SCRA Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, April 26, 1999

• 1533

[English]

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

Today we have witnesses

[Translation]

from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Mr. Pierre Sangollo,

[English]

Mr. Michael Shard, and Mr. Vincent Westwick. From the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Boyd Campbell and David Griffin.

If we would have

[Translation]

a presentation of about 10 minutes by each of the two groups, we will then go to questions from members.

Mr. Sangollo, are you going to start?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo (Director, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pierre Sangollo and I am Director of Public Security for the town of Sainte-Julie. I represent the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I am accompanied by Mr. Vincent Westwik, Director of Legal Matters for the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, and Mr. Michael Shard, Inspector and Legal Advisor with the Ontario Provincial Police.

I have just been told, Mr. Chairman, that the documents for our presentation have not arrived. Please be assured that we will provide them to you as soon as possible.

To begin with, I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, for giving us this opportunity to express our views on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act five years after its adoption.

• 1535

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police represents over 300 senior officers and chiefs of police across Canada, who are responsible for approximately 85%, or 45,000 police officers in Canada.

During the national consultations held in 1998, representations of the Association expressed opinions aimed at facilitating information collection as proposed by the Solicitor General of Canada. Police chiefs and their representatives in every region participated actively in the public consultation sessions.

We come before you today to urge the legislators to amend certain sections of the Act.

First of all, Section 203 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act amended the Criminal Code by adding a section on judicial determination of eligibility for parole. Basically, judges are empowered to set the eligibility date for parole at half the sentence or 10 years. This provision means that, in a drug case or some other types of cases, the judge can order the individual to serve the lesser of half the sentence or 10 years before being eligible for conditional release. Only 4% of possible cases have been made subject to this provision since the Corrections and Conditional Release Act came into force. We would like to see judges set the eligibility date for parole at half or 10 years in all cases of offences relating to organized crime. At present, Section 203 gives the judge the discretion to apply this provision or not.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that in cases linked to organized crime, that is, offences covered by Section 95 of the Criminal Code, judges should be required to apply Section 203. This would mean that the individual would have to serve the lesser of half of the sentence or 10 years before being eligible for release.

I would like to raise a side issue. When a sentence is handed down in a murder case, the judge is required at that time to explain to the person who has just been convicted that he or she may be able to win release, under Section 745, after 15 years. In the case of federal offences, the entire community across Canada would like to have judges explain to members of the community who are there, including police officers, victims and the public, that the individual has been sentenced to, for example, 10 years, but may be released after a certain time; this would enable the public to understand the reality of sentences handed down by the courts instead of believing that someone sentenced to 10 or 15 years will be in prison for 10 or 15 years. We would therefore like to see a requirement, in the case of federal sentences, for judges to explain that it is possible to be released on parole after one sixth or one third of the sentence, for example.

There is also Section 120, which deals with accelerated parole review. I was part of the Solicitor General of Canada's consultation group on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act five years later, and we addressed the issue of accelerated parole review on several occasions, Mr. Chairman. It is inconceivable to release individuals solely on the basis of whether the crime was violent or not. Allow me to give you some examples.

• 1540

I'm referring to one of the biggest cases of money laundering ever dealt with by the RCMP and the Montreal Urban Community Police Department, where, in passing, I used to be the assistant director, and it lasted four years. More than $164 million was laundered. Joseph Lagana, a mastermind behind this swindling scheme, was sentenced to 13 years. In the United States, the sentence would have been a good 25 to 30 years for a crime of that nature, but in Canada, in a society like ours, we can accept a 13-year sentence.

People in Montreal, Quebec and Canada were flabbergasted to learn that Joseph Lagana was released after having served one-sixth of his sentence. I'm not blaming National Parole Board officers, because they have to work with the tools they are given. Since it was not a violent crime, that it was the offender's first offence and that there was no reason to fear a violent crime, Mr. Lagana walked.

In a press release, the Solicitor General of Canada, Mr. Andy Scott, stated that the accelerated parole review procedure would be withdrawn for people having committed crimes under Section 95 of the Criminal Code, which deals with organized crime.

We are asking you to go a little bit farther. When individuals are arrested for trafficking or importing drugs like heroin or cocaine, it is extremely difficult to prove that they are part of organized crime. That is how big cartel bosses are released after serving one-sixth of their sentences. On the organized crime side, they always choose individuals who do not have a criminal record to be in charge of these huge drug imports.

The same thing applies to our seniors, Mr. Chairman. I said on several occasions that with the accelerated parole review we had completely forgotten about our seniors. There is the example of telemarketing or phone fraud.

For us, it is almost unthinkable to release individuals who target seniors, who try to rob seniors aged 60, 70, 75 or 80 of what they have. That is not a violent crime. These individuals get off when it is their first offence. Having sat on the committee on organized crime in Canada, I know that we have information. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we know that organized crime has specialized in telemarketing. Telemarketing is directly linked to seniors.

So we recommend that when you discuss accelerated parole review you not only consider the fact of whether or not the crime was violent. You must also consider the risks, the impact on the victims, and the type of crime. I reiterate that organized crime always put individuals who do not have a criminal record in charge of this business. By way of information, the average telemarketing survey costs one million dollars, and sentences rarely exceed 18 to 24 months.

In short, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is much more concerned with early release than recidivism. Cases of recidivism are normally isolated incidents that cast a shadow on the good work done by the Correctional Service of Canada. We are convinced that you will pay close attention to these comments. Thank you for your interest in hearing from us.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Sangollo. You are undoubtedly aware that the government has just made some amendments, but you are asking us to go even farther.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Exactly.

• 1545

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Marceau, seven minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Excuse me. I forgot—

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is okay. They can go ahead.

The Chairman: We will go to the next witnesses. I apologize.

[English]

Mr. Griffin and Mr. Campbell, on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, you have a presentation of approximately 10 minutes?

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is David Griffin. I'm the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association. Mr. Boyd Campbell is a vice-president with the Canadian Police Association. He is the vice-president of the Winnipeg Police Association and he is also a staff sergeant with the Winnipeg Police Department, with 26 years of service.

We have provided copies of our brief to the committee clerk in both official languages. I'd like to say that the Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to present our views to the subcommittee today concerning the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. As professionals who dedicate their lives to community safety in reduction of crime, our members share a keen interest in the role of Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board in our justice system.

