actual write-ups, the work would carry on regardless if we kept the current scheme or if we went to the new scheme, as proposed in the private member's bill.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to welcome all three of you. Mr. Head and Mr. Cenaiko, it is a pleasure to have you both here together. This is rare. I have a few questions about the participation of victims in the current system. At present, what percentage of victims is notified and what percentage of victims take part in hearings for this type of temporary absence?
[English]
Mr. Head: Since the promulgation of our new policy in January, for all registered victims there is requirement for our staff to reach out that there is an ETA so that they are made aware that a potential ETA decision is coming up and whether they want to provide information.
We have some registered victims who tell us that they are only interested in a parole board decision or some other kind of decision. They will let us know what kind of information they want, but our policy is geared to —
Senator Boisvenu: Do you have an idea of what percentage of victims are in the victim register?
Mr. Head: Totally, we have just over 7,800 registered victims, and about 4,000 or 5,000 of those are victims are in relation to first or second degree murder.
Senator Boisvenu: What is the percentage of those victims who participate in a hearing?
Mr. Head: I will have to defer to the chairman.
Mr. Cenaiko: Victims that have attended as observers, not providing a statement, was 23 per cent. We work with CSC in relation to our numbers. We had 4,000 observers at 1,600 hearings.
There is an interesting statistic. Forty-two hundred of the 7,500 victims registered are registered to 1,843 offenders serving indeterminate or life sentences. Sixty-five per cent of our victims are registered to lifers.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: When a victim takes part in a hearing, does the workload for the board or the prison system increase in terms of volume?
[English]
Mr. Cenaiko: No. It's part of the relevant information that board members would look at and review on file, if it is on file. We have 22,000 contacts with victims each year, not counting CSC's contacts. The information they provide to board members, as I mentioned earlier, is critically important in ensuring that the board is well aware of the impacts that the offence had on the victim.
Senator Plett: Mr. Head, in your presentation you said and I'll read this:
Historically, the majority of ETAs for lifers that were deemed ''unsuccessful'' have been attributed to the offender returning to the institution late.
You also said in your opening comments, and I think both of you did, that all ETAs are accompanied by security. I find it strange that somebody would be late if a security guard goes with the person. Whose fault is it that the person is late in coming back?
Mr. Head: It's a very good question, senator. Here are a couple of examples of that.
If the escort is in a distant part of a province and the weather comes up, it technically becomes a late return, because the ETAs have strict conditions in terms of when to leave and return. Because it was late, it will be deemed to have not been successful. It's a technical failure. This is not one that would be attributed as the offender's fault.
In other cases, we've had offenders who act up and cause the escort to be late coming back; so an individual who is out in the community, participating in something, and when the staff have indicated that it's time to leave, the inmate starts acting up. By the time they get it all settled, get the individual back in the vehicle and return, then they come back late. It's then deemed to be unsuccessful and the fault of the offender.
There are various gradations of lateness. In some cases, we also have volunteers. We have three types of groups of individuals that take offenders out: correctional officers occasionally do escorted temporary absences; the rest of my staff, so non-uniformed correctional staff; and we also have approved volunteers. Sometimes when the volunteers take the individuals out, they are not as stringent in terms of abiding to those time frames. That contributes to it being unsuccessful and subsequently they are not considered to be escort staff for the future.
Senator Plett: In some of these cases, you would then possibly not approve another pass for a while because the inmate would be penalized. In other cases, the weather-related cases, it is would not go against the inmate?
Mr. Head: Exactly, senator. If the unsuccessful late return is attributed to the offender's behaviour, that would be a reason for not considering future granting of temporary absences.
Senator Plett: We spent a considerable amount of time both yesterday and today talking about the victim's rights at the parole board and correctional services and I want to continue on that line.
In Ms. Hancox's case — it was on a work-related one and not a temporary one, I guess — at the parole board she had the right not only to provide information but had the right to be there, to physically present her case. And at correctional services they are allowed to present documentation but aren't allowed to make a physical appearance, as I understand. Now is that by law or is it a correctional services' policy? Would that be able to be changed by correctional services, or would some kind of law or bill be required?
Mr. Head: Technically I guess we could make it a policy decision. There are all kinds of administrative issues that go with that, as you can appreciate, senator. Right now, the law does not require us to do that. It requires us to take into account any victim information but does not require us to have a hearing. The warden does not even have a hearing with the offender. The warden is basically doing a review based on the recommendations of the case management team, the parole officer, psychologist, information from the victim. It is what the parole board would call a paper review. There is not even an opportunity for the offender to make a physical representation in that, and that's historically how it's been done.
If it was to be changed under the law, we would have to put in the processes to do that. It would be quite cumbersome for us to do that.
Senator Plett: But it might be worth it. I think one of the big concerns — I, fortunately, thank God, have never been put into this position, but I think I would rather want to come and sit in front of you and tell you my case than send you a letter. I think it would have more impact if I am in front of you pleading my case. That's a comment more than a question.
Thank you, chair.
Senator McInnis: Further to what Senator Plett was saying, the real determinant here, as Senator Joyal rightly pointed out yesterday, is that you have a quasi-judicial board making a decision versus the warden, and that's fairly important.
This whole thing, really a lot of it, is to give access for the victim to state their case in person. That's the important part of it. But here are just a couple of quick questions.
Yesterday we were told the parole board approves. In the last three years, the warden will make a decision, and then it comes before the parole board for approval, correct? That's what we were told.
Mr. Cenaiko: Throughout the stay of the inmate, we will make the decisions up to that 22 years or 3 years, and then CSC.
Senator McInnis: So you don't approve the warden's decision in the last three years?
Mr. Cenaiko: No we don't, not at this point in time. That's what this bill will allow.
I want to mention that not all of them are approved. We approved or granted 75 per cent of the ETAs that came before us.
Senator McInnis: Interesting. I didn't think I misunderstood yesterday but obviously I did.
Mr. Head: On that, senator, I reviewed the testimony yesterday as well and I saw that. I'm not sure what the witness was really trying to talk about, but there isn't in the current regime the authority for the warden to authorize it and then it goes to the parole board for approval. That does not happen. I'm not sure what point the witness was trying to make.
