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]

Tuesday, April 13, 1999

• 1532

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Members, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will resume our statutory review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We have with us this afternoon witnesses from the Union of Solicitor General Employees, Lynn Ray and Linda Davis.

If you would like to make a presentation to the committee of approximately 10 minutes or so, then the committee members will have an opportunity to ask questions and we can have more dialogue that way.

Ms. Lynn Ray (National President, Union of Solicitor General Employees): Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

The Union of Solicitor General Employees, PSAC, wishes to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit comments for consideration during the parliamentary review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The USGE is a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and has responsibility for the representation of approximately 13,500 members. Our membership are employed in the Department of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice. The CCRA has an effect on the majority of our membership, who are employed within the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

The managers make decisions that our members, the operational employees, are required to carry out on a daily basis. While all aspects of the CCRA have impact on the daily working lives of USGE members, we have limited our comments and recommendations to those areas that have the greatest or most direct impact and where we would like to see changes.

First is part I, institutional and community corrections, paragraph 4(j):

That staff members be properly selected and trained, and be given

(i) appropriate career development opportunities,

(ii) good working conditions, including a workplace environment that is free of practices that undermine a person's sense of personal dignity, and

(iii) opportunities to participate in the development of correctional policies and programs.

Our first recommendation is that the following be added to subparagraph (iii): “Staff organizations should be involved in furthering this process.” Our rationale is that this would provide a mechanism to ensure that consultation takes place on a national basis for the good of all staff.

Second, we recommend the addition of subparagraph (iv): “the addition of standardized, mandatory, ongoing, appropriate training to be monitored by the Service”—that's the Correctional Service—“at the national level.” Our rationale is that past experience has shown a lack of appropriate ongoing training given to staff. The training is often left to the discretion of the institutional head, who is influenced by budgetary constraints.

Next is reception of inmates, section 13:

The institutional head may refuse to receive a person referred to in section 12 into the penitentiary if there is not a certificate signed by the registered health care professional setting out available health information and stating whether or not the person appears to be suffering from dangerous, infectious, or contagious disease.

Our recommendation is that “may” be changed to “will” and also that the following be added: “Staff members will be advised of such information.” Our rationale is that currently all staff have peace officer status and may be in contact with inmates. They have the right to know health information that would have an impact on their own health and safety. The health and safety concerns of staff should override the privacy concerns of the offender.

• 1535

Next is escorted temporary absences, subsection 17(1):

Where, in the opinion of the institutional head

(b) it is desirable for the inmate to be absent from penitentiary, escorted by a staff member or other person authorized by the institutional head,

Our recommendation is that “or other person” be deleted. Our rationale is that this duty and responsibility should be solely that of a staff member who has peace officer status and has received the appropriate training to ensure the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders.

Next is investigations, subsection 19(1):

Where an inmate dies or suffers serious bodily injury, the Service shall, whether or not there is an investigation under section 20, forthwith investigate the matter and report thereon to the Commissioner or to a person designated by the Commissioner.

Our recommendation is that “or a staff member” be added after the word, “inmate”. Our rationale is that the service is also responsible for the safety and health of its employees and therefore should conduct an investigation, neutral and impartial, when a staff member dies or is injured.

Next is information, subsection 23(1):

When a person is sentenced, committed or transferred to penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to obtain, as soon as is practicable,

Our recommendation is to add paragraph (f): “a certificate signed by a registered health care professional setting out available health information”. Our rationale would correspond with that of section 13.

Next is section 28:

Where a person is, or is to be, confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which the person is confined is one that provides the least restrictive environment for that person, taking into account

We simply have a comment here that although we recognize that there are safety measures to be taken into account, we are concerned about possible security problems for the staff. If fewer checks are made, if there is greater freedom of movement by the inmates, if there are fewer searches, etc., the safety of the staff could be reduced and the stress level increased.

Next is disciplinary offences, section 40: “An inmate commits a disciplinary offence who”. Our recommendation is to include the following offence under paragraph (t): “engages in any form of harassment of a staff member”. Our rationale is that this amendment would correspond with paragraph 4(j), that staff members be given a workplace environment “that is free of practices that undermine a person's sense of personal dignity”.

Next is summary conviction offences, section 45: “Every person commits a summary conviction offence who”. Our recommendation is to add: “(f) stalk a staff member when statutory release, parole or a temporary absence”. Our rationale is that experience has shown that this serious offence does indeed occur causing obvious concerns with staff members.

Next is searches of inmates, subsection 47(2):

A person providing services of a prescribed class to the Service under a contract has the power to search that a staff member is authorized to conduct under subsection (1) if

Our recommendation is that this be deleted, leaving staff members with the sole responsibility to conduct searches. Our rationale would be similar to that given in subsection 17(1) with escorted temporary absences. We are concerned with peace officer status and appropriate “standardized ongoing training” being given to ensure safe and humane custody and supervision of inmates.

Next is searches of visitors, section 60: “A staff member may conduct a frisk search of a visitor”. Our recommendation is to add a scale of sanctions on visitors who test positive on a drug-screening device such as an ionizer. Our rationale is to ensure that visitors are treated in a consistent manner when testing positive and to make them aware of this serious offence. This may also help to reduce the amount of drugs entering the institution.

• 1540

Next is section 70:

The Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that penitentiaries, the penitentiary environment, the living and working conditions of inmates and the working conditions of staff members are safe, healthful and free of practices that undermine a person's sense of personal dignity.

Our first recommendation is that the following be added: “Staff organizations should be involved in furthering this process”. The rationale is that this would provide a mechanism to ensure that consultation takes place on a national basis for the good of all staff.

Our second recommendation is: “the addition of standardized, mandatory, ongoing, appropriate training to be monitored by the service at the national level”. Our rationale is that past experience has shown a lack of appropriate ongoing training given to staff. The training is often left to the discretion of the institutional head, who is influenced by budgetary constraints.

On aboriginal offenders our recommendation is to add a section: “The service will provide mandatory ongoing standardized training regarding aboriginals.” Our rationale is that such training will assist staff members to carry out their duties and responsibilities through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders.

On health care, we recommend adding a section that states that health care will be provided to inmates at all times, seven days per week, 24 hours per day. The rationale is that because of budgetary constraints the service has cut back on health care, resulting in staff members—that is, non-registered health care professionals—being directed to partake in such duties such as urinalysis testing and dispensing of drugs.

On grievance procedure, our recommendation is to add a subsection to section 91 that provides administrative sanctions for offenders who submit an excessive number of grievances for frivolous or vexatious reasons. Our rationale is that it is not unusual to include such measures in grievance and complaint procedures to emphasize the seriousness of the action. As research indicates that approximately 5% of the inmate population accounts for almost 70% of the complaints and grievances, this mechanism should be put in place to deal with those who abuse this valuable resource.

On commissioner's directives, CDs, our recommendation is that any commissioner's directives dealing with security issues should be exempted from subsection (2) if the CD provides information that would facilitate an escape.

Next is part II, conditional release and detention, purposes and principle, section 101:

The principles that shall guide the Board and the provincial parole boards in achieving the purpose of conditional release are

(f) that offenders be provided with relevant information, reasons for decisions and access to the review of decisions in order to ensure a fair and understandable conditional release process.

Our recommendation is to add paragraph (g): “that the safety and identity of staff members be protected.”

Next is general, section 154:

No criminal or civil proceedings lie against a member of the Board for anything done or said in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of the functions of a member of the Board under this or any other Act of Parliament.

Our recommendation is to add, after “member of the Board”, “and staff members”. Our rationale is that with the ever-increasing media and public reviews of actions taken by operational staff of both the institutional and community sides of federal corrections, similar wording needs to be applied to all staff.

Next is part III, correctional investigator, section 170:

The Correctional Investigator may commence an investigation

(a) on the receipt of a complaint by or on behalf of an offender;

Our recommendation is to amend this to provide protection to staff members subjected to accusations by offenders. Staff members should be advised in writing if they are being investigated, or being recommended for investigation and/or discipline, as a result of an inquiry by the correctional investigator. Our rationale is that it's simply natural justice and due process.

We have ongoing concerns that staff are being expected to do more with less. There are greater demands on staff, with more accountability, causing more pressure. Also, as less violent offenders are released, the institutions are left with a more violent, unstable population. Due to heavy workloads, community parole officers have had some difficulty maintaining contact with the required degree of frequency.

• 1545

In conclusion, we request that serious consideration be given to our recommended amendments to the CCRA, particularly issues concerning health, safety, mandatory ongoing standardized training, and fair and just protection in the treatment of staff members.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Ray, for some very precise and very clear recommendations. I'm sure they'll be very useful when the committee and its researchers are writing the report.

We will go now to rounds of seven minutes. Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): First, with regards to training, it's something I've been concerned about as we've been going around. I have a background in structured training inside the government service and I'm alarmed at the absence of it. I know my personal recommendation is going to involve a very standardized, as you put it, training protocol. I'm quite shocked at it, and amendable manuals for staff members at all the various levels are not in existence.

As far as your brief itself is concerned, first of all, regarding health information where you change the word “may” to “shall”, you're saying you have to have that information, not that they will simply refuse to take someone because they happen to be HIV positive or they have hepatitis C. Your members should have the knowledge that someone they're going to deal with has that; they should simply be forearmed with that knowledge.