By the time the vast majority of offenders are sentenced to incarceration in a federal institution they have benefited from the leniency that permeates the entire justice system and are the most violent, dangerous, hardened criminals in the justice system in Canada. Eighty percent of federal inmates are now serving sentences for violent crimes, compared to 58% ten years ago.

According to the Auditor General, 500 more offenders were released into the community last year than the previous year. Over the last ten years the courts have put proportionately fewer people behind bars. Offender admissions to federal institutions have in fact declined by 10% in the last five years. There is an increased reliance on community supervision, while the offenders admitted to federal and provincial corrections authorities have increased by 22.8% over the past ten years. Those are not necessarily offenders who are incarcerated, but under the care of corrections officials. The number of offenders under community supervision has increased by 70%.

Community supervision of offenders is strained. In February 1998, Correctional Service Canada found they were unable to meet national standards with respect to frequency of contact with offenders released into the community. The percentage deficiency for those who were not contacted with the required frequency ranged from a low of 11% to a high of 38%.

Corrections Canada personnel are under increasing pressure to increase the proportion of offenders released into the community. In 1998, Solicitor General Andy Scott emphasized that since offenders come from the community and almost all will return there, the best way of protecting Canadians is by preparing offenders for release.

In 1998, Correctional Service Canada personnel were informed that the government, under Solicitor General Andy Scott, has indicated that by the year 2000 he would like to see 50% of inmates in the institution and 50% of inmates in the community. Commissioner Ingstrup has written:

To reach a 50/50 split by year 2000 will be a professional challenge—but not at all unattainable.

He later informs his deputy commissioners that:

the 50/50 split is our working hypothesis, based on the best information we have today. It is not an arbitrary or artificial target.

The Auditor General has been urging Corrections Canada to accelerate the preparation of offenders for parole at their first opportunity, citing cost implications. This has been reinforced in the 1999 Auditor General's report.

The National Parole Board is not being provided with sufficient information to make informed decisions concerning an offender's release into the community. In their most recent audit, only 46% of reports submitted to the board met the desired standard. Eleven percent were considered to be poor, and of greater concern, 16% of reports on high-risk offenders were of poor quality.

My colleague, Mr. Campbell, will now address the concerns of front-line police personnel.

Staff Sergeant Boyd Campbell (Manitoba Vice-President, Canadian Police Association): Mr. Chair, we strongly believe that offenders should be held accountable for the offences they commit. Each victim is equally important. Unfortunately, the current sentencing and conditional release provisions do not recognize this principle. As a national voice for Canada's police officers, we are concerned by the increasing emphasis on community release and supervision.

• 1550

The system is already strained beyond capacity, Mr. Chairman. The pressure to increase the portion of federal inmates on community release programs translates to an increase in the number of violent and higher-risk individuals in our communities.

Risk assessment tools are constantly being reformed to exploit the mathematical probabilities and hard dollar costs of community release versus incarceration. Unfortunately, such clinical analysis fails to incorporate the real human costs.

Offenders who commit serious, recurring, yet non-violent offences continue to benefit from the leniency in the system and the reluctance to enforce, prosecute, convict, sentence, incarcerate, and detain. The words “punishment”, “deterrence”, “penalty”, and “consequences” have virtually been eliminated from the sanitized and politically correct corrections jargon.

The correction system is systematically bypassing the requirements for the parole process through inadequate information and delays, in favour of the more expedient and CSC-controlled temporary absence programs. The gatekeeper role should be returned to its rightful guardians, the National Parole Board.

While the recent Auditor General's report cites a 37% reduction in offender revocations for new offences since 1993-94, we suspect this in fact may be a symptom of a much larger problem and not necessarily good news, for a number of reasons. Those reasons include decrease of provision and contact by parole officers, which is cited in the Auditor General's report; a reduction in the number of conditions requested by CSC for parole eligibility and thereby ordered by parole boards, reducing the likelihood of intervention; decreased levels of enforcement by police authorities; and the use of revocation of a release as an intervention as opposed to laying of new offences.

Mr. Chair, offenders are eligible for automatic release in the form of statutory release at the two-thirds point in their sentence. The National Parole Board can only consider detention if recommended by the CSC. This is unacceptable. Victims and families have no choice in the determination of conditional release and parole decisions. While offenders have an advocate in the correctional investigator, victims have none. Accelerated parole and statutory release have proven to be less successful at reintegration of the offenders into society, with up to 40% of offenders reoffending, and so should be abandoned.

Community supervision is inefficient and requires additional attention and resources. The committee has heard evidence already that volunteers, including persons with criminal records, are being drawn upon to provide this function. The application of conditional release for persons who've been ordered deported from Canada and await determination by immigration authorities is absurd. Persons who reoffend while on conditional release should not become eligible for earlier parole for a new conviction by virtue of their prior criminal and penal status. This offers little deterrence for offenders released into the community.

Section 745 remains a significant concern for police officers, victims, and family members of this country and should be repealed—not played with, Mr. Chairman; repealed. Offenders who commit more than one murder or serious sexual assault should receive consecutive parole ineligibility periods. Finally, Mr. Chair, the judiciary has proved to be unwilling to impose discretionary parole ineligibility periods despite the statutory authority to do so.

Mr. David Griffin: Our recommendations, sir, are contained at page 12 of our brief. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss any of these observations in further detail or respond to questions. And we'd like to thank you once again for the opportunity to appear today.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

You no doubt hear the bells ringing. They were half-hour bells, so there are about 23 minutes left.

What I propose is we'll go to at least the first round of questioning. Then if we can beg the indulgence of the witnesses, we'll be out about 15 minutes to vote, and then we'll come back and conclude, if that's acceptable.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would like to thank all five of you for coming.

Mr. Sangollo, I am looking forward to reading the document that we have not yet received, because you have raised some very interesting points.

• 1555

I must start by saying, Mr. Sangollo, that I like your comments on Lagana. It was in fact a very troubling situation, which gave rise to a lot of reactions, but not on the part of the government up until now.