Senator McInnis: I thought the witness was a former employee.
Mr. Head: Not at CSC, no.
Senator McInnis: Fine.
How many members does the parole board have?
Mr. Cenaiko: We have approximately 400 staff and about 87 board members. It fluctuates.
Senator McInnis: And they are regional?
Mr. Cenaiko: Yes, 48 full time and we're supposed to have 45, but it's just a matter of appointments. There are about 90 to 93 across the country.
Senator McInnis: For example, would you have a board for Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Cenaiko: Yes, sir. We have eight board members in the Moncton office. Five are full time and three are part time.
Senator McInnis: The total is 80?
Mr. Cenaiko: Across the country, there are approximately 80. Today I think we have 81.
Senator McInnis: This would be a major encumbrance to take on these additional ones?
Mr. Cenaiko: It would take some additional resources, as I mentioned earlier. However, as I mentioned, we do make 27,000 decisions each year. This would be another 240 we would add on, albeit these are hearings, so they take up additional resources because they would be in person or via a video conference hearing.
Senator McInnis: It would be the per diems that the board member — the boards are appointed by the executive council?
Mr. Cenaiko: They are appointed by the Governor-in-Council.
Senator McInnis: All the other questions I had have been answered. Thank you very much.
The Chair: As a follow-up to that Mr. Cenaiko, when you talk about your staff, you said 81 now currently?
Mr. Cenaiko: There are 81 board members and approximately 400 staff.
The Chair: Is there distinction in the staffing complement, people who deal with pardon applications, for example, and folks who are dealing with parole applications and ETAs? Are they all the same people? They all play those kinds of rolls?
Mr. Cenaiko: We have a number of full-time members who work on pardons and record suspension decisions, but we have probably 50 per cent of our part-time staff, part-time board members working on the pardons and/or the record suspensions.
The Chair: One of the witnesses yesterday, I think it was Ms. Campbell, when she was expressing concern about workload for the board, she said something like there is a huge backlog. I recall a few years ago when this committee dealt with some pretty significant increases to pardon application fees. Do you recall that? There were significant increases, and there were some commitments made by your folks at the time with respect to summary offences, indictable offences and applications for pardons. I think 6 months for summary and 12 months for indictable were the targets we were given as a committee. What is happening there in light of those commitments and how will this legislation impact that performance?
Mr. Cenaiko: You provided the right information. That was the new legislation that came in regarding record suspensions, and that's under the User Fee Act. As you mentioned, six months for summary, one year for indictable offences, two years if there is a move to refuse the record suspension.
Those numbers are quite consistent. Last year 14,000 applied and 9,600 were processed, so those numbers are quite stable.
We did see a drop in the number from the previous year, because the law changed in relation to it going, for a pardon, from three years to five years for record suspension and for an indictable offence from five years, waiting until ten years. I think there was a bit of a drop this past year.
However, regarding the pardon backlog, we did have a backlog of 22,300 files two years ago. At this point in time we are down to approximately 10,000 pardon files. About 3,500 are summary conviction files, which we hope to have cleared by the end of this fiscal year, and we'll have approximately 6,700 or so indictable files.
Now a lot of the summary conviction files are impaired drivers, minor drug offences, thefts, shoplifters, those types. The indictable applications of course are much more serious.
The Chair: You are meeting the targets? Is that what you're suggesting?
Mr. Cenaiko: With the resources we have, we will continue to work on the backlog. There is no legislative timeline as there is under the User Fee Act for the new record suspension.
The Chair: Can you give the committee something in writing so we understand, given the commitments made a number of years ago, where you stand at the moment? My concern with this is certainly if the legislation will impact further delays, but people with especially summary offences and looking for jobs as truck drivers, for example, and that sort of thing, and these are causing real problems.
We have time for a couple of quick questions, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Very briefly, you said that you're processing something like 10,000 or 9,800 applications a year. We heard evidence yesterday that about 10 per cent of the entire population of Canada have criminal records. There are 35 million people in Canada, so one would assume there are 3.5 million people with criminal records.
You're nodding your head and saying that that is the correct information. When you break that down to people over the age of 18, I imagine you're beyond 10 per cent and are approaching maybe 15 per cent of all Canadians that have criminal records. To your knowledge, is that number of Canadians with criminal records increasing or is it decreasing, taking into account the number of applications you process?
Mr. Cenaiko: I'm not sure if I can answer that question. However, I can tell you that the number for record suspension applications has decreased, and as we complete the pardon backlog that began in 2010 and deplete it, we'll be maintaining the record suspension under the User Fees Act in the years to come.
Senator Joyal: I have two quick questions. Does it take more time to process a request by a lifer, a person who has been sentenced to life for a serious crime, first- or second-degree murder? When there is a request for an ETA, does it take more time to process? Is it a more complex request?
Second, if a person is denied an ETA, is there a time frame within which that person cannot reapply? If the request has been denied, when is an inmate allowed to make another request?
Mr. Cenaiko: There is no time limit.
On the question in relation to a lifer, the risk in relation to a murderer is different than the risk related to a fraud artist, so you take that into consideration. Again, the protection of society is the foremost consideration that we have and that I instill in our board members across the country.
But there is no time limit for ETAs. He can apply for another one. He will get a reason why he was denied, and if that can be fixed, he can reapply.
The Chair: Thank you witnesses. We appreciate your appearance and testimony today.
For our next panel of witnesses, we welcome from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director; from the Toronto Police Association, Mike McCormack, President; and from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Kevin Grabowsky, National President.
Welcome all. We'll begin with opening statements.
Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for inviting us this morning.
The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is a federal not-for-profit corporation in Ottawa, Ontario. We were created in 1993 by the Canadian Police Association with a goal to provide a voice for persons harmed by serious crime in Canada. We offer direct assistance and support to victims across the country, as well as advocating for public safety and improved services and rights for crime victims. We are pleased to be here this morning to present our comments on Bill C-483.
