SCRA Committee Report

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The criminal justice system, with all its complexity and contradictions, is seen by many as the primary means of assuring Canadians have a comfortable level of security in their homes, places of business and workplaces, and on the streets. Public safety concerns are met, in part, through the incarceration, rehabilitation and effective reintegration of offenders into the community as law-abiding citizens. This can only occur within the criminal justice system once there has been a finding of criminal responsibility, and a sentence has been imposed by the court.

1.2 This report deals with issues arising from the application of legislation put in place by Parliament to address the administration of sentences of imprisonment in excess of two years in length. It is an appropriate time for the Sub-committee on Corrections and Conditional Release Act to be reporting the results of its findings, since many elements of the corrections and conditional release system are in transition. Many of the Sub-committee's findings and recommendations reflect this reality encountered by it throughout its study.

RECENT HISTORY

1.3 In 1992, Parliament adopted the Corrections and Conditional Release Act¹ (the Act) to replace the now-repealed Penitentiary Act and Parole Act. This Act has been amended several times since then. It emerged from and was based upon the mid-1980s work of the Department of the Solicitor General's Correctional Law Review; the 1987 report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission; a 1988 report by a predecessor to the standing committee; a 1990 government green paper; and a 1991 report by a predecessor to the standing committee.

1.4 There have been many events and developments since the Act came into effect. Perhaps the most important of these, with far-reaching consequences, came about as a result of a series of events in April 1994 at the Kingston Prison for Women. This led to the appointment of a commission of inquiry, led by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, which reported its findings in April 1996. Her report has had a major impact on the Correctional Service.

1.5 The Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides the legislative foundation for and sets out the responsibilities of the Correctional Service of Canada (Correctional Service) in Part I, the National Parole Board (Parole Board) in Part II, and the Correctional Investigator in Part III.

1.6 Parts I and II of the Act also set out definitions of, and eligibility for, different types of conditional release of offenders into the community, and designate the releasing authority - either the Correctional Service or the Parole Board - responsible for making decisions on their appropriateness and availability. The different forms of conditional release are work release, temporary absences, day parole, full parole, and presumptive statutory release.

1.7 In March 1998, the Solicitor General released a consultation paper entitled Towards a Just, Peaceful and Safe Society: the Corrections and Conditional Release Act Five Years Later. This paper and a series of technical studies were given wide distribution and made available on the Internet as part of the Department's consultative process. Following the release of these documents, the former Solicitor General appeared before the standing committee in May 1998. A summary of the responses to the consultation paper was released in October 1998 by the Minister's department.

1.8 The Act contains a review clause requiring a parliamentary review of the provisions and operation of the Act. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights established this Sub-committee on November 3,1998 and gave it the mandate to conduct the review. It officially began the review in February 1999. This report is the product of that process.

REVIEW PROCESS

1.9 The Sub-committee began its work by developing and releasing terms of reference in December 1998. They were meant as a point of departure, to focus on broad issues of concern to the Sub-committee. They were given wide circulation to those it was hoped would make submissions, as an important part of this parliamentary review. Using the Department of the Solicitor General's consultation and technical papers as source material, the Sub-committee made it clear in its terms of reference that those making submissions to it were not limited in the issues they were invited to address in their submissions. (The Sub-committee's terms of reference can be found at Appendix A.) In response to its terms of reference and solicitation of submissions, the Sub-committee received briefs and other documents from a number of groups, agencies, and individuals. (A list of these submissions can be found at Appendix C.) The Sub-committee held public hearings in Ottawa and other parts of Canada, where it heard directly the concerns of groups, agencies and individuals. (A list of these public hearings can be found at Appendix B.)

1.10 The Sub-committee decided at the outset of its process that its review would not be an academic or theoretical exercise. To that end, the Sub-committee toured as many correctional institutions as possible during the time available to it. Correctional institutions, both old and of more recent vintage, of all security levels, in all regions of the country were visited. The Sub-committee toured all parts of these institutions. While there, it met with management teams and citizen advisory committees. It also held in camera meetings with parole officers, correctional officers, front-line staff, program staff, health care workers, union representatives, staff from the Correctional Investigator's Office and inmate representatives.