Ms. Lynn Ray: That's precisely what we mean. It has nothing to do with not wanting to deal with anyone who has a particular disease, but simply so that we can deal with them in the appropriate manner, taking the appropriate safety protections.

Mr. Jim Gouk: One thing you mentioned under discipline is any form of harassment. Is that even down to the level of verbal harassment? If they called a guard an SOB or something like that, would that be viewed as harassment?

Ms. Lynn Ray: I would suggest that normally something like that wouldn't be. The officers and other staff members who work in institutions are frequently subjected to an ongoing barrage or a program where an inmate is targeting one or more people on a repeated basis.

If somebody loses their cool, we know we're not working in a living room of somebody's fine residence. These are institutions. It's to be expected that the language is not going to be perfect at all times.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Going back to searches of visitors, you want to have some kind of sanctions or effect against a visitor, for example, for testing positive in an ionizer. If I understand correctly—and I have been through all kinds of metal detectors—an ionizer is something an individual walks through that is of a similar nature for an entire person to what a smaller machine to test a smaller item for drug traces would be?

Ms. Lynn Ray: Yes.

Mr. Jim Gouk: As I understand it, I can pull a $100 bill out of my pocket and there's a better than 50-50 chance that it will test positive in a ionizer because it's probably been handled by the drug trade at some point. If that is possible, is it not possible, particularly for someone who may be from a neighbourhood where there's frequent drug handling and so on, that this person could be totally innocent but would test positive anyway? The ionizer simply gives you rise to think that perhaps this person needs a more specific search, but only the actual presence of drugs found would result in a sanction.

Ms. Lynn Ray: I'm certain that would be reasonable, although what I'm being told is that the same people and the same individuals who are not necessarily from the types of communities you describe are testing positive or showing positive on an ongoing basis. We're not saying that this would be the only thing. We use that as an example, but I take your point that reasonable grounds—

• 1550

Mr. Jim Gouk: Perhaps we would have to fine-tune that a lot more if we were in fact going to proceed with it.

Ms. Lynn Ray: Absolutely.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Under health care, because you feel it is inappropriate to have anyone other than a health care professional conducting either a urinalysis.... Under what circumstances, if there wasn't a health care professional on duty, would you have to do a urinalysis between midnight and, say, 7 a.m.? Why would you be doing that kind of test at 3 a.m.?

Ms. Lynn Ray: The officer would want to do a test if he believes there may be grounds, if the inmate has ingested something. They're usually more planned than that, but there are often times on the weekends...at one point it used to be that we had health care professionals on duty all the time. They were one of the casualties of the first rounds of budget cuts. So now if they believe an inmate is in a condition other than normal, without sending them to an outside hospital or whatever, particularly if there is some concern for their health, they have no way of checking that other than through a layman's eyes.

So there's a need for health care professionals in the evenings. Equally important from our perspective is that correctional officers and WPs are being asked to dispense or handle medication. We believe that leaves them vulnerable to all sorts of charges of tampering or of not having given the correct medication. Not all this medication is aspirin.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay. We all recognize that we are in a time of constraint, and that's never a happy time for anybody. I like a lot of your recommendations and you provide a good rationale.

I'm having a little difficulty with that one. I understand where you're coming from, and it's not that I disagree with you. If there's tonnes of money, yes, sure, let's keep health care professionals around and all kinds of other people as well. Given constraints, we have to look at what areas we can cut. It seems to me this might be one that we can come to some kind of agreement on. Unless there's cause to believe there's going to be a lot of this type of testing, it might be just a little unreasonable in the current circumstances to keep a health care professional on around the clock on the off chance that you might have to do that type of test.

As far as drugs go, you raise a good point about the concern about accusations, but of course that can happen to anyone. There is a variety of other ways that this could be dealt with, through blister-pack preparation by the health care professionals for off-hour dispensation.

Ms. Lynn Ray: The only other point I would make there is that rarely do injuries happen to either staff or other inmates during an 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday to Friday routine.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I actually have one more question. Do you want me to wait until we come back or do you want me to deal with it now?

The Chairman: I think we had better see how the time goes.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, you've got seven minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): You did make me smile when you said before that the language spoken in jails isn't always perfect; it isn't always perfect here, either.

I went through your document quickly and I'll take the time to read it more in detail when this meeting is over. I find it very specific and it will be very helpful to us when we come to writing out our recommendations. I simply wanted to thank you for the precision of your suggestions.

One recommendation did astonish me and I'd like you to give further explanations. On page 8 of the document in French—same page in English—you say that correctional agents should enjoy immunity in matters both civil and criminal. If this immunity applies to the members of the Board, it should also apply to the staff, or so you say. That's what I understand.

• 1555

In my opinion, the reasons for which the members of the National Parole Board enjoy this immunity is that it's because they're a quasi-judicial tribunal and we don't want such tribunals or judges to be... This can be the case for the National Parole Board, an adjudicator in labour matters and so on. They have to be given as much latitude as possible within the legal framework that's imposed upon them. They're always under the jurisdiction of different legal tribunals and otherwise.

However, I don't see how one could compare a judge discharging a quasi-judicial function on the National Parole Board and a member of the staff in one of the penal institutions. If inmates or anyone else cannot sue a correctional officer, what recourse remains? If appealing to the courts is denied the person, what remains? A complaint? You then get into union procedures and goodness knows that can take long enough.

If, as a union, you do your work properly—and I know this because I worked in labour law—there's not much of a chance that the person will be reprimanded one way or another. How could you suggest that a member of the staff be placed on the same level with a member of the National Parole Board?

[English]

Ms. Lynn Ray: First of all, I would disagree that there is little possibility of an internal reprimand or discipline happening. That goes on every day and the department is quite capable of reprimanding or disciplining if it warrants it. The situation I'm referring to here, or the reason we're putting this in, is that the officers who work in corrections and in parole are responsible for making the recommendations that the board uses to make their decision on whether or not to release or whatever.

Increasingly, what we are seeing...and it's been going on for well over a decade now, because the first time I became aware of it was during the Stanton case in Toronto, years ago. There's no ability to look at the board members; they look increasingly to staff. Staff are the ones who are being targeted.

It happened recently in Quebec, in the Montreal area, with a parolee who didn't work particularly well. The staff members were the ones who were targeted for a long period of time. They had not done anything wrong, but because the board members were being exempted, the staff members were being targeted.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What do you mean by “targeted”?

[English]

Ms. Lynn Ray: They were being questioned and judged in the media.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You think that giving legal immunity would prevent the media... As parliamentarians, we have parliamentary immunity but I must tell you that the media don't hesitate to criticize us.

[English]

Ms. Lynn Ray: No, but what happened was that the media were criticizing, and then there were people moving towards thinking that these officers had obviously done something wrong so they should be charged in the courts.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'd like to put another question.

The Chairman: You still have one minute.

Mr. Richard Marceau: As a concern in the field, it was mentioned that more flexibility and as much leeway as possible should be given to the people you call "front line employees", in other words those who know the work best in the field. They know the people better, for example, when comes time to make decisions about parole. That's one aspect of the debate.

On the other hand, it was said that giving more flexibility or power to the first line people meant they were being handed too much discretion. The rules aren't very clear and specific at the outset; giving too much discretion to the employees would certainly lead to abuse of power. What's your opinion about that?

• 1600

[English]

Ms. Lynn Ray: I think we have a somewhat different take from yours. We've certainly been part of the group of people watching or participating in the discussions with regard to whether or not people should have more discretion and more ability to make decisions. Our concern has been the people who take that opportunity, take that power, take that responsibility, or whatever term you want to use, and make a bad decision.

That takes me back to the immunity that you raised. What is the ramification? If you make one decision that turns out to be a bad decision, but you make it for all the right reasons, or if you make it in good faith and it turns out to be bad, are you going to be held responsible? Is your career going to be totally destroyed? Or are you going to be held responsible, but with some reasonableness?

The experience that we have found far too often is that the person at the bottom of the chain or at the top of the chain—whichever direction you're looking along the chain—is ultimately the fall guy. That person may not have done anything erroneous, may have made all the decisions for all the right reasons. That has been our concern with regard to discretion.

With regard to power, there will always be people in this world who will abuse power if they're given it, and we have to deal with that abuse when and if it shows.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your comprehensive brief, Madame Ray. I echo the comments of the others. it will be very helpful.

I have two areas that I would ask you to ask about. Back in 1992 when you appeared before the committee, you had this to say about part III—of course, I'm only taking snippets:

...the correctional investigator system has been a cause for concern within our membership for a number of years. ...blame will settle at the lowest level. ...[CSC] staff should be provided with legal representation when the investigation can result in discipline.

These were some of the comments that you made because you had concerns. You then suggested that “the committee should review the application of the bill in five years' time in order that problem areas can be addressed”. Well, lo and behold, here we are.

I turn to the only recommendation that you make about part III now. If I may say so, it is relatively moderate and mild. To my way of thinking, it doesn't reflect the apparent concerns that you had six years ago in terms of the way the correctional investigator system was going to work insofar as it impacted on employees. I'd simply like to ask you if you have anything else to add about the union's experience with the correctional investigator over the past six years, and if your concerns then are still concerns now. Do you have any specific—dare I say it?—horror stories, and could you relate them to us? Or are you otherwise happy with part III as it is?