I would like to acknowledge Ms. Kim Hancox who is here again this morning. She testified before you yesterday. She has been working for several years with MP Dave MacKenzie to see this legislation passed in Canada. Kim has suffered incredibly, losing her husband, Detective Constable William Hancox, a Toronto police member who was stabbed to death in the line of duty in 1998 during a routine stakeout. My office has had the pleasure of getting to Mrs. Hancox through the Canadian Police and Peace Officers Memorial Service. We are pleased to support this legislation and to support her as well.
We hear from victims across Canada about how the corrections and parole system can be re-victimizing to them. Losing your loved one in a horrific and violent manner is hard enough to process, but also having to navigate the systems responsible for the detention and rehabilitation of the offender is complex and overwhelming at times.
We support the amendments to this legislation as passed by the house, which will ensure that the parole board makes the first decision with respect to lifers who apply for ETAs.
Victims and their family members want openness, accountability and transparency in the ETA decision-making process. We must be cognizant of the fact that an ETA permits an individual who has committed the most serious Criminal Code offence to return to the community, sometimes only under the supervision of a CSC volunteer, not necessarily a correctional officer.
The board of directors of my agency feels very strongly that the current situation, which allows decisions made by the Parole Board of Canada to be essentially vetoed by an institutional head or warden, is unacceptable. In our experience, if the parole board has denied escorted absences to an offender, it is usually for concerns related to public safety and to the offender's ability to appreciate their offending cycle and triggers.
Some of our board members have been directly impacted, as has Mrs. Hancox, by such decisions made by wardens allowing an offender to re-enter the community on work releases or personal development passes immediately following a denial by the board, or in some cases after no hearing at all.
In our experience supporting victims, it is critically important to some of them to be able to be present, to understand the process and to offer their opinion during a hearing. When victims have the right to be present, they can reflect on the questioning and decision-making process of the board, as can the public and the media.
When wardens make decisions, victims are now, as you heard previously, since January of this year, asked if they have any concerns, but they don't have the right to be present during this decision-making process. This is frustrating and perpetuates the belief that the corrections machine is simply pushing offenders out the door, whether or not they are properly equipped to return to the community.
When CSC staff make internal decisions and do not share how they came to this decision, victims perceive that there is a bias and that offenders are not being held accountable to the people they have harmed. In an open and public parole hearing process, victims can quickly determine whether an offender has accepted responsibility for their crime, whether they are truly remorseful and whether they are adequately prepared to re-enter the community.
Warden decision making is done behind closed doors without providing victims with the information they need to better accept what is happening in the offender's reintegration process, and this is concerning. My office first began addressing this issue in 2006-07 when we wrote to then Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, expressing our concerns about the warden's ability to grant ETAs. The notion of the transformation of the federal correctional system was a hot topic at this time, and there was a big increased focus on offender responsibility and accountability. We felt that in order to ensure offender responsibility or accountability, the release of lifers back into the community should be a decision made only by the Parole Board of Canada, following the thorough questioning of the offender in a face-to-face situation at an open public hearing where victims can present their comments if they wish to do so.
I will provide you an example with one of the cases we were concerned about at that time. Zachary Finley was granted a number of escorted temporary absences by a Quebec warden in 2008 even though his institutional conduct during his incarceration was deplorable. He went from medium to maximum security frequently. Escaping, he injured CSC staff and was also involved in a riot. He continued to torment his victims from within the institution, withdrawing his application to go before the parole board eleven times. In this case, the warden refused to share with the victims or my agency, which was acting on their behalf, any indications of the positive progress Finley had made that would allow him to be granted such a generous ETA package.
We believe the amendments to Bill C-483 will help alleviate some of these concerns we've noted, because when day parole eligibility begins, the parole board becomes the deciding entity that will determine whether an ETA is approved for lifers, and now it has to be successful in order for them to be granted more. If it's not successful, the institutional warden cannot approve further passes. The decision-making power will remain with the parole board.
The Chair: Ms. Illingworth, I'm going to have to ask you to sum up.
Ms. Illingworth: Okay. So this is positive.
We are concerned about what we heard this morning, that work releases are not going to be applicable to this bill. We feel that's a way that CSC often uses to get offenders back into the community without that open hearing process.
We'd also like to suggest an amendment to provide that CSC be required to provide victims with regular updates when they're granting ETAs to see how they have gone.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mike McCormack, President, Toronto Police Association: On behalf of the Toronto Police Association, I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to attend and speak with you about Bill C-483. I will keep it short and get to the points.
Our association, first of all, supports public safety, transparency and legitimacy. We believe that by supporting this bill we accomplish that goal.
Along with Kim Hancox, the widow of one of our members, who made submissions to you yesterday, I have also previously appeared before the House of Commons committee in support of this bill.
I will not reiterate the tragic facts around Billy's death and what happened on August 4, 1998, and the constant re-victimization, as you heard earlier, of our victims in these types of processes. I will, however, highlight some of the facts.
Bill Hancox's two murderers were apprehended and convicted of second-degree murder. They were each sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment. In June 2010, the Parole Board of Canada, rightfully so, after a careful examination of all the facts and evidence, rejected the application for a personal development escorted temporary absence, ETA, made by one of Bill's murderers.
As you are aware, the parole board has a statutory obligation to ensure that the public is safe from violent offenders and, in rejecting the application for an ETA, fulfilled their mandate. However, the following year, the warden of the Fraser Valley Institution for Women, without any requirement to notify either Ms. Hancox, other victims or the public at large, granted the murderer three separate ETAs to enter into the community. This caused our members of the Toronto Police Association, the policing community, to be very concerned, and we believe that this type of action impacts the legitimacy and the transparency of the process. The warden was able to make this decision because the murderer was within three years of her parole eligibility date.
The amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act contained in this bill will close this loophole, we believe, that allowed the warden to effectively undermine the authority and jurisdiction of the parole board and overturn the parole board's decision.
The parole board is a very specialized quasi-judicial tribunal, with unique experience, knowledge and expertise. These are areas of expertise and knowledge that a warden of a federal penitentiary, we believe, does not possess. A warden ought not to be allowed to undermine the authority and jurisdiction of the parole board with respect to the most dangerous offenders in our prisons, namely those sentenced to a mandatory minimum of life imprisonment.