A few months ago, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I tabled a bill to prevent accelerated parole review from applying in cases of drug trafficking or money laundering. I don't remember the exact number of the bill, but would a measure like that satisfy you at least partially? That is my first question.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: It is difficult to say whether or not it would satisfy us, because we have not seen the content of the bill. Mr. Marceau, we want to stop seeing people treated like everyone else when they exploit our society and the system and are completely apart from the others. Steps must be taken. Remember the symposiums on organized crime, and others. Steps have to be taken against those people, and one of the steps could be making them ineligible for parole. That is one of the measures that was proposed in 1996, during a symposium that was attended by Mr. Gray and Mr. Rock. So yes, that is a step that should be taken.

Mr. Richard Marceau: You mentioned what I would call the illogicality of the artificial dichotomy that exists between violent crime and non-violent crime for accelerated parole review. As you know, an offender is automatically entitled to accelerated parole review except in the case of some offences that are specifically designated. In your opinion, what crime should be part of the list of crimes that makes their perpetrators ineligible for accelerated parole review?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: There are some crimes that have already been mentioned in the appendix. I am not in a position at this point in time to give you a detailed list of these crimes. I am thinking mainly about telemarketing, telephone fraud. What we want to highlight, Mr. Marceau, is that a risk assessment is undertaken during the parole board hearings, but not for accelerated parole review. They only ask one question, i.e. is the crime violent or not. If a woman is pushed and her handbag is stolen, that is a violent crime. The perpetrator of that crime might deserve to be released after having served one-sixth of his or her sentence because of everything that might have led the person to commit the offence at the age of 18 or 19, but that person will not be eligible for accelerated parole review, whereas someone who has embezzled an elderly woman or man and taken everything from them will be released after serving a sixth of his or her sentence. That is where it gets illogical.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Unless I have misunderstood you, you are raising two problems that currently exist. The first is that there is no risk assessment during accelerated parole review, and I understand what you are saying. So you would like there to be a risk assessment. Secondly, I may have misunderstood you, but I was under the impression that you wanted people who at present have access to accelerated parole review not to have access to it given the nature of the crime they have committed. Have I got that right?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Anyone who's guilty of engaging in import-related crimes or international trafficking, or who has links with organized crime, should not be eligible for it.

Mr. Richard Marceau: All right. I asked this because we will have to draft recommendations. Could you forward a paper to the committee outlining clearly that people who commit crimes A, B and C should not have access to a speedy review process? That would be very helpful to me when the time comes to work on the report.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: May I ask you a question? When would you like to have this information, at the latest?

The Chairman: As soon as possible. No, by the end of May.

• 1600

Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine. I still have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Griffin, I'm sorry, but I'll come back to you later.

Mr. Sangollo, you told us how hard it was for the police to prove that someone is part of a criminal organization. I have a very specific question. The reason I'm interested in this issue is because I'm thinking of introducing a bill to fight organized crime. So it's very real for me. What kind of a bill would you want to see to help you, the police, identify or help identify someone as being a member of a criminal organization?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Under Section 95 of the Criminal Code, we have Criminal Intelligence Service Canada. I have been a member of the board for many years. These days, prosecutors have a hard time understanding and sifting through every aspect of the legislation. I cannot give you a more specific answer, since we are still trying to find the best way to charge someone under the Act or under Section 95 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Richard Marceau: In your opinion, does Section 95 go far enough or should it go even further?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: I don't want to trigger a debate. At the time, we spoke to ministers Rock and Gray, but we didn't get what we wanted. In our eyes, it always was the first step towards a new piece of legislation. The provisions at our disposal had no teeth. We now have expressions, including "organized crime", which weren't there before. We need to understand the tool and learn how to use it before asking for something better. For the moment, I cannot tell you whether the tool is being used well or not.

The Chairman: I have to stop you here, since your time is up.

[English]

Mr. Abbott, we have just seven minutes and then we'll need to adjourn.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): First, under your recommendation 10, to prohibit conditional release for persons awaiting deportation, my party couldn't possibly agree with that more. Obviously we have a situation where it is to their benefit to not reappear, and we agree completely with that.

Recommendation 13, though, is an interesting challenge. You say that all offenders who are released conditionally into the community should be required to provide a DNA sample prior to release, for inclusion in the DNA data bank. I believe this goes in the face of existing DNA legislation. Are you recommending a change to the existing DNA legislation?

Mr. David Griffin: Yes, sir. It's our concern that the existing legislation does not allow for the taking of samples from persons who have been incarcerated. In our view, if these individuals are going to be released into the community before their period of incarceration would otherwise have been completed, they should be required to provide a sample, first to ensure that the individual is not the subject of another investigation that has yet to conclude, and second, to ensure that should they commit another offence while under conditional release, it will be much easier to proceed with their apprehension.

Mr. Jim Abbott: That sounds very attractive, but have you taken a look at whether that, in your judgment, would stand a charter challenge?

Mr. David Griffin: We'd certainly encourage the committee to consider that. It is our view that the taking of a sample, in these circumstances, would not provide for a charter challenge. Certainly it's up to the individual to determine whether or not they want to apply for conditional release. It's then up to the state to determine what the conditions of that release will be. We're suggesting this should be a condition of release.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Am I missing something here? I'm looking for statutory release. I don't see any mention of statutory release here. It's item 3. I don't know how I missed that.

On eliminating statutory release, I'm inclined to lean that way, but there's always the question if you eliminate statutory release, what happens at the conclusion of the person's term? In other words, aren't they released in any event, and aren't you just forestalling the problem?

• 1605

Mr. David Griffin: The concern we have is the provision of automatic parole to individuals despite an impartial determination of whether or not that person is suitable to be released into the community. Both statutory release and accelerated parole provide people with automatic parole. The exception and the onus are then placed back on Correctional Service Canada to demonstrate why that person should not be granted statutory release or accelerated parole.

In our view, the discretion should be taken away from Correctional Service Canada for any parole or early release determination and placed in the hands of the parole board, which should have the discretion in all cases to determine whether or not an individual is suitable for early release.

Mr. Jim Abbott: How would you characterize the opinion of your organization, in answer to this question? Are you more concerned about public safety, or are you concerned about a penalty for a criminal offence? In other words, I would like you to prioritize those two.

