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, May 3, 1999

• 1533

[English]

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

We have with us, from the Citizens' Advisory Committees, the chairperson of the national executive committee, Mr. Ron Warder;

[Translation]

and Vice-Chairperson José Gariépy. We invite you to make your presentation during the next 10 to 15 minutes, following which members of our subcommittee will have questions for you.

[English]

I just wanted to say that the subcommittee, in its travels, has been very impressed with the people we have met in the various regions and at the various institutions. We are looking forward to your presentation, as the national advisory committee. Would you like to make your presentation of about 10 to 15 minutes?

Mr. Ron Warder (Chairperson, National Executive Committee, Citizens' Advisory Committees): Thank you, Chairperson. We've kept our presentation short to allow for those questions, and that's certainly our intent.

We represent about 400 citizens who comprise about 60 citizens' advisory committees across Canada. We believe citizens' advisory committees provide an invaluable service as independent observers of Correctional Service Canada for the Canadian public.

• 1535

Currently we exist under the authority of CCRA regulations, and at that, they only stipulate that CACs “may” be established. We wish to make the case that appointed members of CACs and the Canadian public deserve to have that statutory entrenchment of citizens' advisory committees in the body of the CCRA itself, rather than the regulations. This would provide a higher degree of permanence to the independent observer function and would increase the stature of CACs, both within the correctional system and with other bodies and the community at large.

Commissioned following a series of serious prison disturbances, the MacGuigan report, which we have as appendix A in our presentation, publicly acknowledged for the first time in Canadian correctional history a need for involving ordinary citizens in monitoring and evaluating correctional policies, programs, and procedures. Noting that correctional authorities had traditionally operated in a relatively isolated manner and that the general public had little understanding of the correctional justice process, Justice MacGuigan recommended that citizens' advisory committees be established in all penal institutions.

Since their inception, CACs have performed an invaluable role as informed observers, advisers, and commentators on the operation of Canada's correctional facilities and programs. Essentially we perform three roles: we advise, we act as independent observers, and we act as liaisons with the public at large.

Having wide powers of access to prisons, offenders, and staff, local CACs are expected to be representative of the community they represent and of the offender populations and programs they serve. Members are expected to take their role as independent observers and advisers seriously, satisfying themselves that the provision of correctional treatment, conditions, supervision, and programs are in compliance with Correctional Service Canada's policy and the provisions of the CCRA.

CACs perform a crucial role in acting as independent intermediaries between the correctional authority and offenders, helping to ensure that disputes are resolved fairly and promptly. Local committees strive to achieve a high degree of visibility, credibility, and accessibility within their community and in the correctional facilities and programs they monitor.

In an effort to recognize and support the autonomy of each local CAC, an independent national association of CAC members was first established in 1979. We represent that body. A mission document and constitution were put together and approved by the national executive committee in October 1993. It's important to note that in our national constitution, the independent observer function is:

to identify all policies or actions judged to be unjust and recommend corrective measures.

I'll turn it over to Monsieur Gariépy to continue.

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy (Vice-Chairperson, National Executive Committee, Citizen's Advisory Committee): I believe you already have a copy of our brief, along with the various appendices. I will touch on some of the more important aspects of this document.

Appendix B outlines the roles and responsibilities of the citizens' advisory committees that Mr. Warder spoke of. Our prime function is to provide objective and independent advice to local and regional managers of the Correctional Service of Canada. Such advice may relate to correctional services in general, to the running of correctional facilities or to programs and their effects on the community.

We also act as independent observers and we like to stress our independent status. We closely monitor the day-to-day activities of the Correctional Service in each of its facilities. We visit correctional facilities and meet on a regular basis with inmate committees, local board members and staff. This is one role that we have chosen to play. When serious disturbances occur, for example, a hostage-taking, our experience as an independent observer proves to be an asset. We also attend National Parole Board hearings .

Our third function is to serve as a communications link between the Correctional Service of Canada and the community. We educate and inform the public and increase their awareness of correctional issues. We organize forums, discussion groups and workshops. Our goal is to build a partnership between the community and different correctional facilities. For example, we can identify resources willing to welcome inmates when they take part in release programs or community projects.

• 1540

As noted in part D of our submission entitled “Powers and Membership”, there is no mention of Citizens' Advisory Committees in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Section 7(1) of the CCRA regulations states that CACs may be, and I stress the word “may”, set up by an institutional head or director of a parole office, while CD-023 states that CACs must be established at each institution. In our view, this discrepancy should be corrected.