In conclusion, the 8,000 members of the Toronto Police Association fully support Bill C-483 and the necessary changes it will make to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to come here today to speak with you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Kevin Grabowsky, National President, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers: Good morning, honourable senators. I am Kevin Grabowsky, a correctional officer of 35 years. I am the National President for the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.
We are in favour of this bill. We think the parole board gives a very objective third party. We worry and we have had some past history — some were cited today — of wardens granting different things to different inmates. For correctional officers, some of our concerns are wardens granting lifers these ETAs. In a seven-month period at Drumheller Institution, two inmates took correctional officers hostage while on the ETA. One was quite seriously hurt. The other one, when he escaped custody after taking that officer hostage, got into a shootout with police in northern Alberta. So these are very concerning.
We also have a case that was quite infamous from some years ago where a warden granted a birthday pass to an inmate to West Edmonton Mall. He subsequently escaped the custody of a single escorted parole officer. They never even sent a correctional officer on this particular inmate, and he subsequently killed two people and was convicted of those crimes later on.
So we certainly are in favour of the bill. We're just a little worried that it doesn't go far enough. As mentioned, it doesn't cover the work release and it doesn't cover dangerous offender status. Those seem to be a way of getting around it. Those are certainly concerns.
Also, for correctional officers a big one is, we're the guys who take the majority of these inmates out into the community. We have been pushing over time that we do it in a secured vehicle; in other words, it has a silent patrolman. Instead, the inmate is sitting in the front seat with the officer and subsequently has taken them hostage and escaped.
We're looking at more and more taking these inmates into their family environment. We're not against the ETA process, the rehabilitation. We understand what that can do for the inmate. Our concern is that we're now taking them into their neighbourhoods and a lot of them are gang neighbourhoods. We're taking these guys with one single officer who is in uniform escorting this inmate into that community. He's unarmed.
The first one, they have to be successful. Again, we worry about, as time goes on, what that pressure is going to be.
Another concern for us was announced in the Speech from the Throne — and again we don't know the impact — the life-for-life legislation. We hear about it. We know that there is something coming. When that comes out, what is that going to do with this or the workload? It's a big concern for us because we see our minimum security institutions will become top heavy with lifer inmates. As they cascade down, that's where we're going to put them.
We also see the unfortunate shooting of the officers in Moncton where that inmate has now been sentenced to 75 years. When he comes up, where is he going to end up? So these are things that are of concern for correctional officers.
The Chair: We will begin the questions with the deputy chair, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Thank you to each one of the witnesses for their excellent presentations. I want to question Mr. Grabowsky concerning the correctional officers.
First, you represent correctional officers in the federal institutions; is that correct?
Mr. Grabowsky: Yes, sir.
Senator Baker: Not the provincial institutions?
Mr. Grabowsky: Correct.
Senator Baker: So we're into indictable offence people; we're into people who have been committed for performing serious crimes.
You say that a correctional officer could be taking, in this instance, an individual into an area where gangs exist. One correctional officer is in a car driving, and the person is next to them, and you're suggesting that the corrections officers have told you that they want to have a silent patrolman. Could you explain that to us?
Mr. Grabowsky: It's basically a cage. It's a secure vehicle. The inmate would sit in the back. There is a shield between you and the inmate as you're driving the inmate to wherever you're going, to and from.
Senator Baker: The correctional officer has no weapon, no firearm; is that what you said?
Mr. Grabowsky: Correct.
Senator Baker: Has there been a move to change that?
Mr. Grabowsky: We have that for medium and maximum security on security escorts. These types of escorts are deemed humanitarian. That's not where the weapon is. We don't carry those weapons when we take those types of ETAs.
Senator Baker: Certain types of individuals you would consider to be more dangerous than other individuals. Have you suggested that there should be two corrections officers instead of one with some of these releases?
Mr. Grabowsky: Yes, sir, loud and clear we have.
Senator Baker: What's happened?
Mr. Grabowsky: We're still taking them with one. It's money; it's resources. About $295 million was cut from the corrections budget last year and another $60 million this year. It all comes down to dollars and cents, and we look at that as public safety being not quite the same.
Senator Baker: You've given us examples of tragic results that have happened to your corrections officers during these releases. When we come down to less tragic results, do you have many of those instances where a corrections officer — you represent them — has been injured, not seriously, but has been into a confrontational situation with these people who are on release?
Mr. Grabowsky: Yes, sir.
Senator Baker: Does it happen very often?
Mr. Grabowsky: More often than you'd like.
Senator Baker: Is it the same type of danger that your officers are confronted with in the institution itself?
Mr. Grabowsky: Inside the institution it's different because you're always outnumbered. There is a gang mentality; there is intimidation; there are a lot of things that inmates do inside the prison. Outside the prison, you now have the risk of him having outside assistance such as the case I cited for the West Edmonton Mall pass and him just fleeing.
For us right now, our orders are that we don't pursue. We don't pursue somebody on that ETA. We notify the police, but we don't engage and pursue. As a peace officer, that's a very difficult thing to understand.
Senator Baker: Why? Is there a provision? Is there a rule? Are there administrative guidelines that say you don't?
Mr. Grabowsky: When we're taking that lifer out on that ETA, we don't carry handcuffs, we don't carry gas and we don't carry a firearm, which we normally do inside an institution.
Senator Baker: So you would have to then telephone Mr. McCormack?
Mr. Grabowsky: Yes, sir.
Senator Baker: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Thank you to all of you for being here.
First, I agree with you that it would be nice if this bill went a little further. However, this is the bill we have in front of us and we need to deal with, and it's a step in the right direction, I believe. We have heard from all of you that you do as well.
Maybe this question is to all of you. We've been talking about victims' rights a lot here and the parole being a third party and the parole board doing proper due diligence in whether or not they give this person this pass. They allow Ms. Hancox or whatever victim to come before them and make a presentation.
This isn't before us, but if the warden was obligated to do the same as the parole board is, if the victim could come in front of the warden, I think it would be more difficult to make a decision if he is looking at the victim before he makes the decision. If some of these things were changed within the correctional institute, would that alleviate some of the concerns you have?