Mr. David Griffin: We're more concerned about public safety. As we indicated earlier in our presentation, 80% of the offenders who are presently in federal institutions are there for violent crimes. There was discussion in the previous questions concerning categorizing crimes. Many crimes are considered to be non-violent crimes that are very intrusive, demeaning, and upsetting to the victims of those crimes. For instance, break and enter is a non-violent crime. If the person who committed that offence happened to defecate in the person's residence, urinate in the person's lodgings, and conduct themselves in a number of other grotesque manners, it is still considered to be a non-violent crime. There are many crimes that, by virtue of that category of non-violent, indicate that person will be pushed out into the community at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But taking those terrible examples you have just given us and, unfortunately, dealing with them, because in some instances they are real life, will a longer incarceration resolve them?

Mr. David Griffin: The question is, are we satisfied at the present time that we are not releasing people into the community before they are ready to be released? In our view, if that person is not ready for release, they shouldn't be subject to automatic parole or automatic release.

The other concern we have is with the use of temporary absences, TAs, or UTAs, unescorted temporary absences. Those are discretion calls that are made by Correctional Service Canada, without any determination by the parole board. So certainly, if Corrections are under pressure to release more people into the community, they have the ability to put people out for periods of up to 60 days, without any examination by the parole board. In our view, community safety has to be put forward first, and the people in charge of the institutions shouldn't be making the decisions on release.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm just going to make something up—nice easy math. A person has a sentence of six years for a highly objectionable, perhaps violent offence. They become eligible for parole under standard procedure at two years and then are out on conditional release at four years. Let's say this hypothetical person has decided they're not going to take part in any remedial activity at the prison. You're saying they should be detained until the end of their sixth year.

Are we not then simply taking this unsocial person with unsocial behaviour and, boom, they're out the door at the sixth year in any event? We're simply stalling the inevitable.

Mr. David Griffin: But we're certainly preventing him from reoffending for the last two years. Under the present system, he does not have to do anything to qualify for statutory release.

The Chairman: I will interrupt because we have to go to vote.

We'll adjourn, but before members go, we're distributing some information and a budget on a proposed conference in Saskatoon in September that may be relevant to our work. Maybe you can review it during the vote and we'll discuss it at the end of this meeting when we've concluded.

In the meantime, we certainly appreciate the witnesses... we should be about 15 minutes or so and then we'll return.

Mr. Jim Abbott: There's an absolutely brilliant presenter at that.

The Chairman: We are fully aware of that—

Mr. Jim Abbott: I know.

The Chairman: —brilliance and the presenter.

Thank you. We'll adjourn for approximately 15 minutes.

• 1610

• 1635

The Chairman: We'll resume this meeting. I again thank the witnesses from the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for their indulgence while we were away. We will now go to government members for a round of seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada, do you have any questions?

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Yes, of course. I was traumatized by the vote, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a couple of questions. My first one is for Mr. Sangollo. There is an extremely interesting idea I want to explore with him.

We have crimes which are categorized as violent and others which are not, in the same way that criminals are categorized and have the right to different kinds of parole depending on the circumstances. You've brought to light an idea which to my mind is very important and potentially interesting, and that is that a victim's impact statement should be taken into account for parole eligibility. Is that right?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Yes, absolutely. When someone commits a crime, you have to take into account not only its impact on the victim, but also the kind of crime which was committed. Of course, both are somewhat linked. Just like what I said about the elderly... Take the case of someone pushing an elderly person in order to steal her handbag. That's a violent crime which may have been committed by a youth of 19 who had a bit too much pot or alcohol. On the other hand, a person who takes all of an elderly person's savings is not committing a violent crime. For us, that does not make sense.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Without having thought about this very long, if I take your logic a little further, might there not be a danger of creating so much ambiguity in what we call victim impact, that we would end up lumping everything together and getting around the whole approach to parole?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: I've always said that there should be no wall-to-wall solution in the case of parole. The judge does have a responsibility to impose a sentence based on the crime and its impact. However, the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service are responsible for managing the sentence. Of course, the Board does more than just manage the sentence. The management tools it has are provided by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I cannot accept a wall-to-wall solution for parole. In my view, the accelerated review procedure is just that, a procedure that does not take into account the victim impact, the danger of repeat offences and other factors.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Does this recommendation apply exclusively to the accelerated parole review procedure, or were you thinking of something broader? I will tell you why I ask the question.

You just said that the judge has some discretion in sentencing. However, at the beginning of your presentation, you ask that in cases where judges do have some discretion, it should be withdrawn so that they automatically impose an extension of the minimum time required before parole eligibility.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: That is correct. I said that in the case of some crimes, particularly having to do with organized crime... As the chairman was saying earlier, the Solicitor General has just tabled an amendment whereby individuals found guilty of offences related to organized crime will not be eligible for accelerated parole review. But we want to go further, because it has to be proven that the offence is related to organized crime, and that is not easy to do at this time.

Consequently, judges have discretion in the case of offences not related to organized crime and in other violent crime, but they should not have discretion for offences related to organized crime.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand.

I have a number of questions, Mr. Chairman, so please interrupt me when my time is close to running out.

The Chairman: You have two and a half minutes left.

• 1640

Mr. Jacques Saada: Fine.

[English]

If I recall properly, I think it was Mr. Campbell who mentioned the DNA, or it was you, Mr. Griffin. I understand under the DNA Act there is already a possibility for retroactive action on taking of samples for certain crimes, especially violent crimes. I don't know if it's within what you were saying or if we don't agree, but I had it checked in between...

Mr. David Griffin: Certainly I think it was probably left that we don't agree with the final result on the DNA; that having an exclusive list of crimes only solves certain problems, not all problems. So we feel there should be a broad taking of samples for all potential suspects. In this instance, what we're saying is that in order for an offender to be released into the community early, that person should have to accept as one of the conditions, just like the condition to be of good behaviour, the condition to abstain from alcohol or drugs, or the condition to maintain a curfew, the additional condition that he should submit a DNA sample prior to release into the community. This should be for all persons released from a federal institution.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand.

Seeing that I have only approximately one minute and fifteen seconds left, I don't want to get into a debate on DNA, even though I note what you said.

The question I'm going to put now is to any of you really.

[Translation]

It is a very broad question.

Since, in some cases, we are talking about a requirement to impose a longer period before a person becomes eligible for parole, particularly in cases related to organized crime, and since we're talking about problems related to statutory release—and I think that everyone has referred to this in one way or another—I would like to ask a very basic question. Do you think the principle of having such periods of time before people become eligible for parole is an advantage or a handicap in the whole process?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: There are advantages to having set periods of time. I think that whether or not people have committed crimes, they are entitled to know what they can expect and what their rights are. I don't think the problem is the set periods of time, but rather the procedure itself. The set periods of time do not seem to be a problem in my view, with the exception...