Ms. Lynn Ray: In some respects, many of our concerns have not been found to be as necessary as we had thought at that time. However, the reason this part is in here, and the reason for the recommendation we are making here, is that on a number of occasions over the years we have had the correctional investigator making recommendations or making suggestions that would impact on staff with regard to investigations and/or discipline. We're saying that if those staff members are notified of those recommendations or of that investigation, then there are appropriate steps we could take vis-à-vis the collective agreement, or the staff relations act could deal with it.

It is simply the absence of knowing what people are being put under the microscope for or being charged with that causes us the greatest concern. We still have many of the same concerns, but we really believe that if we have the ability to know up front and ahead of time, then there are mechanisms and we will be able to deal with the thing.

• 1605

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

Allow me to probe what you've just said for a moment. If the correctional investigator makes a recommendation to discipline a guard, from what we've heard, there is nothing mandatory about any recommendations that the CI makes right now. In fact, they can be totally ignored.

Ms. Lynn Ray: Correct.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Indeed, it may very well be that a warden or the commissioner or whoever it is totally ignores the recommendation of the CI to charge a particular guard. In that event, what possible difference would it make to the guard or to you? If the CI's report is acted upon and someone is charged with a disciplinary offence, surely the protections that guards have for disciplinary charges would immediately kick in at that point. Really, all you're asking to know, as I understand it, is whether or not the CI thought a particular guard should be charged or should be disciplined, whether or not anybody took any action on it.

Ms. Lynn Ray: You're quite right that if there was a recommendation and the authorities decided not to act on it, it really wouldn't make a difference in the long run. However, what happens quite often is that the recommendation is there and hangs there for a period of time while somebody is making up his or her mind as to what's going to be done. That impacts on the way people are perceived and/or treated during that decision-making period. That's one of the reasons why we would want to know: so that people can know whether or not they're being put under a microscope.

In terms of knowing, again it then becomes a case in which we don't have any action to take until there's a decision made, but people really have the right to know whether or not they're being investigated. In virtually any other aspect, people are allowed to know what the charges are or the contemplation is against them.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

Secondly, you make a recommendation on ETAs. I would just like your experience on it. On page 3 of your report, you suggest taking away the words “or other person”. Right now, paragraph (b) reads:

it is desirable for the inmate to be absent from penitentiary, escorted by a staff member or other person....

The words are in there, so what is the experience of the guards? What kinds of other people would escort an inmate, and what's wrong with that?

Ms. Lynn Ray: A number of times, we've had volunteers from the community. We've also had people from other organizations doing escorts a number of times. Sometimes these people are on probation themselves, and that causes us some concern. At other times, the appropriate security checks and backgrounds have not been completed, and that also causes us some concern and debate. I believe the service is leaving itself open to some backlash if something goes bad.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Let's assume that what you say is absolutely accurate. Surely the backlash would be on the institutional head who authorized these “other people”, not on the union.

Ms. Lynn Ray: This is true.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Basically, what you're flagging for us is a possible weakness in the act. It really is not something that is going to affect the union in any way. In fact, if your recommendation were taken, there would be more work for your members.

Ms. Lynn Ray: That's the manner in which it most affects us, but other than loss of duties at the moment, it is clearly a concern or, as you say, a weakness and a vulnerability in the act. But from our perspective, it's our members' work as well.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So allow me to understand this, in conclusion. You're saying that institutional heads are currently authorizing people on probation to escort inmates on ETAs.

Ms. Lynn Ray: I've been advised that it has happened on a number of occasions. Some of it goes back more than a decade.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That surprises me. If we wanted them, presumably you could provide us with details.

Ms. Lynn Ray: I could.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Gouk, it's now the second round, and you have three minutes.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I just have a couple of quick things, because Mr. Wappel's last question actually covered one area, as did Mr. Marceau's prior to that, with regard to the business of criminal charges. I do have one thing I would like to ask you, but I would comment with regard to that one.

Even RCMP members are subject to both being sued and being charged, because they're not exempt from the ability to commit a criminal act. On record, they have actually been found guilty of such a thing on occasion. I think it would have been a crime in itself had they been exempted from being charged when they had in fact committed one. And the guards aren't exempted either. I have the highest respect for the job they're doing, and that respect has increased especially since I've started touring, but it is not impossible for them to actually commit a criminal act or something that should be dealt with. I just don't see how we could ever exempt them carte blanche in advance.

• 1610

The question I would like to ask or leave with you is with regard to training. I mentioned earlier that I am doing my own personal recommendation with regard to that. I would hope that's the way the committee is going to see it as well. But if you have any specifics with regard to training, I would like to see those. The most appropriate way is to do it through the committee, because I'm sure others would be interested as well. I certainly don't have any problem that everybody gets a copy, just as long as I do. If you have any specifics that you think should be in a training protocol, could you provide them in as timely a manner as possible? This is something we are working on currently.

Ms. Lynn Ray: Certainly, I think we could do that. I would also suggest that, as you may be aware that we have just recently come through a process of collective bargaining and back-to-work legislation, one of the things we raised in some detail during our submission to the conciliation board was the issue of training. In that conciliation board submission there's a fair bit on training. I could refer you to that, but we can also provide some specifics to the committee. That's not a problem.

With regard to the exemption, I hear very clearly what you're saying, but the other side of the coin for us holds true. Increasingly, we're seeing correctional officers being targeted either as a result of the media spotlight or others. I would refer you to the situation with the Gentles inquest, which has now been ongoing for something like five years. Those correctional officers have been subjected to various court proceedings.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada, three minutes.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you for your presentation.

In your presentation and recommendations, I find some things more important than others. I'll start by eliminating one of the things that seems very difficult to justify, in my eyes. In the schools, the secretaries are the ones who give the children whatever medicine may have been prescribed by doctors. Why couldn't your staff be in a position to distribute medicines prescribed by others?

[English]

Ms. Lynn Ray: The situation is considerably different in an institution. Quite regularly, you will have inmates who will stockpile the medication for their own purposes at another time and place. Sometimes it's to their benefit to try to achieve the acquisition of medication. Thirdly, we quite regularly see the credibility or the ability of officers to do their job being targeted through accusations such as tampering.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

You mentioned the advisability of having medical service and medical staff available seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That would mean you don't have such availability at the present time.

Ms. Lynn Ray: No, we don't.

Mr. Jacques Saada: What happens if you have an inmate with a psychiatric condition and he or she goes through a crisis? What happens if that occurs outside the time of the availability of medical staff?

Ms. Lynn Ray: If it's outside the available time of the medical staff, and if the inmate is not in danger and is not putting someone else in danger, they simply wait until they can get someone called in or the inmate taken to someone, or they wait until the person comes on duty. If the inmate is being dangerous to himself or herself or to others, then the officers will have to take whatever steps are necessary to restrain the individual.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am sorry, I'm reverting to French because I have the French text here, but you recommend:

[Translation]

Add a subsection to 91 which provides administrative sanctions for offenders who submit an excessive number of grievances for frivolous or vexatious reasons.

[English]

Aren't we opening a wide door on arbitrary decisions? And what do you do with the right to grievance?

• 1615

Ms. Lynn Ray: In most realms where you have the ability to grieve—again I'm thinking mostly in the collective agreement process—there are sanctions and ramifications. From time to time you will get people who will file grievances on everything from the fact that the light switch is on the right-hand side of the door instead of the left, to the colour of the walls and so on. Sometimes that is done simply to tie up the system, to try to target someone for whatever reason.

There is precedent elsewhere for having some sanction. Yes, you're right, it would be a matter of adjudication. Someone would have to make the decision as to whether or not this person or that person.... I would suggest it would be the warden, institutional court, or whatever.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Marceau, do you have more questions?

Mr. Richard Marceau: As you know, we travelled across Canada. We went to the West, to some places that I could call Reform Land to make my friend Jim happy, and employees said that they often had the impression that their complaints and their comments did not get past the Rocky Mountains, in other words, that the national organization did not listen to what was said in the prisons or penitentiaries.

The same type of observation was made to me on a number of occasions regarding the national trade union, that they sometimes felt that they were not being taken into account.

I read on page 6, regarding section 70:

This would provide a mechanism to ensure that consultation takes place on a national basis for the good of all staff.

I find that strange because I thought that people wanted to be heard at the penitentiary level, not go to the big national organizations where they feel their voice cannot be heard. I don't understand why this consultation would take place at the national and not the local level, because that goes against what I've been hearing since the beginning of the hearings.

[English]

Ms. Lynn Ray: I'm going to use an example; it's probably the best way. We're asking for the ability to consult at a national level. Quite frankly, whenever we consult at a national level, we also go out to our locals and ask for input from them at each of the work sites.

Recently a new program was put in place in Correctional Service Canada, referred to as Operation Bypass. It was put in place and the consultation was done after the fact. We're just now getting the correspondence asking us to do consultation, at the six-month anniversary after it was put in place.

I don't know how much you were aware of, but certainly we've just come through some major upheaval with regard to collective bargaining. At the same time, we were subjected to a raid from another union, and many of the things you're referring to were being touted and used as the ammunition in that raid.

People will be upset and unhappy with their organization, whatever that organization may be. I could go to every one of the regions in Canada and find people who would complain that their voices weren't being heard at the national level. I could sit and complain to you that I go out repeatedly to all of the work sites and ask for input and get very little input. If it weren't for the fact that my staff and I listen very closely when we're having verbal conversations, sometimes we wouldn't have input at all.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Grose.