Section 7(4) of the regulations stipulate that CACs may only advise the warden or parole director. Since our role is rather narrowly defined, the operation and existence of local committees, including meeting space and access to the facility, is the responsibility of respective wardens and parole directors.

Section 7(5) of the regulations stipulates that CAC members must have access to any part of the institution, to any staff member and to any hearing, provided the offender consents. I will come back to this point a little later.

All of our members volunteer on a regular basis in various institutions across Canada. They represent a good cross-section of their community and of the offender population.

Our conclusion in part E refers to a discussion paper drafted by the Human Rights Division and entitled “Citizens' Advisory Committees: Enhancing the Role of Independent Observers”. You will find this discussion paper in Appendix C. It recommends that we consider statutory entrenchment of the independent observer role function in the body of the CCRA itself rather than in the regulations. Obviously, we fully support this recommendation.

As I mentioned earlier, section 7(5) of the regulations states that CAC members may attend a hearing respecting an offender only if the offender consents. In our view, this hampers our ability to act as an independent observer and we recommend that this regulatory provision be amended.

CACs help to ensure that the Correctional Service of Canada upholds the principles of openness and integrity. We have observed that over the past several years, there have been far fewer serious incidents in Canadian institutions. While we do not wish to take all of the credit for this, we do believe that the 400 Canadians involved in the CACs across the country should be recognized for the job they do and we wanted to point that out to you.

Appendix D of our submission contains the Citizens' Advisory Committees annual report which outlines all of the activities undertaken by CACs.

We hope that our work and the importance of the role we play are recognized and enshrined in the CCRA, and not solely in the CCRA regulations.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Gariépy.

[English]

We'll start with a round of seven minutes.

Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.

As has already been mentioned, we've had the opportunity to talk to many of the citizens' advisory committees as we've travelled around, and they are doing a very good and effective job and there is a very good function for them.

• 1545

What you have asked for in here is not unreasonable at all. One of the things you said is that you are an independent body in an advisory role that has a function of providing advice and recommendations. Beyond the enhancement of your own group for the purpose of being able to function in the role you have as this independent observer, given that we are now about to look at possible amendments—widescale if necessary—to the CCRA, I would ask what observations you have in terms of how the system operates, not just in relation to you, but how the system itself operates.

You, as inside, independent observers, could be in a position to give us a lot of good suggestions and to voice certain concerns. I wonder if you could share some of those with us.

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy: We serve on the National Executive, but we are also members of local citizens committees. We have an important role to play, namely heightening public awareness of what goes on inside institutions, because this is still somewhat of a mystery. It's important to demystify correctional facilities and what goes on inside them. Since we act as independent observers, our role...

[English]

Mr. Jim Gouk: Could I interrupt for a moment? I don't want to lead you down the wrong path. You're reiterating what your role is. I understand what your role is. You've laid that out very well. What I'm saying is, in that role, you've stated that part of your function is to be independent observers and advisers, to advise officials on what problems you see and what changes should take place. That's what I'm asking for. What are those observations and what changes do you see taking place—not in terms of your own role, but what problems have you seen in the prison system that we might address?

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy: For example, when we meet with inmate committees at their request, we try to make them view circumstances more realistically. They usually have many demands, but it's unrealistic for them to want more than what the non-offender population has. We also try to make inmates more aware of what's happening outside the institution.

[English]

Mr. Ron Warder: I think maybe what you're asking is whether the system is working. In general the system is working quite well, but institution by institution, parole office by parole office, issues come up. They may just be unique issues for that particular jurisdiction or that particular unit.

One of the areas the public is concerned about and that we, as community members, hear more about is the area of parole and release issues. Traditionally citizens' advisory committees are well established in institutions, but there's a lot of work in our own group to determine what our role is as far as our attachment to parole offices goes. So we're bringing back a lot of information to the system about what people's fears are around parole and how they view it.

Mr. Jim Gouk: What I'm looking for, though, is something more specific. For example, we have heard, most recently when we went to the Edmonton Institution for Women, that the inmates feel they are not prepared for being released into the community. They're not given any training. They're not given anything that would take them outside the segment of the community and the people they've associated with, which in some cases is what put them in there in the first place.