Mr. McCormack: From my standpoint, no. You have to have transparency in the process to have legitimacy in the process. The parole board has that quasi-judicial authorization to do this, and you're giving them the legislative authority to do this in a proper way with all the due diligence and safeguards. Why would we want to see a second process — and this is the whole problem around this — a duplicate process? We just went through this process with the parole board that we talked about in the murder in Bill's case, and now we're going to download that to another agency?
We went through this with the family of another one of our officers who was murdered. Let's say you have this process with the parole board, and the victim goes up there and has to be re-victimized and go through this and then two months later come back up and appear before the warden. At what point do you say enough is enough? We've done the due diligence with the victim.
In Toronto, we have around 774 outstanding warrants when the parole board releases these violent offenders that are on the run right now. We have 167 arrests. We track in Toronto about 850 arrests a year of people breaching parole. It's incumbent upon us as a police agency and on you people to make sure that public safety is a priority. That's what we do by having these legitimate, quasi-judicial organizations to make this thing happen.
Mr. Grabowsky: One thing makes it really different. A warden is responsible to the Commissioner of Corrections. He or she has pressures of cascading inmates, double bunking and population. We see the pressures coming from on high to cascade that inmate along. Mr. Head would definitely say that he never put that kind of pressure on, but the reality is that the wardens feel that pressure to move somebody down that line, sometimes before their time. The parole board doesn't have to answer to anyone but themselves, so it's very independent for us.
Senator Plett: Mr. Grabowsky, does the warden ever ask you or your officers for their opinions on the safety of giving a person a temporary absence?
Mr. Grabowsky: We do play a role in the assessment for decision. We're not looked at as the same type of professional, and it's unfortunate in that system.
Senator Plett: You are the one dealing with the person every day.
Mr. Grabowsky: Yes, sir, we are, but we don't get to have a big say at the table. A lot of times it's because of our shiftwork. When that hearing may be held, I might be on midnights or afternoons and that hearing takes place. He might be an inmate on my case load, but I don't get to play a role. Parole officers play a role in that piece; correctional officers don't.
Senator Joyal: Thank you for your presentations.
To be clear, you said ''work release programs.'' Could you expand on that? It seems you are creating another class of ETA. I thought there were two classes of ETA, as we were told this morning: one for compassionate or family or court appearance and another one for rehabilitation. I would have thought that the work release program was on the rehabilitative side of that. Am I right?
Ms. Illingworth: That's what I was saying this morning when Mr. Head was here. He said that work release does not fall into these categories. The parole board may deny someone and then two weeks later they'll be granted a work release by Correctional Service Canada, as happened in Kim's case, and this will still continue. It's a loophole to get a person into the community virtually on day parole from the institution, and it does not fall under this legislation. That's what I'm concerned about.
Senator Joyal: Do we have any idea how many inmates use that access to an authorization to be out under that kind of work program and how many failures to return there were?
Ms. Illingworth: I don't have that data, but it would be tracked. CSC specifically would track those numbers. I would suggest that the committee ask for those numbers.
Senator Joyal: Are you involved in that kind of management of programs, Mr. Grabowsky?
Mr. Grabowsky: No, sir. It is what was said. It's a way around that system. Sometimes the parole officer may even suggest that the inmate put in that way, after being turned down by the board. Again, it's those pressures of trying to cascade that inmate out.
Senator Joyal: In your previous answer to Senator Plett, you said that you are not involved in the appraisal of the opportunity to grant the ETA. On a daily basis are you not in a position to report to your authority that an inmate has a dangerous behaviour or represents a risk or is not complying with the objective of rehabilitation and so forth? Are you able to make your views known in the system?
Mr. Grabowsky: Yes, sir. We have the internal charge system where we charge inmates for minor or major different infractions. We do observation reports on inmates on whether they are tied in with gang activity or whatever. We report on that and it feeds into a system that somebody looks at. They then make those risk assessments on everything we feed in. In one case in Drumheller where the ETA was allowed, we screamed loud and clear on our part that this guy should not get it, but it was still granted.
Senator Joyal: The information you provide is part of the overall picture that the warden will have to take into account in making a decision as to whether a person should be granted the ETA. Is it the same when the parole board makes the decision? Is your information part of the file?
Mr. Grabowsky: That same information goes in through the parole officer. It is filtered, put together in the parole package and goes before the board, but we as correctional officers do not go before the board.
Senator Joyal: Mr. McCormack, can you come back on the statistics you mentioned earlier about the 700 persons who are not reporting or are breaking their release conditions?
Mr. McCormack: We have established a unit in the province called the ROPE squad, Repeat Offender Parole Enforcement squad. They were formed around 15 to 20 years ago specifically to deal with people who were runners, skipping parole. We deal with purely federal stats and the most violent of offenders. I speak with these guys regularly, and the latest tracking so far this year is that we have 774 people, and we have had 167 arrests in downtown Toronto. We usually track around 800 to 850 a year. That's giving a very high threshold, examining the evidence and live testimony that the parole board does. That's why we are concerned that it has to be held to the highest of thresholds.
I want to say one thing. I've been a police officer for 30 years. I've worked in the downtown core in some of the most challenging neighbourhoods in Toronto. I think I've seen it all and am rarely shocked. I have a lot of people come up to me and say, ''Mike, I don't know how you can be a police officer. They couldn't pay me enough money.'' I just want to say to Kevin, I don't know how you can do this job. They don't pay you enough money.
I can tell you right now that I would not allow one of our officers to take somebody into a community where there's a potential for gangs, especially from my position, working the gang unit in Regent Park. There's a proliferation of gangs. I would not allow a single officer or an unarmed officer to take somebody into a community where they are put at this type of risk.
I am pretty well shocked. Thanks for shocking me. I found that very disturbing.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Ms. Illingworth, whom I am always happy to see. Procedural equity is essential for maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system, which means that we need a system in which every participant feels respected, informed and heard. Ms. Illingworth, do you feel respected, informed and heard?