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

I too would like to congratulate you on your presentation. I wish we'd had it the day before, because it would have given us a little more time to work on it. We refer to it as bedtime reading.

I slept much better last night after having read this, except for one small exception. I think the “or other person” thing would have kept me awake for a while, but you've answered that satisfactorily.

• 1620

My colleagues have left me with just one of the points I wanted to make. In your health care, the last line says “to partake in such duties as urinalysis...” and you said “dispensing”. This says “dispersing”. Which is right? There is a difference.

Ms. Lynn Ray: There is indeed a difference and I used the wrong term. It's actually “dispersing”, because we have pharmacists who do dispersing and medical staff who do dispersing.

Mr. Ivan Grose: You have pharmacists who do the dispensing.

Ms. Lynn Ray: Yes, the dispensing—see, now I'm twisting them again.

Mr. Ivan Grose: It made quite a difference. Other than that, again I congratulate you. You have prevented me from asking many questions; you gave me the answers. This is the kind of presentation we should get all the time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Mackay, do you have any questions.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for having missed your presentation. By all accounts it was an excellent one, and I'll take the chance to review this material.

I have a question specifically related to health care, on the disclosure of information on inmates and their health status. I had a letter recently from a guard in Nova Scotia who was concerned about guards' handling of prisoners, specifically those inflicted with AIDS or other contagious diseases. The guard requested there be some legislation or policy that would allow guards certain information.

I know this brings to light all kinds of constitutional nuances and privacy information. Is this something that was discussed within the union ranks, or is there anything forthcoming?

Ms. Lynn Ray: That is something we have raised repeatedly. In our recommendation at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3, we're asking that correctional officers and other staff be given information on what kind of infectious disease an inmate has. This is simply so they will know which inmate they must deal with by wearing either a mask or gloves, for whatever reasons.

At the moment, under the prohibitions of the Privacy Act, correctional officers and other staff, except for the medical staff, are not allowed to know what infectious disease an inmate may have. Therefore, they're told repeatedly to use universal precautions. Universal precautions include being gowned, gloved and masked, and that's simply not feasible 24 hours a day.

If there's a fight in the yard or on the range or something else happens, it's simply not feasible for the correctional officers to say, “Just a minute, I have to go get gowned and gloved before I can come in and break it up.” We're simply asking we be notified, so we can react in an appropriate manner.

We've known of situations where correctional staff, in particular correctional officers, have been in very close proximity to people who have had such things as hepatitis, TB, or whatever, and have been unaware of it. Certainly, of course, AIDS is always a serious concern because we have a number of people who may have had exposure.

If you're talking about hepatitis or AIDS, the chemical cocktails people are required to take as a preventive medicine after the fact are really quite harmful and toxic. They really upset people's systems and can cause damage to their bodies. It certainly puts an inordinate amount of strain on their personal lives.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I just want to be clear about who would be informed. Are you saying it should be all correctional services personnel, or just those who would be in direct contact with inmates?

Ms. Lynn Ray: We're not talking about publishing a list. We're talking about those people who would be working directly in contact with the inmates, on a need-to-know basis.

Mr. Peter MacKay: What do you suggest would be the best way to effect that? Would it be done through private briefings with personnel?

Ms. Lynn Ray: There are shift exchange briefings and other methods, where information of a necessary nature is passed along. Right now most officers find out, through the rumour mill, if somebody is infectious. You never know whether that rumour is accurate or, if it is accurate, whether the disease is identified accurately. It's simply that. That's less than helpful.

• 1625

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mackay.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada, do you have a short, additional question?

Mr. Jacques Saada: On page 7, we read:

Any Commissioner's Directives dealing with security issues should be exempted from subsection 2 if the CD provides information that would facilitate an escape.

I must admit that I'm intrigued. Which Commissioner's Directives could facilitate an escape? Could you give me some examples?

[English]

Ms. Lynn Ray: There may be commissioner's directives that deal with the physical layout or physical security. Commissioner's directives can deal with and address any issue, so there may be issues in terms of when security checks are going to happen or when various other processes are going to happen.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think I will understand it better once I read this paragraph. Okay, thanks.

The Chairman: Merci, Monsieur Saada.

I'd like to thank you. I just have a couple of clarifications on a couple of your recommendations. Under “Searches of Visitors”, your recommendation under section 60 is to add a scale of sanctions on visitors. What sort of sanctions would you impose on visitors?

Ms. Lynn Ray: I suppose they could range from counselling or denying access to the institution—

The Chairman: Banning them.

Ms. Lynn Ray: Yes. It could range right up to arrest by a police force.

The Chairman: Okay. Under “Aboriginal Offenders”, you're saying to add to the section: “The Service will provide mandatory ongoing standardized training regarding aboriginals”. What did you have in mind there?

Ms. Lynn Ray: When Corrections first opened both the male and the female healing lodges, the staff who were required to work at those healing lodges were provided with some very extensive training on aboriginal culture, beliefs and so on. There are many aboriginal people in the other institutions, and our staff in those other institutions haven't been given the ability to have that same kind of training.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Ray and Ms. Davis. We appreciate it.

I will ask the members to hold their seats so the next panel can move in quickly and we can carry on. I know we have votes coming at 5.30 p.m.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Lynn Ray: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Rosenfeldt, and Ms. Charron, please approach the table.

We now have with us, from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Mr. Steve Sullivan; from the Victims of Violence Centre for Missing Children, Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt; and also Ms. Lynn Charron.

Mr. Sullivan, please start with a presentation of approximately 10 minutes.

• 1630

Mr. Steve Sullivan (Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime): Actually, Mr. Chairman, if it's acceptable, I think Ms. Charron is going to speak first.

The Chairman: Sure, that's fine, if you've arranged that.

Ms. Lynn Charron (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon.

My name is Lynn Charron, and I sit before you today reading this statement not as a lawyer, an academic, or even a member of any special rights groups. I sit before you with more education than any school would want to teach and more life experience than anyone should be forced to deal with. I sit before you as an individual who knows the Corrections and Conditional Release Act better than most, as I have been forced to deal with it in a most unpleasant manner.

My father, Fernand Charron, was killed in the early hours of June 21, 1992, on Father's Day. My father was brutally beaten and left to suffer for an extended period of time before he died in his own apartment. While this day is traditionally reserved for celebration and rejoicing the special people that fathers are to us, this day is forever ruined for me.

On March 12, 1999, the man who killed my father was released under the CCRA. During the months leading up to the offender's release, I have come to learn and understand a great deal of the inner workings of the CCRA. Needless to say, I have not been very impressed with what I have come across. Each of the recommendations below is an area where I have noticed neglect or deficiencies based on my personal experience. While the CCRA may have been written in such a manner as to overcome the changes that I mentioned below, it is important to note that these changes I am recommending from personal experience—in other words, this is how the act is practically administered.

Recommendation 1: The act should be reworded in all appropriate areas to include the rights of victims to have access to information regarding the programs that offenders have taken part in or successfully completed.

Recommendation 2: That subparagraph 4(h)(i) of the act be amended to include that victims are made aware of the programs offenders have participated in.

When an offender is released on statutory release, the victim should have some guarantees that the offender has taken part in appropriate programs and successfully completed them. Victims of crime, especially violent crime, want some assurance that Correctional Services have provided the offender with the tools and skills necessary to prevent another unnecessary crime or, in my case, death. If the act was reworded to include the rights of victims to know the kinds of programs that an offender has taken part in, this would provide some assurance to victims and the general public that all appropriate steps have been taken to prevent unnecessary violence in our future.

For example, in my personal situation, the offender who killed my father did so only because he was angry and intoxicated. The offender beat my father with such force that the coroner compared his injuries with an individual who had fallen from a 10- or 20-storey window.

As a victim in my father's death, as defined in this act, I think it is entirely appropriate that I have some form of assurance that this individual has been given the tools and counselling that he needs to prevent him from getting angry like this with any other innocent victim. This amendment would ensure that under the principles of the service, the programs and services the offender has completed are available to a registered victim.

Recommendation 3: Correctional Service workers and National Parole Board workers be properly trained regarding the act and, most importantly, victims' rights within the act.

Through my entire dealings with Correctional Services and the National Parole Board regarding the statutory release of the man who killed my father, I have experienced nothing but trouble, insensitivity, and confusion. I have found the workers in both departments to be unhelpful, confused, and unaware that victims are even allowed to participate in the process.

The first example regarding this was when I wrote the National Parole Board regarding the date the offender was eligible for release. As a victim I am legally entitled to these dates under subparagraph 26(1)(iv). In total I have received five different dates regarding the offender's statutory release date, two from Correctional Services and three from the National Parole Board. These dates ranged from March 2, 1999 to July 21, 2000. It took me countless long-distance telephone calls and speaking to numerous people before I was able to get a definite date regarding his release. Even then I was told that since this day fell on a Sunday, they would just release him the Friday before. I don't think this kind of treatment is acceptable, and I feel that educating Correctional Service workers and workers at the National Parole Board would help alleviate this kind of confusion.