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Originally, we were talking about one-third of the sentence, and that is all right. We are now at one-sixth. I am more concerned about the accelerated parole review, as is my association. The association is not concerned about the set periods of time that have to be served for parole eligibility.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Griffin, a short answer to that and then we'll move on.

Mr. David Griffin: Yes. We believe there should be set periods for parole eligibility; however, the release should not be automatic. There should still be discretion by the National Parole Board, and we believe the statistics in the reports that were filed with the government demonstrate that where the National Parole Board has made the determination to release somebody, the success rate has been very high. Where people have had automatic release into the community, the success rate has not been as good.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Second round, Mr. Abbott, three minutes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

I'd like to propose a puzzle and it's simply this. We have a situation where a person has been found to be absolutely incorrigible. He is a violent offender who is going to prey on young people or women. He has reached the end of the term in which he can be incarcerated. Let us assume that we have gone to the end of that term. In your opinion, what is the best course of action?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Mr. Abbott, if I had that answer, I surely wouldn't be sitting here. The only thing I can tell you is we worked, and I think the government has also worked, on legislation for high-risk offenders. Also, we'll be addressing on my committee, the National Joint Committee of Senior Criminal Justice Officials, the issue of long-term supervision, which probably can apply to this type of fellow who would have, after a number of years... Some of them don't want to go on any type of program. They do their sentence all the way and then they're released into our society, and it's a major problem. It is a major problem at this moment. We don't have that many, but one is too many.

• 1645

I think we are very close with the correctional... And this is a piece of legislation that wouldn't be too easy to table on account of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But there are things that have to be done, and we have mentioned before that some of them, in our mind, should not be released. It's very easy to say this, but it's not that easy to do.

Mr. David Griffin: We would agree. The basic concern we have is that there appears to be a lack of desire on the part of the judiciary to make those determinations. There are very few people who are classified ultimately as high-risk offenders or dangerous offenders.

Mr. Jim Abbott: One last question. In taking a look at the act, I believe it's paragraph (b), which is the alphanumeric that stands out in my mind, about holding offenders who are incarcerated—someone help me—at the least restrictive... It's been my brief experience in talking to wardens and people in Correctional Service Canada that it's not used as an excuse as much as it is almost like a club over their head that they will move them from max to medium to minimum to... They will move them along as rapidly as they can because of that clause. Would you agree with that?

Mr. David Griffin: It's like high jumping, where you keep jumping until you knock the bar off, only it's the reverse. You keep lowering the hurdle until somebody has a problem.

Mr. Jim Abbott: My impression, at the risk of sounding critical, and perhaps I am being critical, is that Correctional Service Canada is more concerned about reaching that lowest level of restriction, and they're afraid of embarrassment or they're afraid of somebody saying, you haven't reached that level quickly enough. I'm wondering if you would agree with that.

Mr. David Griffin: I think from our point of view it would be somewhat anecdotal. I can think of cases of people being—

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, for your benefit, the commissioner for Correctional Service Canada will be here on May 31, so maybe that's a question that is best put to him.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I was curious about their impression when they see—

The Chairman: I didn't notice a lot of uptake from the witnesses.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: We stay away, Mr. Abbott, from these types of questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Wappel, three minutes.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you. I have three questions, gentlemen, and thank you for coming today.

I want to clear up terminology. We're talking about accelerated parole review. When you say “automatic”, are you talking about accelerated parole review?

Mr. David Griffin: Yes.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: It really isn't automatic, is it? It just seems to be automatic, because it's a paper review by the National Parole Board. Right?

Mr. David Griffin: No. The onus is on the board to show why the individual should not be released. It's automatic unless the parole board can demonstrate a need to continue that person's incarceration.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I understand that.

Mr. David Griffin: That's automatic.

Mr. Tom Wappel: It isn't, because the parole board can demonstrate... and you've asked that ETAs, UTAs, and TAs be put in the hands of the parole board.

The Chairman: The word used is “presumptive”.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with you. I just want to be clear that it isn't automatic; it's accelerated. It's a paper review. It's likely to be the case, but it's not guaranteed to be the case in every single application.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: The only answer I can give you, sir, is that if there's nobody who sends them a letter saying we have reason to believe they will commit a violent crime, it is automatic.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So, again, it's a matter of semantics, I understand, but just to put it on the record.

The second thing I want ask about is this. Back in 1992, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police did not support the bill. We're now here, seven years later, reviewing it. Is it still your view that the bill is no good, or at least the law seven years later is no good, or have you revised your opinion of it?

Mr. Vincent Westwick (General Counsel, Executive Services, Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Mr. Wappel, maybe I can answer that. I was here when we appeared, and I recall that you and I had quite an active discussion about some of the principles of the bill.

I'm not so sure then that we were against the bill. We had a philosophical difference with the concept of parole and we put that forward. Quite frankly, I'd be happy to read into the record some of the things I read into the record in 1994, and I think the association would be very comfortable standing by them.

• 1650

Mr. Tom Wappel: No. Mr. Westwick, I'm just trying to figure it out in terms of our review of the act. Mr. Flanagan, who was vice-president and chairman of the law amendments committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said this:

...it is the position of the [CACP] that parole and corrections must capture and maintain the confidence and support of the community in order to be successful. ...we do not agree with nor support Bill C-36 as now drafted. It is our position that the current draft of this legislation does not incorporate or... even recognize the concerns of the communities across Canada.

Now, that may very well have been your position, and that's fine; I have no quarrel with it necessarily. I just want to know, however, whether with seven years of practical experience on the street, on the ground, and in the prisons, you think the CCRA is, generally speaking, working.

Mr. Vincent Westwick: I'm not so sure. One of the concerns we had on December 13, 1994, which is the date I have when we were back talking about the amendments, was that it was too complicated. It's too complicated, and I'd be quite prepared to cite chapter and verse on that one. It's a very complicated piece of legislation. It's very difficult for lawyers and judges to understand, never mind members of the public, and in particular victims, who are most often driven to pick up a copy of the bill and read it.

The other concern we have deals with—

Mr. Tom Wappel: I can't imagine a member of the public who would want to pick up a copy and read it.