[English]
Ms. Illingworth: With respect to this bill and warden decision making, I don't think that victims in the process have been given enough respect. It's a very closed, behind-doors process. It's very upsetting when the parole board has just made a decision to say, ''This person is not ready. We feel that they are still too high a risk to return to the community.'' Then you find out a month later that a warden has decided to allow a person into the community virtually every day, multiple times per week. To be told that they're escorted doesn't help alleviate the concern.
We try to ask the system, ''Tell us why; what has changed since the parole board decision that reduces his risk?'' They will not provide that to victims. To me, that's very troublesome. That means it's not open or transparent.
Victims do have the ability to see and understand the decision making that the parole board does, so that process is much more public. The media can be there, the victim's representatives, police, anyone can be there to see how the board comes to their decision, and they're given reasons for their decision. Maybe people don't agree with it, but they are better able to understand how the board came to their decision. With wardens approving passes, we aren't able to get any of that.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have a question for Mr. McCormack. When I was a police officer and we released someone conditionally, with an escort or not, the police force was notified. You knew the routine and the conditions: behave well, keep the peace, and so on. It is a routine procedure, whether you believe in it or not. Are you informed each time someone is released on an escorted absence or under certain conditions that are sometimes assumed by the Parole Board of Canada or by the Correctional Service of Canada? I understand that Toronto is a very large city.
[English]
Mr. McCormack: We're made aware from the parole board stance, but when the warden does this, I don't believe we're made aware when it meets that. Just through the parole board we get bulletins that are sent out that this person is on parole or full parole, whatever that looks like, and they're going to be living at this address.
Again, that's why we have the ROPE squad. We also have a bail compliance unit that checks on people when they have specific conditions, but not when the warden does the ETA program.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you all for your presentations.
Mr. McCormack, I want to follow up where Senator Dagenais left off. Is there any difference in terms of how police services are notified in a warden release as opposed to a parole board release, or is it the same?
Mr. McCormack: No, it's different. We are only notified when they are out on parole and will be living or residing in the community on a full-time basis.
The ETAs, when they're out on a warden release with an escorted pass — again, I found this astounding from Kevin's point of view. I'm still in shock about this. We're not notified when they're bringing somebody into the community on an ETA, an escorted pass, and bringing somebody in for any reason. We're only notified by the parole board when they're on full parole.
Senator McIntyre: What about public safety? Is there a greater public safety issue with the warden release than with the parole board release?
Mr. McCormack: I think the whole issue for us, not only the policing organization, is around legitimacy.
Senator McIntyre: You get a higher threshold with the parole board?
Mr. McCormack: One hundred per cent, and that's what the parole board was established for. It's quasi-judicial. They have live testimony evidence there. I think that the whole transparency issue is there in the parole process. There's no transparency in the whole thing with the warden doing this. It's done behind closed doors. It totally usurps the process of the parole board, and that has an impact on legitimacy and public safety.
Senator McIntyre: As you know, there are two types of ETAs: escorted and unescorted temporary absences. Both of them are forms of release into the community and, if I'm not mistaken, they last approximately 15 days. Do you think only the parole board can or should decide issues of release, whether by ETA, UTA or parole itself?
Mr. McCormack: Yes, I believe it should be done by the parole board. That's why it was set up, that's what we have, and that creates legitimacy in the process.
We're not talking about people who are convicted of fraud; we're talking about the most serious offenders. Somebody asked Kevin to consult if these people are dangerous. I'm sure my friend over here has been dealing with it. For anybody in the policing community, it's not often that you get indicators until it's too late and people become violent. They're in there because they have become violent and have these tendencies. You have a higher standard here, and we need to rise to that.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Illingworth, do you agree?
Ms. Illingworth: I agree, yes. Absolutely.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Grabowsky, do you wish to comment?
Mr. Grabowsky: Yes. Certainly we agree. They're not Boy Scouts, especially at the lifer level.
Again, to reiterate, the dangerous offender status, they may have an indeterminate sentence, but they're not going to be looked at by the parole board in the same way. It's something really lacking in this bill that needs to be addressed. When somebody deems them a dangerous offender, they're just as bad if not worse than any lifer.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. McCormack, I would like to start by congratulating you. For a dozen years, I have been following the work of Ontario police officers relating to criminals who go unlawfully at large. I think your province is a model. Many other provinces just wait until someone commits a crime. The person is arrested and then it is revealed that he or she was unlawfully at large. However, in Ontario, you have a very proactive approach, which avoids creating new victims. That is why I wanted to congratulate you. You are doing a very good job.
Ms. Illingworth, this morning, we listened to the two commissioners, Mr. Cenaiko and Mr. Head, and it seemed that the victims are now treated well within the parole system and in hearings. You seem to think differently. Do you get a lot of complaints from victims who have not been asked to provide testimony at the hearings or who learn later that their attacker had been released, even temporarily? Are there still many complaints about that?
[English]
Ms. Illingworth: No, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I would say the parole board does a very good job of including the victim. When a parole board hearing is going to occur, there is usually two to three months' notice. Victims have time to decide if they want to attend or submit a statement. Their travel expenses are now paid for by the government, so that's great. It's totally up to the victim. They can bring a support person, if they wish, to accompany them to a hearing, which is very important.
On the other hand, when CSC is making a decision, we will often get a call on a Thursday in the afternoon that an offender is applying for an ETA, it's going to be a warden decision, and we need to hear back from the victim in five days. There's hardly any time; it's very stressful. A lot of people don't want to submit any information at that time because they may be told at that time, for example, ''I'm living in Kingston but the offender is serving a sentence in Saskatchewan. So he'll be going out in that community immediately around the institution out there, so I'm not going to submit at this time. He's not going to be in the community where I live, so I'm not that concerned about it this time.''
There has been pressure now from corrections to provide a quick response for these ETAs that they're considering. Again, there are no decisions provided to victims about why it has or has not been approved. You'll just get a notification that he has been approved and now he's going to go out Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, here are the dates from this time. It's a very different process when a decision is made by CSC rather than by the parole board.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. McCormack, I have one last question for you. According to the correctional system, 99 per cent of individuals who are granted temporary absences comply with their conditions. On the ground, does that statistic seem realistic or do you think there are more people who do not comply with their conditions or go unlawfully at large? I think 99 per cent is a high proportion. It is as if the system was perfect.