• 1635

The second example I have regarding the poor knowledge of victims' rights in this act is the treatment someone receives when they call these services asking for answers regarding information that, as a victim, I am legally entitled to. For example, when I called to inquire regarding the discrepancy in dates, every person I spoke to had the same response: “Well, I'm not sure if you are allowed to have that information. I will review the policy and I will have to get back to you.” Through my entire communication with Correctional Services, this is the only response I am guaranteed to receive.

The last and most disturbing display of misunderstanding regarding victims' rights under this act is the simple denial of victims regarding their rights and their place with the CCRA. A member of my immediate family called the National Parole Board regarding the impending release of the offender who killed my father. This family member simply wanted to know the date on which the offender was eligible for statutory release. The person on the other end of the telephone said in no uncertain terms that this family member was not a victim and would not be given the information, as it was protected under the Privacy Act. Thank you and goodbye. This worker clearly does not understand the rights of victims under the CCRA and led this family member to believe there was nothing that could be done to get this information.

These three examples clearly show that under paragraph 4(c) of the act both government agencies are unable or unwilling to fulfil their purpose of enhancing the effectiveness and openness through the timely exchange of relevant information with other components to victims. Whether the improvement regarding this section can be best dealt with by adding a new subsection onto the section entitled Purpose of the Correctional System, section 3 of the act, or elsewhere, is something I am unable to comment on. But I do know from my personal experience that such denial of victims' rights should not and cannot be allowed to continue.

Recommendation 4: That the definition of victim, found in section 2 of the act, be clarified to aid victims and correctional workers.

Using once again the example above, there seems to be confusion regarding who exactly is a victim under the act. Correctional Services workers, workers at the National Parole Board, and victims themselves all seem to have different interpretations of the definition in section 2. For myself, I did not think I was included in the definition initially. I was forced to find an annotated version of the CCRA and look it up before I discovered that, yes, I was a victim under the CCRA. I was able to do this as I have a background in law and legal research.

I think of victims who are included in the definition but do not have the legal background or knowledge to understand that they are included, and workers who do not understand the definition as well. I have to wonder how many victims who are included in the definition found in section 2 have been told they are not victims and have not received the information or services they are legally entitled to.

I think it would be beneficial, especially to someone who has lost a loved one, for the act to be amended to include the term “homicide survivors”. For these particular victims the given definition is extremely confusing and difficult to understand. It is also difficult for others to understand that homicide survivors like me are victims, and this should be clarified in the act.

Recommendation 5: That section 26, disclosure of information to victims, be expanded.

Under section 26 of the act, there is an itemized list of information that a victim, as defined in section 2 of the act, has access to. In section 26 of the act there is an itemized list of the information that victims are legally entitled to. In paragraph 26(b) there is a list of information that may be disclosed to the victims. Other than the passing mention regarding the information outweighing the invasion of privacy, there seems to be some uncertainty regarding when this information or any other information can be given out to a victim as defined in section 2.

Information such as the penitentiary where the offender is serving his sentence, the date of hearing of reviews under section 130, whether the offender is even in custody, or the conditions of the offender's statutory release, is clearly information that all victims who have requested it should receive. This kind of information is imperative.

• 1640

For example, how is the victim supposed to get in touch with the victim liaison officer at an institution if he does not know the institution where the offender is being held? How is the victim supposed to offer a victim impact statement to the National Parole Board or to voice their concerns over an offender being released on statutory release if they are not made aware of those dates and those reviews? How is a victim supposed to know that an offender is receiving the help and treatment they need if we are not allowed to know the programs they are attending? Exactly what kind of situation would arise where it is considered an invasion of privacy if the offender, who is supposed to be incarcerated, is not in custody any more?

This section is very ambiguous in many areas.

I would like to add that any transfer between institutions is instrumental information that must be given to victims. If a victim is in touch with the victim liaison officer at one institution, then any transfer of an offender will clearly change the appropriate officer a victim has to speak to. In addition, the victim may feel it necessary to now inform Correctional Service Canada of any changes to the victim notification form regarding immediate notification of any persons who are unlawfully at large or escapees. If a victim understands that an offender is housed in British Columbia, they may not feel it necessary to have immediate notification. Yet if an offender is housed close to where they live, this may change the victim's decision. This information can greatly affect victim decisions and should not be kept from them.

Recommendation 6: Change the wording throughout the act from “at the request of the victims” to “and any victim as defined in the Act”. The wording is simply not appropriate. Most victims are not aware of their rights and thus do not have this information available to them.

I understand that the government is of the opinion that unless victims contact directly either Correctional Service Canada or the National Parole Board, they do not want the information that is legally available to them. While this theory may apply to some victims who do not want this kind of information, how do we really know that every victim who wants information is getting it? As above, my family member was turned away and told that this information would not be given to them.

Recommendation 7: The victim notification program should be expanded and explained to victims after the sentencing procedure. This way, if victims want more information or would like to participate in the victim notification program or the victim status program, they are at least aware that they exist. My question to the committee is simply this: If we are not made aware of our rights as victims, how are we supposed to exercise them as much or as little as we want?

I have recommended changing the wording throughout the act, but I think the simple inclusion of a section that outlined someone responsible for informing victims of their rights and what the CCRA is would be sufficient.

The victim notification program should be made available after the sentencing, appeals, and so on. It would be made available from the victim liaison officer of Correctional Service Canada. If victims knew what their rights were but decided they did not want any more information or to pursue the matter any further, at least this decision would be an informed one.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Ms. Charron, we're well over the allotted time. We do have two other witnesses to hear from.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt (Executive Director, Victims of Violence Centre for Missing Children): Mr. Chairman, could I allot her my time, then? Would that be okay?

The Chairman: That's fine. It's just that we do have votes at 5.30 p.m.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: I realize that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Further to that, I think the brief is clear enough that I don't have questions arising out of it. I think perhaps we might all agree to forgo any questioning in order that she be given the opportunity to finish it.

The Chairman: I was just concerned that there wouldn't be time left for the other witnesses or for the members. But if everyone's in agreement, then carry on.

Ms. Lynn Charron: Thank you.

Recommendation 8: Paragraph 78(2)(b) should be expanded to include that a percentage of gross payment to offenders be donated to a fund to help victims' services.

Under paragraph 78(2)(b) of the act, it is outlined that an amount not exceeding 30% of an offender's gross payment can be taken to reimburse for the cost of the offender's food, accommodation, clothes, etc., while under the care of Correctional Service Canada. This paragraph seems to make sense. It seems fair that offenders are made to repay some of their costs. A percentage, such as 5%, should be put into a fund that is used exclusively to help victims' organizations.

• 1645

If I had a say as to what it would be called, I would call it the Fern Fund after my father, Fernand Charron.

This fund would be similar to the one that was set up to collect victim fine surcharges, and it would be dispensed exclusively for the use of helping organizations for victims of crime. In addition, this percentage should be taken from an offender right up until the expiry of the warrant, not just while inside the institution. I think many people forget that while an offender is out on statutory release, he or she is still officially serving his or her sentence. This is why any money they make through employment while serving their sentence should be garnisheed to help organizations for victims of crimes.

Recommendation 9: Section 88 should be amended so as to inform victims of the programs the offender has participated in. In addition, some programs should be made mandatory before an offender is released on conditional release.

Depending on the crime an offender has committed, some treatment programs should be made necessary before statutory release is given to the offender. In my case some guarantee that the offender will not become angry again with some innocent victim is not too much to ask.

I would like to make note that if offenders are not forced to participate in treatment programs, how does Correctional Service Canada expect to prepare inmates for release, as outlined in paragraph 5(c)? Treatment programs that offenders are ordered to attend are not as effective as programs that offenders agree to go to voluntarily, many argue. My response to that is that maybe these offenders do not realize they actually have a problem until they are put in treatment.

Recommendation 10: In paragraphs 111(a) and (b), the means to obtain this information should be improved.

Under these paragraphs, the National Parole Board is supposed to maintain a program of exchange of information with other components of the criminal justice system. Through my personal dealings with the National Parole Board, I've found that they are not following these paragraphs. I had to provide them with a great deal of information regarding my father's death and the offender. The National Parole Board did not have a copy of his confession, the coroner's report on my father's death, or even the offender's previous convictions. I forwarded this information to them after I mentioned it on the telephone.

I have no suggestions regarding how best to rectify this situation, yet I do not think it is right that this situation be allowed to continue. Victims should not have to act as a liaison between agencies and gather and send information at their own expense so that various government agencies can maintain complete records on offenders and make informed decisions regarding offenders.

Recommendation 11: In paragraph 136(6)(c) information regarding an offender returning to prison should be given to the victim.

If an offender breaches conditional release conditions, commits another offence, or is in some other way not obeying the conditions of his release, then the victim should be notified of these breaches.

Recommendation 12: A toll-free line should be set up so that victims can access information on individuals regarding all stages of the conditional release process.

Being the victim of a violent crime does not happen to anyone by choice. It is not a position anyone wants to be in. Many individuals cannot afford to make all the necessary telephone calls to get in touch with the individual they need to speak to.

When I needed to speak to the victim liaison officer at the institution in Manitoba, I had a choice: either I called from my telephone during regular business hours, or someone had this person get in touch with me. At first I tried calling the institution collect, but they would not accept the charges.

Thus, to get in touch with the one person, I would call the commissioner in Ottawa. He would call the victim liaison officer, and the victim liaison officer would return my call. If I stepped out at one point or whatever, it would start all over again. The average phone call would take two days.