So again, if you're looking at it from the community perspective, representing the community, particularly as the national voice for this organization, do you see problems in the training inmates are getting to prepare them for being released into your communities, the communities your members represent? Do you see a problem with the types of day paroles and work releases they're getting, or things of that nature? Are there things that are working well? Are there things that are not working well? What can we do to fix the ones that aren't working well or to make them work better?

• 1550

Mr. Ron Warder: I can't speak for the Edmonton Institution, as I'm not familiar with that institution; but I can speak for the B.C. women's institution. From my access to and involvement with that to some degree, I think they have a very good training program established. They have linkages with community college. It seems to be working quite well there. There may be lessons to be learned from there; I don't know.

In terms of work release, I am attached to William Head Institution in Victoria, and the work release program is working very well there. The community supports it. There have been very few issues around that. Part of our role in that has been working with the community to find acceptance for those sorts of programs.

Again, I don't think we can talk about a system-wide problem. As a national executive, we hear more about what CACs are facing in terms of their roles and responsibilities in the institutions. We haven't really developed a sense of the whole system in terms of what's working and what's not. That's not what we're prepared to speak about.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.

[Translation]

You have seven minutes, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): I too would like to thank you for taking the time to meet with us this afternoon.

If I understand correctly, the National Executive Committee of Citizens' Advisory Committees represents 400 citizens who comprise 60 Citizens' Advisory Committees in contact on a regular basis with various correctional facilities across Canada. As such, you enjoy special observer status.

Since you know the system better than anyone else, you're recommending that your role be recognized and you want your status as an independent observer, along with a description of your role and functions, to be entrenched in law.

I can't quite understand why your list of recommendations isn't longer. Mr. Warder said it was impossible to be familiar with the workings of the system nationwide and to know all of its shortcomings. If you can't manage to do that, with your 400 members and 60 local advisory committees, then who can? Do you have any other recommendations for us, aside from that particular one?

Mr. José Gariépy: No. That's the only one. It's important that our status be recognized in law and that we not be at the mercy of wardens, who could well decide that there's no longer any need for a citizens' advisory committee. We are currently in a very tenuous position and we are constantly called upon to justify the work we do within the system. Perhaps it's a question of principle, but formal recognition of our status is a fundamental concern of ours.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand you quite well. However, I'm disappointed that your committee, which knows the system inside out, managed to come up with only one recommendation. It's important to be up front here, because the work we do will affect all Canadians.

I'd convinced myself that I would be hearing from people who were familiar with the system and who had a national vision, unlike most of the witnesses who have a regional perspective of things and a narrow institutional vision. I'm disappointed, sirs.

I'm quite familiar with the MacGuigan Report. I'm not saying that I keep it on my nightstand, but I've read it. Personally, I've not been impressed by advisory committees. I have to wonder how representative the witnesses really are. We wanted to meet with ordinary citizens and I had a number of questions about the involvement of people in institutions. Given that you've come forward with a single recommendation today, I have many questions that have yet to be answered.

• 1555

You maintain that your status is tenuous at best, but I'm sorry to have to say that a report like this won't do a lot to strengthen the credibility of advisory committees. That's my personal opinion.

Mr. José Gariépy: If I can respond to your comments, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that committees are comprised of volunteers. Recruiting members is an ongoing problem. The turnover is fairly high. People commit for a time and then quit for personal reasons. It's not easy retaining our members. We're asking people to volunteer their time to this cause.

I'd also have to say that committees differ greatly from region to region. I'm not as familiar with other regions, but I do know the Quebec region and the volunteers are committed, motivated individuals. What we need now is legislative support. Our status must be recognized in the legislation so that wardens can't treat us anyway they like.

Once this has been accomplished, it will be much easier to motivate people to stay on, because they will know that their independent observer status is secure and that their job is to increase public awareness of conditions inside institutions and to argue in favour of social reintegration. One function of CACs is to communicate information to the public. We need to get across the message that social reintegration begins the day an offender is incarcerated, not the day he is released.

Therefore, our job is to heighten the awareness of local authorities and also increase public awareness of the work going on inside correctional institutions. The issues are not always black and white. More often than not, there are grey areas.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

[English]

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am interested in the citizens' advisory committees. I certainly have heard that you do very good work, and that should be noted and commended.

I wonder if you could answer a couple of technical questions. How are committee members chosen? Are there criteria in choosing these people? I heard you talk about the volunteer aspect, and I understand it might be tricky to keep people on, as you indicated, but I wonder if you could outline that for us.