Mr. Vincent Westwick: The people who would do that are the victims, sir. It's victims who—

Mr. Tom Wappel: It's impossible to read. You and I agree on that.

Mr. Vincent Westwick: Exactly, and we had that discussion then.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That's right.

Mr. Vincent Westwick: The other concern we have is not so much that sentences ought to be longer. But when a person is in court standing before the sentencing judge, and after considering evidence, submissions, experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, and whomever else, a sentence is imposed of x months or x years, whether it's right or wrong, the concern we had then and the concern we have now is that anybody sitting in that courtroom, including the judge, has no idea what the actual release date will be for that person, or never mind the exact release date, what the actual time will be. So is a six-year sentence a two-year sentence, a one-year sentence, or a three-year sentence? As a result, I think it creates a lack of confidence in the system, which we think is unsettling.

This is what Mr. Sangollo was aiming at in his submission, and we actually just discussed this this afternoon, to be candid with you.

In the new victims' bill that was just tabled, I think, a couple of weeks ago, there is a provision that calls for a sentencing judge to read into the record at sentencing a statement with regard to section 745. It's a formula of words that must be read, and that formula says that if a person is sentenced to 25 years, etc. It's almost giving notice to the public and saying be aware that after 15 years that person could come up for review under section 745, etc. I think the idea behind it is to inform the public of what these provisions are, and then the public is aware of it and can deal with it.

I think what we were saying is that if you were at all persuaded by that, then you may wish to apply some of that to these provisions and say that yes, it's a six-year sentence, but due to the provisions of statutory release, it's a maximum of four years, and if accelerated parole applies, it may be one or two years.

Mr. Tom Wappel: But to be fair, a six-year sentence, depending on how you interpret it, is still a six-year sentence. Four years of it would be spent in prison and two years of it would be spent being supervised, assuming the prisoner complied with the conditional release. It's still a six-year sentence, four years of which are spent in prison and two of which are under monitoring. Perhaps the public doesn't know that, but as chiefs of police and police officers you know that. You know that if there were no compliance with the conditions, the person would be brought back to the institution.

• 1655

Mr. Vincent Westwick: You're right, I do understand that. But I think the concern that underpinned some of our comments back then, and which I think remain, is that the public doesn't. It's not simply that the police are the custodians of the public view; it's that the police are often the ones who are dealing directly with the victims, the witnesses, and other people who attend during the process. That's why we become so concerned about the public view of it, because it's our officers and the officers of the CPA who so often are dealing face to face with these people.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

We'll now go to Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the Canadian Police Association, I agree with seven of your fourteen recommendations. That's 50-50, which is pretty good. That was used to pass me in school. I might even be convinced on a couple more of them.

I'd like to pick up on what Mr. Wappel was saying. With regard to parole, a couple of times it was mentioned—I don't know by whom, but it doesn't matter—that the person was released and that was the end of it. They were gone forever. Mr. Wappel stated that you do serve all of your sentence, whether it be in the institution or on the street. When a person who has been convicted of first degree murder dies, he fulfils his sentence on that day, because he's on parole until the end of his life. I want to stress this, because in too many peoples' minds, it's that the person walks away scot-free. He does not.

The other thing I'd like to say is that it seems to me that most of your recommendations tend to lessen the discretion of judges, the correctional people, and the parole board. Now, if this is intended as a solution to their lack of sensible discretion, I don't think this is the answer. Let's get rid of them and get someone who has a better idea of appropriateness. Putting them in a smaller and smaller box means that we then are legislating the exact sentence or the exact release date from here. That's my impression. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Mr. David Griffin: I think the reality is that many offenders are spending one of six years behind bars and five in the community. As far as the community expectations are concerned, I think that is an issue Canadians aren't familiar with and that if they were familiar with it, they would be appalled.

With regard to whether they are still serving their sentence, yes, they are. But, again, the auditor in his report observed that up to 38% of those offenders aren't supervised with the frequency that's expected according to the national standards. So one of the concerns we have is that while the supervision is there, and while Corrections will tell you on May 31 that their revocations have been reduced by 37%, perhaps the resources and support that are supposed to be out there in the community are lacking. Certainly, we're concerned that once they are released there's not sufficient supervision.

Mr. Ivan Grose: If the lack of supervision and the discretion by the three segments of the service were improved, would this be better than us legislating a more exact sentence? Let's face it, no two people appearing before a judge, serving time in prison, or being on parole are exactly the same.

Mr. David Griffin: Certainly from our perspective, it goes back to the debate with Mr. Wappel concerning process and semantics. From our perspective the release is automatic for an offender whether or not they've demonstrated they are in fact suitable to be released into the community. We feel that those decisions should be determined separate and apart from Corrections deciding whether or not they want to flag an offender, and the onus should be on the offender to demonstrate that they're ready to be released into the community. It shouldn't be automatic that they will be released unless somebody else is prepared to intervene and say that offender is not suitable. Then the onus is placed on the parole board to demonstrate that there's cause to hold that person longer in the institution.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I couldn't agree with you more on that point. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just for the record, I think it's important to realize that even within the House of Commons there are differing points of view and there is a debate. I find myself very compelled by Mr. Westwick's comments in particular.

When I use the term “truth in sentencing”, I do not mean that in a pejorative sense whatsoever. I mean it in an informative sense. I think it's very important, as Mr. Griffin just pointed out, that when an offender receives a six-year sentence—and, truly, for a person receiving a six-year sentence, in all likelihood this will not be a first offence; in all likelihood, this will be a third or fourth offence. That person being seen on the street by the public at large after one year, and that is a distinct possibility, it strikes me—it ends up becoming an issue of credibility of the judicial system. What impact does that have for you, as front-line police officers and police departments? What difference does that make? As I say, that is an honest difference of opinion from one side of the table to the other, but I'd like to know what difference it makes, in your judgment, on the street.

• 1700

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: The only thing I can tell you is that if a major crime happens, and even though this person had the right to be released on condition, if he's committing a major crime, then we cannot stop the media from saying what they want, and it has its effect.

I've worked with CSC and the NPB for a number of years, and I'm still working with them on the NJC committee, and we know they're doing great work. However, the effect it has for a woman who has been raped or for a young boy who has been assaulted, to see that person in six months or a year or two years after on the street when he was sentenced to five, six, seven, eight years... you cannot in reality take that woman, that victim, that boy, and say look, this is Canada, this is our Charter of Rights; he has the right to be released. Even though everything is right, the impact has always been the same.