Recommendation 13: Victims should be notified whether the offender has or has not applied for parole, and the reasons why.

Under the current act, victims on the notification list are made aware of the dates for which offenders can apply for parole or absences. Victims should be notified regarding why or why not an offender is applying for parole or any of these absences.

• 1650

In my particular case, the offender did not apply for any kind of parole or absences. Why did the offender not request these? As a registered victim under the victim notification program, I am informed of the dates that he is allowed to apply for these absences. Then I sit at home and I wait, and nothing happens until the next date comes up.

I understand it is the offender's choice, and I think the victim should be informed of the reasons the offender is not requesting such a review. When an offender does not apply, one only wonders the reasons for that. Is it because he hurt someone else in prison, he was not well behaved, he did not complete his program, he is still very angry, or he likes it in prison? Maybe the offender knows that he has no chance or hope of getting approved for this, so he does not even bother. As a victim, I want to be made aware of the reasons the offender did not even ask for his review.

In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the committee for hearing me and taking into account my experiences. Particularly, I would like to thank Mr. Peter MacKay for inviting me to the committee and giving me a voice. As a victim in this senseless killing, this is the first opportunity I have had to communicate my concerns and the injustices against me, the victim, and society. I understand that any changes made to this act are not going to affect my situation, but I do hope they improve the ordeal for other future victims. I trust that the aforementioned recommendations will be seriously considered, as these are areas where victims fall through the cracks and are left out in the cold by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Charron. I'm sure you're aware that last fall the standing committee made an extensive review and report of victims' rights. I think some of the things in that report are similar to some of the things you're recommending here. So this will be very beneficial for the committee in reviewing it, along with that report as well.

The clerk reminds me that this week the minister will be tabling something on the victims' rights bill as well. I think there's some light at the end of the tunnel, so we certainly appreciate your coming before us today.

Ms. Lynn Charron: Thank you for giving me a voice.

The Chairman: Mr. Sullivan, you had a presentation?

Mr. Steven Sullivan: I think Mr. Rosenfeldt was going to briefly take a few minutes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, sorry about this. All three of us will only take half an hour. How's that?

The Chairman: That's fine.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: We sincerely appreciate the adjustments. I think it's very important that Ms. Charron's statements be read into the record of this meeting. I think she has taken an awful lot of time and effort. It's a very painful experience for her to have to relive all of this, and I think it's important that her voice be heard.

I deal with crime victims every day at Victims of Violence, and the stories we hear continuously from crime victims are no different from Ms. Charron's in dealing with the federal justice system. I won't get into a long, drawn-out speech—I do have the paper that's been submitted—but I'll just briefly say that in 1983 the federal-provincial task force stated that victims have been forgotten in the criminal justice system. I'm sitting here listening to Ms. Charron go through her experience of the last few years, and I wonder, when you listen to that, how far we've really come, on the federal level anyway, in the last number of years. I don't think we've moved that far forward. I believe her experience is not different from that of most victims in dealing with the federal system. So we have submitted a paper.

There's one other issue I'd like to briefly touch upon. My cohort here, Mr. Steve Sullivan from the Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, has submitted a paper too, and we would like to go along with the recommendations that are in the paper he has submitted. We did not prepare them and put them into our paper. I would like to bring quick attention to one important issue, item 20 on page 18 of Steve's presentation. He's asking this on behalf of the Canadian Resource Centre, and we would ask the committee to seriously look at the amending of the CCRA to remove the automatic statutory release provisions and replace them with another discretionary release mechanism similar to full parole.

• 1655

The reason I state this is that over the last number of years we've seen so many situations develop within the justice system where individuals who are deemed to be extremely violent, dangerous offenders, are still being released at the time of statutory release. I don't have time to read it here, but I do have a copy of a report on an individual by the name of Richardson. I have also submitted to the committee a copy of a statement by Theresa McCuaig. Her grandson Sylvain Leduc was brutally murdered by Richardson and his Ace Crew gang here.

I don't have copies with me and I don't have time to read it, but what I would like to do, and I will, is prepare copies of the information with regard to Richardson and his release. I do have information from the parole board here. As I say, I don't have time to read it, but I will prepare it and submit it to this committee.

We have distributed copies of the report as prepared by Ms. McCuaig, and I think it's important that the committee look at this situation. It's an item of very, very grave concern to crime victims. I think it's extremely important that item 20 of this report be considered.

With that, I'll just pass it along to Steve.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I'd like to begin my comments simply by stating at the outset that the victim resource centre has faith in the parole system. We think the corrections and parole systems in this country are run very well and we think the people who work for both organizations are hard-working, dedicated people.

Having said that, we obviously have some concerns with the CCRA and the process.

I'd like to apologize to my francophone friends. Part of the brief is translated, part of it is not. I apologize. We did try to get as much of it translated as we could.

The first part of the brief is a discussion of the issues that were identified in the consultation document. We used, for our purposes, the larger consultation document, the consolidated report.

The second part of the brief refers to the controversy of whether or not there's a quota system currently working within Corrections. The third part of the brief is something included for your information. As you may know, our organization deals a lot with cases that have gone wrong in the parole system—people who have been killed by someone on parole. Gary referred to Theresa McCuaig. Her grandson Sylvain was murdered by someone on statutory release. There was another lady in the audience whose son was murdered by a federal parolee. Michael Hector was the individual's name. The larger justice committee is familiar with that case, the murder of Kevin Solomon, because the committee looked at that report in detail last year.

We deal with a lot of those types of cases in those reports, and what I've done in that part of the report is review about 50 or so—not quite 50—and identify what we found to be the most common problems happening from case to case. I think it shows two things. One is that we've learned a lot. The second is that there are still things we need to learn and certainly do better, and there's room for improvement.

What I'd like to do, because our time is limited, is touch on just a few of our key recommendations found on pages 16 to 18, one of the most important being.... Some of them we already presented to this committee when, as Mr. Chairman mentioned, the committee was looking at victims' rights, and some of them are included in the committee's report, so we won't touch on those. But we certainly support that and thank the committee for the report.

I think one of the most important recommendations with regard to victims is the call for the creation of a victims' ombudsman within the federal parole and corrections systems. As you heard earlier, there is a similar office for offenders: the correctional investigator. If an offender or inmate has complaints about the way he or she is being treated in prison, they can complain to the correctional investigator. Unfortunately, victims don't have that luxury. The families sitting behind us and Ms. Charron can probably tell you how much they certainly would have appreciated someone like that to address their concerns.

For anyone who wonders if it's necessary, because there are investigations when cases do go wrong, I would remind you that there was an investigation by Corrections Canada into the incident at the Prison for Women a number of years ago and they found basically that everything was fine and nothing had gone wrong. It was the correctional investigator's subsequent investigation that found there were more serious problems, which led to the inquiry of Madam Justice Arbour. I've included some of her comments, which I found particularly relevant to this process, on pages 12 and 13, so I would draw your attention to that.

• 1700

Mr. Rosenfeldt mentioned one of our recommendations with regard to statutory release. I noted in our document that the highest success rates for people on conditional release are those that are based on proper assessments of risk, being day parole and full parole. It's when you have releases by law, accelerated parole review and statutory release, that you see the success rates go down.

That speaks to the competence of the people making the decisions, but it also says that when you're releasing people because you have to, you're going to have a lower success rate. That is certainly in line with the comments the chairman of the National Parole Board made some time ago. He felt that statutory release should be amended at least to give the National Parole Board much more discretion in releasing people at that time.

As you probably know, the process now is that people with automatic release, unless Corrections has reviewed the case under legislation and recommended to the parole board that someone be detained, the parole board then has a discretion to detain or not.

Mr. Rosenfeldt referred to the case of John Richardson. In reviewing the parole documents, it's quite obvious that the parole board members who reviewed his case had serious concerns about this individual's risk of recidivism, but the short end of it was they had no choice but to release him. I suspect from reviewing the remarks that if they had the opportunity, they would have certainly detained the individual, but there was no referral from Corrections so they had no choice. Subsequently, he was one of a number of individuals involved in the murder of Sylvain Leduc.

There are other cases like this that highlight the problems when you have releases by law and not ones based on the assessment of risk. I'm sure members of this committee know of some of them.

Finally, I will touch on the second part of our brief and this potential or possible quota system within Corrections. It's something that we have followed quite closely since last summer, when the first news story started to appear that there was a push on to get 50% of all federal inmates on the streets by the year 2000. We have followed that up until now.

Despite the denials by two solicitors general and the commissioner, there's some relevant evidence that says there is some kind of push going on. I've included some documents, one by the Ontario deputy commissioner, which, among other things, make referrals to the commitment of Ontario to get over 600 additional offenders out on the streets by the end of this year.

I would refer anyone who questions why a quota system is so dangerous to the final remark on April 14, in the briefing note. This quote comes from a report recently released to us involving two offenders who walked away from a minimum security prison in Kingston in 1996. Both were charged with first-degree murder.

The problems identified in the report had to do with the concern within the prison about a decreasing population. Because it was a minimum-security prison there were a lot of empty beds and there was some concern about funding levels and whether it would be dropped because of the number of empty beds. So there was a push on to get more offenders into this institution, which meant bringing offenders from a higher-level institution.