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy: Recruitment methods vary widely from one region to another. The National Executive Committee is reluctant to set down selection rules that would apply across the board.

Recruitment is generally done by word of mouth. Members enlist acquaintances. We also run notices in local papers where we invite people to attend a meeting to find out if they are interested in joining our organization. If they are, then we initiate the selection process.

The National Executive Committee is currently working on selection procedures and on ways of keeping its members, an equally important consideration. Members receive some training and learn about their role and the Correctional Service of Canada. That's usually how we proceed.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers: Does every institution have a CAC? Is it a given that each one would have one?

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy: Each institution has a citizens' advisory committee, unless things are different in other parts of the country.

[English]

Mr. Ron Warder: I would also point out that in some institutions where they have a small parole office attached to them.... There's supposed to be a CAC for each parole office too, but sometimes they'll combine, if it makes sense in the community to combine the two CACs.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Can you give me a sense of who you're accountable to? How is that processed? Is there an inherent accountability system in place?

Mr. Ron Warder: The regional deputy commissioners appoint, and it's for a two-year period initially. So you're accountable to your local committee in terms of the normal group processes you'd have in a committee such as that, but ultimately the accountability flows through to the deputy commissioner, who may appoint or not appoint people based on recommendations. Also, if somebody is acting in a way that is not particularly helpful, then the responsibility lies with the deputy commissioner to deal with it.

• 1600

Mr. Lynn Myers: I think I heard you say you're looking at legal support in the act. I just want to be really clear. Is it your position then that the CCRA should be amended to require the National Parole Board to establish CACs in all of their regional offices? Is that a fair statement? Is that how you see it?

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy: We want the legislation to state clearly that each institution “must” have a citizens' advisory committee, instead of “may” have.

Does each parole office really need to have a citizens' advisory committee? As Mr. Warder pointed out, some parole offices in Quebec are attached to an institution. CACs are attached to institutions which in turn are attached to parole offices. Sometimes the two can be combined. We want the legislation to acknowledge this fact.

[English]

Mr. Ron Warder: Just as an example, it wasn't that long ago that in the Pacific region you had CACs attached to every institution, but the parole CACs fell by the wayside. It took a regional deputy commissioner to say, “You must have those now.” So all of a sudden we now have some very vibrant CACs attached to parole offices in B.C.

We're saying it shouldn't be flowing back and forth like that, depending on the flavour of the day.

Mr. Lynn Myers: So what you're really saying is you want to see consistency and stability in that sense.

Mr. Ron Warder: That's right.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Very good.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Grose, there are three minutes left in this round. Do you want to take them now or come back later?

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): I'll take it now. I may get another one later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two lines of questioning here. Maybe I can get rid of one of them right away.

As I understand it, you are not mentioned in the act. Is that so?

A witness: Exactly.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Well, I agree with you that you should be. That's an oversight.

One thing you mentioned caught my attention: attendance at hearings. At the moment you can only attend with the prisoner's consent? Well, quite frankly, I think that shouldn't be changed at the moment. The prisoner in a hearing has the impression that everyone there is against him, and if you haven't established credibility with him—and that's very difficult to do—he should have the choice of whether or not you are there.

My other line of questioning is this. I've been most impressed. I never heard of the CAC until six months ago, and I've been most impressed with the people we've met and what they've done so far. They have some credibility among the inmates, and that's good.

But I think you're going to have to work a little more on it. They somehow equate you with the government man who takes complaints, the Correctional Investigator, who in some places has no credibility at all. Unfortunately, because you come from outside, you're equated with him in some cases—which I try to dispel, incidentally.

In fact I think I'll let it go for the moment, Mr. Chairman, and get a complete three minutes on the next round.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

Did you have a response to that, Mr. Warder?

Mr. Ron Warder: I just want to say that one of our roles is to continually put some of these issues in front of local CACs.

For instance, we came up with the issue, should CAC members act as escorts for inmates? That is a problem, because we're trying to be independent. So we try to educate members about that. We try to make sure they see the need for them to be independent and to be observed as being independent by the inmates, the staff, and the community, and to keep that balance. So we're continually having to address that. You're right about the inmates needing to view us in that regard.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I completely agree with you on that escort thing. You don't want to be associated with the man at all.