[English]
Mr. McCormack: There is a big difference between what people are doing and what people are being caught for. I would say from my experience of 30 years working in downtown Toronto that that statistic doesn't hold a lot of water.
I can influence numbers by adding more police officers to check up on these people. We used to go check up on people who were released. We don't have the personnel to do that anymore. If I had another 300 or 400 police officers that could go out there, I'm sure we could have an impact on that statistic.
Kevin will tell you the same thing. In the policing community, in my 30 years, out of the hundreds or maybe thousands of people I have arrested, maybe five people were arrested for the first time. There seems to be a lot of recidivism in crime, and I find that statistic not to hold water in my world.
Mr. Grabowsky: Just to add to that, when I started in corrections, to look at somebody's file and they had 2 armed robberies or something like that on their file, now they have 33. The numbers and types have changed dramatically. Some of it is technology. There are better cameras in the 7-Elevens and banks and everything else. Police are doing a better job at catching them, for sure, but rehabilitating them and turning them around all the time, it becomes a pressure. That's where, for us, this bill at least touches some of that; it takes that pressure off CSC to try to move that along.
One of the other things is that when the parole board was talked about this morning there has to be something to make sure they get the resources. Because what is going to happen is that as inmates, more lifers — and we don't know what life-for-life legislation brings — are going to be in our minimum security institutions that are not fenced, if they can't get their ETAs and there is going to be a backlog, we will see them escaping.
Senator McInnis: That was what my point was going to be. What happens if they, pardon the pun, tighten the noose here, that they're not given the ETAs? I'm for this bill, but that is the crux of the problem, isn't it?
Mr. Grabowsky: It is going to be a good process, but if it's going to be held up, the inmates will make their own ETAs. They will just be UAL, unlawfully at large. They can walk away from those minimum security penitentiaries.
Senator McInnis: Because the ETAs are allegedly part of the rehabilitation.
Mr. Grabowsky: Yes, sir.
Senator McInnis: That's getting them back into the community, right to the day you must release them, but then what? It's kind of a double-edged sword.
The other thing was a point made yesterday that probably the warden was giving releases because he or she probably felt that they had all of the evidence collected over a wide period of time from the people in the system, as I said yesterday, whether they be counsellors, clergy or whoever. They think they know better versus ''It's time to get them out the door.'' I don't think there is a disregard for putting someone out who could possibly commit another criminal offence. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Grabowsky: I think every warden and everyone, they have a conscience. They are doing their job to the best of their ability, but they do have pressures that they face. The risk assessments and stuff like that, sometimes they are hearing something from a psychologist or psychiatrist, that end of the medical field, that they have their standard of saying, ''Well, okay, that meets it for me and I'm going to grant it,'' but it's a risk. I don't know if it's as independent as it will be with the parole board.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
Senator Frum: My question is very similar. Mr. Grabowsky, you explained very clearly the pressure the wardens feel to grant releases. We are talking about the transparency, and I see the value of that and the involvement of the victims. Of course it will be improved by this bill, but I think you could make the argument that the accountability of a warden, because he has a responsibility to the inmate, but more to his or her staff who are the ones being put on the line.
So I guess my question to you is in terms of your experience and that of your members, do you not feel that the wardens in the current system express that accountability toward the correctional staff who are then asked to carry out their decisions?
Mr. Grabowsky: In certain cases, we get into an agree-to-disagree situation. We work with that inmate all the time, so we always see that inmate in a different light. Everything that we usually have interactions with inmates is we are the ones telling them no, telling them where to go, when to get up and when to go to work. We see them in a different light. They see them on paper in another different light. I don't think they are doing it with any malice, but there are certainly times when we just absolutely disagree on their decision. We don't have that recourse mechanism to truly do something about that, whereas if this mechanism is in place, it's off their table and it's put into the hands of somebody who is seeing the inmate in a whole different light.
The Chair: I want to commend you, Mr. Grabowsky, for mentioning dangerous offenders not captured by this legislation. You are the first witness, in my memory, who has mentioned that. To me that is a serious problem, because if you look at the individuals who are found by the courts to be dangerous offenders, they are in many cases more dangerous individuals than those who are serving life sentences. It is something perhaps the government should be looking at going forward.
Mr. McCormack, you were talking about breaches of parole and the numbers that your service bumps into, and breach of parole is not a criminal offence. I'm wondering if you've had situations where you can't charge them with anything, but they are breaching conditions of parole, but they have gone on to commit serious crimes. If breach was the criminal offence, perhaps that crime could have been stopped in its tracks.
Mr. McCormack: Yes, that's a very interesting question. I don't have the stats in front of me, but what I find in having dealt with these people firsthand, when they are breaching parole it's not because they want to kick their feet up on the beach in sunny Florida; it's because they are involved in criminal activity and they go right back to that criminal activity and get involved in that lifestyle.
Generally, the people I've arrested, from an anecdotal perspective, have been involved in crime. Again, if there was a criminal offence attached to that, I think it would create a higher threshold and a bigger threat that would have an impact. I don't know exactly the stats, but it would have an impact on compliance.
From some of the dialogue I've heard here, and I equate it to my career as a police officer, when I put somebody before the courts, I have to do my due diligence and look at everything. I don't just look at a bunch of paper; I do the same thing you are doing here today. We look at evidence and documents, but you have live witnesses. You have a very robust process here.
When you go through the parole board, that robust process is duplicated. We owe it and you owe it to the people of this country to have that robust process because public safety needs to be a priority when we're talking about these people.
As Kevin said, we deal with repeat offenders all the time. You need public safety and rehabilitation; you cannot just have rehabilitation on its own. The whole process for the warden, yes, it's good to look at rehabilitation, but you need to look at public safety. If you don't have those two components together, then you will have a broken system, and that's what we have and that's why you need to make these changes.