One of the findings of that report is particularly relevant when we talk about a quota system to illustrate how dangerous this really is:

Many staff strongly perceive that the need to maintain population quota levels at minimum security is taking precedence over sound security classification, case management and transfer practices, thereby compromising CSC's legal obligations to adhere to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to public safety concerns.

Perhaps the reverse onus illustrates exactly the concerns we've raised about a quota. When you make decisions based not on risk assessment but on numbers, you run the risk of this kind of thing happening. So if anyone doubts our concerns about the quota system, I would simply ask you to read this report. It involves two offenders who walked away from a minimum security prison who should not have been there, who were there because there was a push to meet a quota, and an individual lost his life because of it.

I will leave you with my comments at that point. The brief is quite extensive, but it's more important that we engage in a discussion at this point. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

• 1705

We'll perhaps go to five-minute rounds to try to give as many members as possible an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd certainly like to start by thanking Ms. Charron for her perseverance and her courage in coming here. Making that presentation is obviously a very trying ordeal for you, and you're to be commended for your persistence in trying to make the system work better.

As far as the other questions are concerned, I don't really have much. You have some pretty substantive briefs and we will get an opportunity to look through them.

One of the problems we have as a committee is that we have a relatively narrow focus in terms of dealing with the CCRA, but sometimes it's pretty obvious that in order to fix some of the problems in there we have to go beyond that. While this committee's report may not be able to do that, we may make some side references. Of course, it's all knowledge input for all of us anyway.

In keeping with your remarks, Mr. Sullivan, I would ask about the concept where they say we want to release people from prison, we want to get the numbers down, it's a cost factor. It's all kinds of things, but we also want to get the system to work.

What if the whole sentencing structure were changed so that a non-violent offender who was not an addict, first of all—and we can put that in a separate category—was accelerated towards an early release. If there was a proviso in sentencing that a second or subsequent sentence...in other words, you give them a chance, and if they blow it, the next time they will be dealt with more heavily. Could we offset it that way? And perhaps in the case of a drug offender, where they take a suitable drug program and give every indication of being clear and being a first offender, we could accelerate that and back off on the others.

Could we divert it that way? Would that then answer a lot of your concerns?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: The accelerated parole review process is similar to what you're talking about. First-time federal non-violent offenders can go through almost a release by law at an early date unless the parole board can show there's reasonable grounds to believe they're going to commit a serious, violent offence. So that kind of process already exists.

What's important, though, when we talk about violent and non-violent offenders are the statistics. According to the statistics from Corrections, eight out of ten offenders in the system right now are there for crimes of violence. That's important to remember when we talk about the need to get non-violent offenders out of prison. We do need to do this, but we already do a relatively good job of that, or at least there's the recognition of a problem.

When you look at the success rates of the accelerated parole review process, getting the non-violent guys out faster, the success rates aren't that good, partly because they're not really first-time offenders. Most of them have been through the provincial system a number of times. It takes a lot to get to the federal system. The philosophy of getting non-violent, first-time offenders out on the streets with treatment is a good one.

Mr. Jim Gouk: With regards to violent offenders, I've had some people bring up the idea that some of the things we class as non-violent we should be taking a second look at. For example, for someone who breaks into a house, it's considered a non-violent offence. They break in, they steal some liquor, they steal a TV, but what happens if they encounter someone? By placing themselves in that situation, they could possibly be a violent offender who simply didn't have the opportunity or the confrontation that would bring out the violence.

Do you have any concerns with regards to some of the non-violent offences perhaps being reconsidered?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes, and your point is correct. The offences are non-violent because there wasn't the opportunity for violence. If someone breaks into a home and no one is home, they take what they want and they leave. If they encounter someone, there might be a different story.

Mr. Jim Gouk: A home invasion.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I recall in the Michael Hector case that an individual who was on parole for armed robbery murdered three people in Thunder Bay. I referred to that earlier. In that case the parole board looked at his case and figured that because he committed an armed robbery but never actually shot anyone, he was a non-violent offender. So violence is in some cases subjective.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, five minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would like to compliment you on your excellent testimony, Ms. Charron. It required a great deal of courage and determination to appear before the committee, and I congratulate you. You mentioned, at the very beginning, that you did not come here as a lawyer or as an academic. The precise nature of your recommendations, and the reasoning underlying them, are quite impressive. Even pressure groups with extraordinary means cannot rival the quality of your brief. I would like to congratulate you on it.

• 1710

With all due respect for the organizations of Messrs. Rosenfeldt and Sullivan, I must say that this proves that when citizens decide to participate in the legislative process, they make a significant contribution. We parliamentarians benefit greatly from exchanging views with someone who has such experience with the system.

I would like to ask Mr. Rosenfeldt or Mr. Sullivan some questions about the accelerated parole review. A case of this came up last week in Sherbrooke. A man named Paul Bolduc had been sentenced to 20 years in prison for importing cocaine and other drugs. Thanks to an accelerated parole review, he was released after serving three years of his sentence. Of course, this angered a great many people in the Sherbrooke area.

A few months ago now, I tabled a bill that would make people found guilty of drug trafficking or money laundering ineligible for an accelerated parole review. We know very well that drug trafficking has fairly considerable consequences for society—prostitution, violence and theft to get money to buy drugs. In your opinion, should such a bill be supported or included in the report that the committee will be writing?

[English]

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I'm familiar with your bill. I believe the Solicitor General addressed at least partly the concerns about organized crime members and accelerated parole review. As I recall, your bill went farther than Bill C-51. I certainly agree that organized crime is a huge problem in this country. The case you referred to, 20 years and being able to benefit from a accelerated parole review process, is ludicrous. We support your bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I was both very troubled but at the same time happy to have, for the first time in a long time, a summary of the debate over the quota system. Your summary is very clear; please be assured that I will remember it and that I will make use of it, even though, unfortunately, it is only in English. The committee will have it translated, won't it, Mr. Clerk?

The summary says that solicitors general MacAulay and Scott contacted you. What did they tell you exactly? As ministers, did they confirm that there were no quotas? Did they very clearly assure you of this, in spite of all the incriminating documents that you found before and after these telephone calls?

[English]

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Originally, when the first report was leaked to the press out west, we wrote a letter to Andy Scott at the time. We also came across an editorial written by Mr. Ingstrom. When Mr. Scott called, he assured me that there was no quota system. He didn't seem all that familiar with Mr. Ingstrom's editorial. He assured me the commissioner was going to write to all the deputy commissioners across the country and explain to them that there was no quota.

A couple of days later we saw that actual letter. I personally felt it didn't really address the issue that there was no quota. It almost defended why there should be one. We wrote to him again. He called me again and gave me the personal assurance that there was no one within Corrections who was under the impression that there was a quota system.

• 1715

It kind of lay dormant for a while, until earlier this year when some more documents came to light, suggesting that the quota system was up and running. And of course the new Solicitor General has denied this, as has the commissioner.

But I spoke to at least one warden in Ontario who was under the impression that this quota existed, and I'm sure there are others. But in all fairness, there has been a consistent denial from the Solicitor General's department about the quota.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But you still have serious doubts.

[English]

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I have some doubts. The new Solicitor General is quite new to the portfolio, and it's a difficult portfolio. There's not only Corrections within it. But I think there's enough evidence that's come about, apparently from correctional workers themselves or people within prisons, for me to be concerned anyway.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

[English]

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Marceau. Just for your information, both the commissioner and the Solicitor General will be appearing before this subcommittee, and I'm sure members will be asking them very clearly on that question.

Mr. MacKay, five minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Definitely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I'd like to follow up on some of those questions, but before I do, I want to also thank all of the witnesses, and in particular Ms. Charron. As Mr. Marceau has stated quite eloquently, your testimony holds some special weight for us, and your testimony here and the personal experience, as tragic as it was, is very helpful to us for that reason. You have our respect and our admiration for your presentation today.

Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Rosenfeldt, once again our thanks. You've been here many times and, as usual, your presentations are very precise and equally helpful.

Just to follow up quite quickly on Mr. Marceau's point, is it fair to say...? I haven't reviewed all of the documents that you've provided to us, Mr. Sullivan. But not only is there significant indication in the language that is used in some of the documents coming from Corrections Canada referencing agreed-upon goals, reintegration plans...although nobody uses the word “quota”, there is significant evidence here, documented evidence, that there is a plan afoot to release more prisoners this year than in any time in Corrections Services' history.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes, I agree.

The previous witness referred to Operation Bypass. This is really incumbent in that. I think the terminology used there is important. I think they're bypassing the CCRA. But what they will tell you, and I suspect the commissioner will explain to you, is that this is really a result of the 1996 report of the Auditor General, who said that Corrections should really get their act together in getting cases processed faster. There's not a problem with that. They can cut down on paperwork and do their jobs better. That's an admirable goal. But when you set numbers to do that, that's when the risk comes in, because your people are making decisions today that they wouldn't have made yesterday, because the risk monitor has been moved.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Further to that, isn't it true that there is suggestion that in order to keep those numbers, some of the trigger mechanisms or early warning systems that are in place to bring people back into the system, such as conditions that may be breached, have been either relaxed or suspended? Is there a suggestion of that too in this evidence?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: In the document entitled “Ontario Region Reintegration Plan”, it's stated at the last page that revocations are to be reduced by 10%, which means that for people who are on parole and who violate a condition with alcohol or are late for their curfew, those things are to be somewhat overlooked because they want to keep more people out on the streets. And if you look at the revocation rate for the last three months of 1998, it's the lowest it's ever been in the last 10 years or so. So it certainly appears that this seems to be the case.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is there a suggestion as well to the warden and the Corrections officials that there might be some negative implication were they not to meet certain target goals, quotas, numbers?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: The wording of Brendan Reynolds' memo, the deputy commissioner in Ontario, I think is quite blunt. He talks about individual accountability. He was going to meet with each of these wardens because their performance so far had not been up to par and they were not meeting the targets. I think the memo is threatening in tone.