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy: If I could just comment on what you said, we do face certain challenges, and we do have a number of goals, one of which is to increase public awareness of CACs. The proof lies in what you just said. You weren't aware that CACs existed, even though they've been around since the 1960s. We would do well to enhance our profile among institution staff who are unfamiliar with our work and still somewhat leery of us, and among the public at large.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I have no further questions for this group, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Any further questions, Mr. Marceau?

Mr. Richard Marceau: No.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Myers or Mr. Grose, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Ivan Grose: Oh, yes, certainly.

The Chairman: Then go ahead.

• 1605

Mr. Ivan Grose: Then I'll proceed with my second line. It dovetails with what you've just been saying.

I realize you're all volunteers. Most of the people we met—I think the preponderance of them—were retired businessmen. One was a retired corrections official, doing, as far as I'm concerned, a bang-up job, because he knew the thing literally inside and out.

Do you have such a thing as a speakers' bureau—that is, speakers who will go to address service clubs and so on?

Mr. Ron Warder: Each institution or parole CAC is encouraged to do so. A speakers' kit has been developed, and a revised one is being developed. They're encouraged to do that.

For instance, in the Victoria region, the Victoria parole CAC is relatively new, whereas the William Head Institution CAC is well established. We will go into Victoria and speak at different functions as well. One of the roles of the CAC member is to try to reach out.

Something we're emphasizing right now is that they spend a greater preponderance of their time in fact getting out into the community and speaking at those sorts of functions. A number of the institutions have done that as part of their role. Some institutions are backing away from that, from a staff point of view, and the CAC is filling that position and having more credibility in some regards.

Mr. Ivan Grose: The reason I ask that is, if you had a speakers' bureau and sent out a circular to service clubs and so on.... And I mean service clubs particularly. These are usually the movers and shakers in a community, who lead the thinking. Generally speaking, my experience with them is they know nothing about the correctional system, and what they think they know is all wrong. So I know it's an extra burden, but if you were to do more public speaking....

You have a credibility that I, as an MP, don't have. I'm suspect. I'm part of the system. You're not. You are part of the community. You are looking into the system and then bringing back the report to the local community. I think you could do a great job there. I realize the time it takes and I realize you're all volunteers, but it's a thought.

Here's another question along the same line. Do you have members in non-prison cities? For instance, in the Kingston area, obviously there are at least seven CACs, I would assume. Are there any members from Toronto or any branch in Toronto, where most of the customers come from?

Mr. Ron Warder: Unless they're attached to some parole functions, there wouldn't normally be, no. There's the matter of distance and costs.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Here again I'm wondering, what if you had a member in Toronto, who probably only twice a year would visit an institution with the local people, but he then could serve as the spokesman who would talk to the service clubs? You have a huge area such as Toronto, which as I say is where most of the customers for those institutions in the Kingston area come from, and yet they're not getting the message. Believe me, they're not getting the message; I know. I come from Oshawa, and I do the best I can to explain there, but then, as I say, I don't have the credibility, because I'm part of the system.

There's another thing I might mention. I don't know whether or not you liaise with the local MP, because if he has an institution in his riding, he has a problem to begin with. It's the NIMBY thing; no one wants an institution in their back yard. I'm wondering if your people try to work with local MPs.

I'm trying to establish here whether or not you have a tight national organization or whether they're pretty much independent groups that act on their own.

Mr. Ron Warder: Yes, I think you need to understand that. It might help with some of the frustration you've had with our presentation.

We're very much a grassroots organization. The national executive body meets four times a year and has conference calls in between. We don't have a huge secretariat attached to us. To try to get national consensus on a range of issues affecting corrections is difficult.

There's not a strong national, top-down presence, as you see in a lot of organizations. We take some pride in that actually, and in being responsive to regional and local issues and not being prescriptive particularly.

A lot of local CACs do deal with their MPs and MLAs quite regularly, and some do not. We encourage it. A big part of the function of our organization at the national level is to facilitate, educate, encourage, and try to coordinate national issues as best we can. But a lot of the work and a lot of the time is at the local level, and at the regional level to a lesser degree.

• 1610

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy: I just have a brief comment, to add to what was said about the Quebec region. There are no federal penal institutions in Montreal. However, some of the people who serve on CACs in other correctional facilities come from Montreal. Therefore, the large urban centres are represented.

[English]

Mr. Ivan Grose: If funds were, by some magic act, available to set up a national office with paid help who could look at correspondence and keeping track of things, would you be in favour of that? Or are you in favour of leaving it the way it is, which, as you say, is not a tightly tied organization?