You saw last year, especially in Quebec when they posted pictures of released sexual people, that this created a big problem among the police—do we support this? Do we not? This person has served his time and now he's seeing his picture all over telephone posts and whatever. So if there's no major crime that takes place, everything's okay. If there's a major crime and it affects a young boy, a young girl, an elderly person beaten up, and this person is on conditional release, then, sir, we have seen it for so many years. It just goes out of proportion.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I wanted to understand a little bit further about the automatic parole review. I wondered if you had actually ever done statistics or if you have statistics that indicate people who are paroled as a result of that program versus people who are not under that program, and especially as it relates to people who reoffend. Do you have that kind of data or documentation or empirical evidence?

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: We have that documentation. It's from the Solicitor General of Canada and it's entitled Towards a Just, Peaceful and Safe Society: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act Five Years Later - Consultation Paper. In this documentation, which is a very synthesized document, you will find the answers. They do have statistics related to APR, they do have statistics related to judicial release, full parole, any of the...

Yes, Mike, could you answer, please.

Inspector Michael Shard (Ontario Provincial Police; Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): The document I'm referring to is the Accelerated Parole Review: Were the Objects Met? It's a paper put out by the Solicitor General of Canada in February 1998. On page 35 of 46, and this is a copy off the Internet so I'm not sure if that will match, the heading is “Fixed follow-up Two years”.

These are some of the statistics:

While 32% of pre-CCRA APR eligible-offenders were readmitted to prison within two years of their release, 43% were readmitted after the CCRA was implemented. The percentage of offenders with technical violations more than doubled from 7% to 15% while the percentage with a new offence increased from 25% to 32%. There was a small increase in the percentage of offenders who committed new violent offences from 4.1% to 4.7%. ...this increase was much lower than the comparison groups.

It does indicate generally an increasing rate of reoffending.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

• 1705

I wanted to ask the Canadian Police Association this. I was interested in your recommendations on page 12, specifically item number 7, and of course the contentious repeal of section 745 under the Criminal Code and such. As I understand it, right now there's a fairly complex system of checks and balances in place—correct me if I'm wrong on any of this—where first of all you have to go to the judge and then from there you have to go to the jury, and a jury has to be unanimous before any movement takes place, and of course from there it goes to the parole board. It is your view, though, that that is not a check and balance that's appropriate? We need to move beyond that, I guess, is really what you're saying.

Mr. David Griffin: In our view, the whole process—and in particular the hearing that takes place under 745—is extremely traumatic for the families of the victims who have otherwise tried to put their lives back together, who have lived 15, 17 years and have sort of reassembled their sense of life, to be placed in a position where a second hearing is going to take place as to whether or not the person who was convicted 15 years ago should be released early into the community.

Certainly the concern that comes up first is the fact that they weren't even aware this was an opportunity that was available to the convicted murderer, but more importantly, in our view, the taking of a life is the supreme crime, and our society warrants a penalty of life and in fact parole ineligibility for 25 years. We don't believe 15 years is sufficient.

Mr. Lynn Myers: And you don't believe the existing controls in place are sufficient? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. David Griffin: That's correct.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Can I take you also to item number 12. As I see it, consecutive sentencing is really what we're talking about there. I wanted to get a better handle on that as well with respect to judicial discretion. It's my understanding, again, that it's now in place, that judges can in fact impose conditional consecutive sentencing if it's appropriate.

Mr. David Griffin: To be honest, on that one I'm not sure. I may have to defer to others, but certainly our concern is that in some cases, people who commit a second offence are—we were discussing this earlier—able to get out earlier than somebody who's committed an offence for the first time. We were before the committee last month, testifying on Bill C-251. We believe that somebody who commits two murders or two sexual assaults should have two separate parole ineligibility periods, that they shouldn't benefit from some mystical sentence calculation formula that's currently applied.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Can you elaborate a little bit on what you just said, that you think if they commit two they get out earlier?

Mr. David Griffin: If somebody is released on conditional release and reoffends with a similar crime and is incarcerated again—Boyd may be able to explain it better than I because I don't profess to understand it—ultimately their parole ineligibility period for the second offence is calculated taking into account the first offence, and they actually benefit.

S/Sgt Boyd Campbell: That's our understanding with regard to it, that the clock starts ticking. If you're on a conditional release, the time is calculated from the beginning of that initial conditional release for the second offence.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I don't think it would be my understanding that that's the case, but maybe at some point we can have that—

S/Sgt Boyd Campbell: I know there's been a presentation to this committee from the Victims Resource Centre that in fact gives specific examples with regard to those instances that have occurred, where in fact somebody is on a conditional release, recommits, and when the sentence calculation is taken into effect it starts off at the initial offence, from the first offence they became involved with.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I may be completely wrong, but that is not my understanding of the situation. As I understand it, if a person is sentenced for a crime and is ineligible for parole for 15 years, and then commits a second crime after 10 years in prison, the period during which he or she is ineligible for parole for the second crime starts when... In other words, the time served before is in addition to the period that still has to be served before the person becomes eligible for parole.

• 1710

I don't know whether anyone can provide me with some information on this, but this matter was raised specifically at the Justice Committee, when we were discussing Bill C-251. It was said at that time not that the periods of ineligibility were cumulative, but rather that the period that had to be served before parole eligibility for the second offence started being calculated from the point the person had reached for the first sentence, whatever that might be. So the second period was added on—the first period did not replace the second. This point was raised by many witnesses we heard from, particularly legal experts.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, maybe the police chiefs have a further clarification.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Sangollo.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: When we look at Bill C-45, I remember testifying, the calculating of the sentence is very complicated, and they had to do some training for our own crown. So the only thing I can tell you, sir, is that I will refrain from giving any opinion. I am quite sure at 99% that you're near to what I think it is, but I'm not too sure.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I want to reassure you, I'm not a lawyer either.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: They always start from the beginning, but he has to do a part of the second sentencing; a certain part of it is mandatory.

The Chairman: That's a point we'll be able as a committee to review with our researchers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I'd be interested in that.

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Can I finish off with one point?