• 1720

And that's only for Ontario. We've actually made an access to information request to see if there are similar memos or plans from the other regions.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I would like to direct my final question to Ms. Charron.

Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Rosenfeldt, in their presentations, referenced that one possible way to improve the system for victims would be to have a central office. In much of the evidence you presented to us, the problem repeatedly came as a result of a breakdown in information sharing—either information sharing with the victim or information sharing between existing departments. How would you feel about the introduction of a national office, equivalent to what Correctional Service has in their correctional investigator, with a similar budget?

Ms. Lynn Charron: A national office—yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: For victims.

Ms. Lynn Charron: Yes. If I can expand on the 5% deal, where an offender is working while incarcerated, that fund would go directly to organizations of victims, not to victims themselves. I wouldn't want any money, but there are places where the system is lacking for victims.

Mr. Peter MacKay: There could be a central office, and maybe we could encompass your idea of a 1-800 number going directly to that office.

Ms. Lynn Charron: Definitely.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: The major complaint we receive from victims anywhere in Canada is with regard to lack of information. The frustrations Ms. Charron encountered in dealing with the system are very common. You phone one person in Manitoba in an institution, and you have to wait two days before they call you back. Ms. Charron explained what happened in her case. You sit by the phone for two days and wait for a call-back.

What is desperately needed is one central office where all victims could call and get information pertaining to their cases. It's as simple as that. We have all sorts of ombudsmen and people out there working for the rights of the offenders, but when the federal government talks about victims, we seem to get a lot of words; we don't seem to get an awful lot of action with regard to getting the people we need to genuinely help victims.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But you're in touch with victims right across the country.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Based on what you've said—and we've heard this repeatedly before this committee and this subcommittee—I just find it astounding. The only thing missing, obviously, is the political will.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: That's right. In my prepared statement, the bottom line is that we've made great strides in the last number of years on a provincial basis and on local bases with police departments—I can't believe sometimes the progress that has been made within these areas—but on a federal basis it's simply not happening. The will is not there.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rosenfeldt and Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Wappel, five minutes.

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

I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing today and for the comprehensive briefs you've given. They will certainly be given the weight they deserve.

Recommendation 20, Mr. Sullivan, was brought to our attention by Mr. Rosenfeldt and amplified by you: release should be based on an assessment of risk, not automatic according to law. I think that's the way you said it. I then turned to appendix 2, summary of cases. Admittedly we've just received this document and I've just done a really quick examination, but it seems to me the vast majority of cases cited in appendix 2 are people who were on parole, not people who were on statutory release.

All of those cases are disgusting and horrific, but I find it interesting that the cases you refer to in appendix 2, at least from my quick examination, show that risk assessment isn't very good, at least in these cases. I don't know if you noticed that, but I noticed it. I don't think it makes your point, if what you're calling for is risk assessment.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: I know Steve did the work on this, and although they may have been on parole—and I agree with you, just at a glance they seem to have been on parole—I have here an accelerated parole review decision sheet that was prepared on John Richardson, which I mentioned earlier. I have copies here now. Ms. McCuaig presented them to me and I will distribute them.

Here is an individual who was denied parole, and when you read through it, the reasons for denial of parole were common sense. This person should not have been out. They knew he was going to murder; that was a reality. But at a certain point in the sentence he was released on statutory release, and that release was revoked. I have a copy of the revocation. The reasons for the revocation are that he was charged with murder, attempted murder, hostage-taking times three, use of a firearm, assault with a weapon, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement times three.

• 1725

You have to wonder how the Clifford Olsons get out of prison. In our particular case—

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Rosenfeldt, I'm sorry to interrupt you. In some of these cases there's no way anybody can predict, as far as I'm concerned. It's absolutely impossible. Take the chap who killed his wife on a private family visit at Kent Institution. Who could possibly have predicted that?

This is my final question. I would like to know about Raymond Russell, number 39. He was serving a life sentence for murder, and he murdered a woman in Vernon. Was he convicted of murder?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: So he's back in prison.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: When is he eligible to apply for parole?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: He was convicted of second-degree murder in 1996. I don't know the exact date, but it was life without parole for 12 years. I'd be guessing if I told you what the date would be. His original conviction was in 1981. That was a second reverted conviction. I'd be guessing if I told you when he's eligible for parole. I don't have that information from the National Parole Board.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay. It's not terribly important.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: I can get it for you.

Mr. Tom Wappel: It's for the purposes of another point, which I'll make later.

Mr. Steve Sullivan: In relation to your comment about most of these cases being parole and some being statutory release, I didn't do that analysis. I would hazard a guess that maybe the early cases were more parole and the latter cases were more statutory release. One of the things I tried to show on this is that we've got better at assessing risk. There are still problems, but we have got better. If you look at the official statistics, the success rates for statutory release are much lower than they are for day or full parole.

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: Mr. Wappel, perhaps I could make one comment here. You mentioned the individual who murdered his wife while he was in Kent Institution, and you asked who could have ever predicted that. I think it might help to look at the individual's past and consider why he was in Kent Institution.

He impaled his first victim, and he was sentenced to prison for life. He was put into Kent Institution. He got married while in prison to enable a person to come into the country. The bottom line is that he was convicted of murdering the second wife while he was in prison.

So when you take a situation like that, past history should probably tell you something. This was only a few years after he murdered his first wife. It should tell you something.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gouk, do you have a supplementary question?

Mr. Jim Gouk: Yes. I have a question on behalf of my colleague Chuck Cadman, who is in the audience and who has a private member's bill dealing with convicts who are coming up for parole and cancel at the last minute after victims have been notified, made travel arrangements, and so on. He's recommending that they not be eligible again for parole application for a one-year period. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt: We have one case right now where a woman whose daughter was murdered in Calgary, Alberta, had to travel from New Brunswick for a parole board hearing. She bought seat sale tickets, and the parole board hearing was cancelled just prior to the hearing being heard. She lost the money on her tickets. She had to turn around a few months later and buy full-price tickets to fly out to Calgary. Something is seriously wrong there. Basically, it's the offender's hearing, so he's the one who makes the decision.

I think Mr. Cadman's bill would assist victims immensely by the fact that at least they'd know when they're going. If there's going to be a hearing, then let there be a hearing. At least they can get seat sale tickets if they have to pay.

We pay the offender's way for section 745 hearings, etc., so why are we not paying the victim's way? We invite them to attend these hearings. Why don't we also pay their way to attend these hearings?

Mr. Steve Sullivan: We've actually recommended it under, I think, number 11. We support Mr. Cadman's bill.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Jacques Saada: I don't really have any questions, but rather two very quick comments.

• 1730

I found Ms. Charron's testimony very disturbing. I think it unfair that you did not have any recourse and that people gave you contradictory information. To be honest, I don't know the solution, but when a citizen is dealing with the administration and is cornered by it, that's unfair and when, in addition, emotional circumstances make things even more difficult, I find that even more unfair. I just wanted to tell you that.

As far as the question of quotas is concerned, I will not go into detail because you will have the opportunity to put the question to the Minister when he appears before you.

[English]

The Chairman: By the way, the date when the Solicitor General and the commissioner will be here is May 31, 1999.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Personally, I'm not in favour of quotas. My understanding of the matter is that there are no quotas, but it is possible that a lack of understanding or something else may lead people to believe that there are quotas. I am against the principle of quotas in this area. I support the principle of making the greatest possible use of reintegration programs if society is not put at risk, but I do not support the principle of quotas in this area.

The Chairman: Thank you. Unfortunately, the bells are ringing and we have to wrap up. I would like to once again thank the witnesses, and Ms. Charron in particular,

[English]

and Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Rosenfeldt, as usual. Thank you very much.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, sorry.

Mr. Tom Wappel: If I may, I know we have votes, but I just want to raise this at the earliest possible opportunity, which is now. I just heard for the first time—and that may be my own fault—that the commissioner and the Solicitor General are coming on May 31, 1999. I don't know how much time has been allotted for them, but I certainly hope we're going to have—

The Chairman: One hour each.

Mr. Tom Wappel: —the broadest possible latitude, because we're going to have lots of questions for those individuals. I would hate to think they're going to be limited to 45 minutes each, with a half-hour speech first.

The Chairman: What we're proposing is an hour for the Solicitor General, an hour for the commissioner, an hour for the correctional investigator, and an hour for the president of the National Parole Board.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Maybe we could have a discussion about that later, because I don't think that's enough time.

The Chairman: That's four hours. An hour each.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I realize that, but by the time they get through their ten-minute presentations, I just don't think it's going to be enough time.

The Chairman: It gives us four hours.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Perhaps we could reserve the right to recall them if we run out of time.

The Chairman: We won't have time.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'd just like us to think about it. That's my only point.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

The meeting's adjourned.