Mr. Ron Warder: Well, I should be clear, though. Part of the consultation branch of Correctional Service Canada does provide us with staff support. Of course everyone is in competition for federal dollars in the budget, and everybody could use more. We get good support to the degree it can be offered, given the budgetary constraints you're all living under.

Even through the local system, varying levels of support are available to local CACs from the institutions and the parole offices they're attached to. We have been working to try to get some standards and some consistency, so that at least if you're in one CAC in Saskatchewan, you're getting a roughly similar level of support administratively to what you get in Atlantic Canada. We're trying to make sure there's some consistency there.

Sure, I think any national organization would love more staff time. That was one of the issues for us in preparing for this presentation.

Some things were said that I would like to take the opportunity to comment on.

The Chairman: On that point, then, Mr. Warder, in my opening comments I did say the committee has been very appreciative of the work of the CACs we've met in the regions. Monsieur Marceau is a very hard-working, contributing member of this committee, but I don't want you to attribute his comments to the committee. Those were Mr. Marceau's personal comments.

Mr. Ron Warder: And I don't intend to do that, but I would like to speak to you just a little bit about process.

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Ron Warder: I'm a former mayor of a municipality in the Victoria area, and I think the CCRA review is not a user-friendly process for people in the field, lay people, people who aren't familiar with the content of the CCRA. And it's a very difficult document to be familiar with.

Also, it is our understanding that the committee was looking at only things that pertain to the CCRA itself, not particularly the regulations or other issues in the correctional system that may or may not be directly related to the CCRA.

So in terms of the position we find ourselves in, let's talk about what's going to make the biggest difference for us in serving the Canadian public and Correctional Service Canada in our work, and the rest will flow from that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Ivan Grose: One minute and I'll be finished.

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I would like to congratulate you on your work. In the six months since I've known you existed, I've been very happy. I've been very impressed with all the people I've met, and I'm impressed with you two gentlemen. Thank you for coming.

You obviously have seen that I would like to see your work expanded and I would like to see you continue to do the job you're doing. So all I can say is keep at it, and if you ever need a friend at court, you have one.

A witness: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what Mr. Grose just said and what you said.

It's very important that we as a committee recognize the good work you're doing. In my question I indicated that, but I want to re-emphasize it, because the kinds of things you do for people are very important, and that needs to be acknowledged in a very meaningful and tangible way. The committee chairperson did that, and I want to echo that as well.

• 1615

The Chairman: Before adjourning, I have a couple of specific questions.

Mr. Grose made reference to your suggestion that in regulation 7.5, the requirement of the consent of the offender for you to be at the hearing be removed. I wonder if you could expand on that a little bit. What types of hearings would you be looking to access? Can you give any examples of where not having that consent has been a problem to your work?

[Translation]

Mr. José Gariépy: It happens mainly when parole hearings are held, when commissioners meet with the inmates requesting parole, a temporary pass and so forth. Inmates are free to deny access to independent observers like us. An inmate must consent before a CAC member can sit in on a parole hearing. That's really the most important issue, as far as we're concerned. When that consent isn't forthcoming, we can't act as an observer. I think inmate and staff both need to become more familiar with the work we do. That's the main problem.

The Chairman: Mr. Grose said the problem could be a lack of trust on the inmate's part. How would you respond to that?

Mr. José Gariépy: If we step aside, it's as if we're acknowledging this lack of trust. Our role is not only to ensure that proper procedure is followed, but also to serve as an advocate for the inmate. That's equally important. If we step aside because the inmate doesn't want us attending the hearing, then he will never learn to trust us.

[English]

The Chairman: The other point I have is that the National Parole Board is not required to have a CAC, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on possible recommendations to maybe incorporate amendments to the act that would require a CAC for the National Parole Board.

Mr. Ron Warder: Our understanding is that the CACs are created through institutions and parole offices. We haven't examined the National Parole Board requiring CACs. We simply want whatever mechanism works to ensure they exist in parole offices as well.

In the community, there are now far more issues around parole and around people on different types of release than there ever have been. There's certainly a greater emphasis on all the CACs attached to parole and district offices now. They have a big job ahead of them, particularly, for instance, in the Abbotsford area, which I'm sure you're familiar with. It's a very busy CAC, and I don't know if they always want to be there.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Are there any other questions from any of the members?

If not, then

[Translation]

thank you very much for coming here today. We greatly appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

[English]

We're adjourned.