The Chair: I'm operating from a faulty memory, but I recall years ago where an individual was stopped for a breach, released because there was not a criminal charge, went on to murder an individual, and it could have been stopped at the violation of the parole conditions.
In closing, Mr. McCormack, you mentioned a ROPE squad.
Mr. McCormack: Yes.
The Chair: I wanted to mention that it was established under the Harris government, and I still wear my ROPE T-shirt.
We have time for a brief second round. We will begin with Senator Joyal.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Grabowsky, I want to come back to the fact that you're not allowed to wear arms when you escort an inmate under an ETA. I tried to understand the logic of the system. If the person is inside, you would be armed, wouldn't you?
Mr. Grabowsky: In a maximum security penitentiary, we have arms in strategic places. We don't carry a firearm when we walk amongst them. In mediums, there is an outside patrol that's armed; in some there are strategically armed places. In minimums, there is none.
Senator Joyal: In other words, the presumption is that as soon as there is an ETA, it's because that person is a much less dangerous person than when they are inside. Say that the person is out for a day, the time that inmate is out doesn't represent a risk. But when you bring that person in, then it falls under stricter control, does it not?
Mr. Grabowsky: For what's being looked at here, a lot of these are sitting in minimum security. They're lifers sitting in minimum security.
Senator Joyal: Because of the 22 years of time already spent —
Mr. Grabowsky: Sure. That's the cascading system. They're sitting there. The correctional officers are escorting them out into their communities, but their communities have changed for the most part. The officer, as I say, has no gas, no guns.
Senator Joyal: Do you have a communication device?
Mr. Grabowsky: A cellphone.
Senator Joyal: And the person would not have a bracelet or anything when they are out?
Mr. Grabowsky: No.
Senator Plett: As a comment to the remark you made about Mr. Grabowsky talking about the dangerous offender, you may recall I asked the sponsor about that yesterday as to why he hadn't included it. We didn't get a good answer on that, and I agree with you and Mr. Grabowsky that the bill should have gone further to include that.
I may have gotten my answer in the short comment that Senator Joyal made about minimum security. At what point does a lifer get to go minimum security, or is it simply if he or she is deemed to be a low risk? Is that the criteria?
Mr. Grabowsky: The only criterion is that they have to do two years in a max at the start of their sentence.
Ms. Illingworth: That was a policy from a few years ago. They assess them when they initially go in.
Senator Plett: Who assesses them?
Ms. Illingworth: Corrections. They go to assessment facilities when they are incarcerated in a specific region and they assess them as a maximum, medium or minimum level security risk.
Senator Plett: Is there not something really wrong with that? The person has just killed somebody. What possible reason could we have to put a person who murdered someone into a minimum security prison?
Mr. Grabowsky: At the start of their sentence, it's —
Senator Plett: Well, even after two years. You say they are assessed. Now the person in a minimum security prison asks for an ETA and is turned down. What I can't square up is the person who is turned down for an ETA because they are clearly considered to be some kind of a risk. What in the world are they doing in a minimum security prison if they are a risk and can't get an ETA?
Ms. Illingworth: A lot of it has to do with their behaviour while they're in the facility. They might not be aggressive with guards every day. They may comply with orders when the guard says, ''Get up, it's time for work.'' They may be compliant in all those ways and that allows them to cascade to a lower level. But perhaps that's not a good indicator of how they will behave in the community when there is more pressure on them and they are interacting with people who are not incarcerated.
They look at a multitude of issues when they're assessing them to be released into the community, but in our view the parole board conducting a face-to-face interview with that person to determine if they are prepared to return to the community is a better way to go about it.
Senator Baker: Mr. McCormack, you said there are 700 warrants out.
Mr. McCormack: Seven hundred seventy-four.
Senator Baker: Seven hundred seventy-four warrants out in the city of Toronto today.
Mr. McCormack: Sorry, in the province.
Senator Baker: In the province of Ontario there are 774 warrants for people on the run.
Mr. McCormack: We have arrested that many, and 167 of them in downtown Toronto.
Senator Baker: How many are on the loose right now? Speculate.
Mr. McCormack: That would be in the thousands.
Senator Baker: They are on the loose, runners.
Mr. McCormack: Runners, yes, breach of parole.
Senator Baker: And warrants are out.
Mr. McCormack: Warrants are out.
You spoke to Kevin about the threshold of risk to the community when you're escorting, and Kevin was pretty clear. All prison officials and people working in that community don't carry firearms, and it's not because there is an assessment when you're taking these people out that they're going to be model citizens. There are all kinds of logistic issues about arming prison guards when taking people into the communities, firearm retention and policies around that.
I don't want anyone to be under the mistaken belief that the reason they're sending out an unarmed guard is because they think there is no risk to that guard. There are all kinds of financial and policy implications to that. From my perspective, I think that is a foolhardy position to take and they are putting their people at risk.
Senator Baker: But they have nothing. You don't even have what we used to call a billy knocker, bear spray or anything like that. You don't have anything; absolutely nothing. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Grabowsky: Correct.
The Chair: Thank you very much, witnesses. That was very helpful testimony for the committee.
Members please stay in your seats. We will move right into clause-by-clause consideration.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1.1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Joyal: As Senator Plett rightly raised yesterday, and as you commented today, I wonder if we should not make observations in relation to dangerous offenders? This is a very serious issue in my opinion.
The Chair: Do you wish to go in camera for this? Is there a concern? I think we have agreement. I don't think it's necessary.
Senator Joyal: No, I don't have text to offer you because we just raised it. But it seems to me it is our responsibility as a committee, if we identify a loophole that needs to be filled, that it should be addressed. As you said, we might recommend that the government include that in an omnibus bill.
I will withdraw ''omnibus bill'' and just say future legislation.
Senator Boisvenu: That kind of bill addressed to that kind of inmate, those are dangerous.
Senator Joyal: I could testify. I know some cases where a lifer might be a less dangerous person than somebody that you have decided is a dangerous person, by definition.
The Chair: If we agree with the intent of the observation, can we leave it to the steering committee to approve the final wording?
Senator Joyal: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, with observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Thank you all.
(The committee adjourned.)