The Chairman: One last short point, and then we'll go to Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Just very quickly, again to the Canadian Police Association on number 12. There's some evidence coming out from the United States indicating that some of the consecutive sentencing is in fact not working. I wondered if you had seen that, or if you were aware of that?

Mr. David Griffin: No.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a point of information.

The Chairman: A point of information, yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: This refers mostly to a Time magazine article—I don't remember which issue—that dealt not with murders, or sexual offences, but with drugs. As you know, many states in the United States have reinforced their... you know, three strikes and you're out, and this kind of stuff. This study demonstrated, and a number of authorities in the States witnessed, that the system of consecutive sentencing, mandatory consecutive sentencing in this regard, has failed, because they just couldn't control the increase in the criminality rate. I suppose you're referring to that.

Mr. Lynn Myers: That actually was what I was referring to.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Wappel.

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

Very briefly, just on this very point of sentencing, back in 1992 when we were considering this bill for the first time, it became obvious that it was very complicated, almost incomprehensible. There were charts brought by chiefs of police. I remember one from the province of Quebec. He demonstrated that it was impossible to understand how to calculate sentence.

At that time, Mr. Westwick, you and I had the following exchange. You said “We don't understand it, they don't understand it”. We're talking about sentencing calculation. I said “Who is they?” You said “Lawyers, prosecutors, defence counsel, court reporters, sometimes members of the parole board”. I said “If those people don't understand it, then the common person will never understand it, never”. You said “My point exactly”.

I was going to ask you, have things gotten better? At that time the then Solicitor General, Doug Lewis, when he was reviewing all of this evidence, gave the impression that he was going to strike some sort of a committee, or something like that, to study the issue of sentence calculation and how complicated it was.

So I guess part of my question has been answered. The question was going to be, has it gotten better? The answer is obviously no. Do you know, or do you have any knowledge, about any committee that was struck by the Solicitor General, or any studies that were done over the last seven years with respect to making sentence calculation easier?

Mr. Vincent Westwick: No.

Mr. Tom Wappel: No, you don't.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: No, sir.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay.

Now I just want to put on the record one other thing, and that has to do with accelerated parole review again. You made a point, but I want to make sure we understand it. I believe your point was, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the vast majority of the people who are eligible for APRs, because these apply to first-time federal offenders, are by no means angels, and that most of these have committed offences in the past for which they have received, in many cases, incarceration in provincial jails. So indeed we are accelerating the parole review of people who may have rap sheets as long as my arm but happen to be in a federal penitentiary for the first time. Isn't that right?

• 1715

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: That's right, if they did not commit violent crimes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay. That's it. Thank you very much.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm fine, thank you.

The Chairman: Do other committee members have anything further?

[Translation]

I would like to ask Mr. Sangollo a question. When the representatives of the John Howard Society of Canada appeared before the committee, they talked about the situation where inmates were released at the end of their prison sentence. In this case, information could be given to police officers under section 25. The representatives from the John Howard Society maintained that the police discloses this information to the public in some cases. Is that in fact the practice?

[English]

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: We're talking about high-risk offenders who are released in our society. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act forces, if you permit me to express myself, Corrections to give the information to the police as to the whereabouts of this person, where he will go, and whatever. This is related to the famous case in Toronto where a woman was assaulted sexually and Toronto had to pay $140,000 or $160,000.

This goes back a few years when we talked to the Solicitor General. We said we had to have the information from Correctional Service Canada according to the law. Once we have it, it's on our shoulders to decide if we are going to release that information. If we say a specific sexual offender is residing, for example, at 505 de Manseau—because we're talking about prevention—the people around him will go in front of his house with all kinds of signs and maybe throw rocks. This person may say he will sue the police department because he paid his debt to society and has been released and the police should not have released that information.

On the other hand, if we don't release that information and a woman is sexually assaulted or a pedophile commits a crime, we may be sued anyway because we should have released the information and maybe the crime could have been prevented. The people in the neighbourhood should have at least known about it. They would have kept their children inside or watched them more carefully. So it's still a case of how we manage the information given to the police.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We're going to have to make some amendments to the Act to make that clearer.

Mr. Pierre Sangollo: Mr. Chairman, we asked the Solicitor General of the day, Mr. Gray, to look into this, and a sub-committee was established, one of the members of which was Mary Campbell, who is very well known here. I was part of that sub-committee. We recommended that each province adopt protocols on this, and some did so. I cannot tell you which, but many provinces did adopt protocols, and others did not. The fact remains, however, that it is up to the police to decide whether or not the information should be disclosed. An amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will definitely not change things, because it is up to the provinces to manage the information.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci. Are there any other comments on that point?

Mr. Vincent Westwick: If I can just add to that, in the province of Ontario, for example, the Community Safety Act—provincial legislation—visits broad discretion on a chief of police for the disclosure of information related to an offender and a released offender under certain circumstances and meeting certain criteria. Perhaps it was experience under that legislation that your witness might have been referring to.

If I may make one small correction to an earlier remark, I would not want Mr. Grose to be left with the impression that the CACP is in favour of reducing the discretion of a trial judge. That's certainly not our position at all.

• 1720

The comments we're making, which may appear to be viewed that way, are in the context of a discussion on this legislation. But our position is that many of these sentencing decisions should remain with the trial judge. So our position is very much to the contrary.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Good. Thank you very much.

There's one thing I would like to say. This is a hobby horse of mine that I get on. I believe people convicted of sexual crimes should be set apart from the justice system. These people are sick. How we're going to treat them in the medical community, I don't know. They should be taken out of society, but first of all they should be taken out of the justice system.

It is not fair to throw the burden on the police department to notify people that they're in the community. That's not your job. They should be set aside. Then you can deal with crime, not mental illness.

Mr. Vincent Westwick: The legislation from the previous Parliament, from this government's first mandate, Bill C-55, went a long way toward addressing that. It was by no means an answer to all of the concerns the police had, but expanding the dangerous offender definition and creating the long-term offender definition helps. It doesn't go as far as you're suggesting and take them completely out of the system, but it has certainly provided more tools to prosecutors and police, with respect to dealing with those things. For that we're grateful. It doesn't mean we're not still asking, but we're certainly grateful.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I thank our witnesses from the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Your testimony was very precise and informative, as usual. Thank you very much.

We'll now adjourn, but I'll remind committee members to stay. We'll go in camera to discuss the question of the conference. Thank you.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]