1.11 While visiting correctional facilities, the Sub-committee was also able to attend several Parole Board hearings and, in an in camera setting, hear the concerns of Board members.

1.12 The in camera process was followed so that those most affected by the provisions and the day-to-day operation of the Act could speak frankly and in confidence to the Sub-committee. To ensure this, the Sub-committee did not record and transcribe these meetings. Contemporaneous notes were relied on to ensure that what was said became part of this process. In referring in this report to what it learned during these visits, the Sub-committee has not identified individuals, correctional institutions or regions of the country. (A list of the correctional institutions visited in the five regions of Canada can be found at Appendix D.)

1.13 At the end of this process, the Solicitor General of Canada, the Deputy Solicitor General, the Commissioner of Corrections, the Chair of the National Parole Board, and the Correctional Investigator appeared before the Sub-committee in public hearings. Members were able to draw upon the submissions they had received and their institutional visits, to pose questions and seek clarification on a number of issues.

FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY AGENCIES UNDER THE ACT

1.14 The functions performed by each of the agencies established under the Act are only briefly set out here. More detailed functional descriptions will be provided throughout the report as the Sub-committee makes its findings and recommendations.

1.15 The Correctional Service is responsible for receiving and assessing offenders serving terms of imprisonment in excess of two years, and managing their sentences. It operates maximum-, medium-, and minimum-security penitentiaries for men and women; community correctional centres where offenders on some form of supervised conditional release in the community reside; and community parole offices that supervise offenders conditionally released into the community. The Correctional Service also contracts with many private-sector agencies for the provision of halfway houses and community supervision of conditionally released offenders. It not only manages the sentences of offenders, but also prepares them for gradual release and releases them back into the community. The Correctional Service provides the Parole Board with information about offenders, upon which its conditional release decisions can be based. It also plays a key role in identifying which offenders the Parole Board should consider ordering detained in custody beyond their otherwise presumptive statutory release dates, potentially until the end of their sentences. Finally, the Correctional Service supervises offenders conditionally released into the community.

1.16 The Parole Board is an independent administrative tribunal that has exclusive legal authority to grant, deny, terminate or revoke the conditional release, on day parole or full parole, of federally sentenced offenders from federal institutions and provincial or territorial inmates from provincial or territorial institutions, where there are no parole boards. British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec have provincial parole boards. The Parole Board, in addition to its releasing functions, also has authority to order inmates, who may, before the end of their sentences, commit serious harm or serious drug offences, detained in custody until the end of their sentences. It also, upon application, grants pardons and makes recommendations on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. A review of this function does not form part of the Sub-committee's mandate, since it is not dealt with in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

1.17 The Correctional Investigator acts as an ombudsman for federally sentenced offenders, independently of the Correctional Service. Investigations can be undertaken at the Correctional Investigator's own initiative, at the request of the Solicitor General, or upon receipt of a complaint by or on behalf of an inmate or offender. The Correctional Investigator may review Correctional Service investigative reports concerning events where an inmate has died or suffered serious bodily injury. The annual report provided to the Solicitor General by the Correctional Investigator is tabled in Parliament.

GENERAL THEMES

1.18 As can be seen from what has been set out so far, and as will become even more obvious in the rest of this report, the legislation, institutions and policies put in place by Parliament are complex and, at times, confusing. The Sub-committee has prepared this report of its findings and recommendations in such a way that the complexity will become less daunting to those seeking an understanding of the corrections and conditional release system now in place.

1.19 Despite the complexity of the issues being considered in this report, the Sub-committee has been able to discern a number of underlying themes emerging from this review. They will inspire and provide the underpinning for much of what is said in it. At this point in the report, these underlying themes will be set out in the following general, sketchy terms, to be more fully developed at appropriate places in the Sub-committee's findings and recommendations:

• Public protection or community safety is the paramount consideration in all decisions made at all stages of the corrections and conditional release system.
• To achieve this paramount consideration, the corrections and conditional release system has, and should have, as a primary goal the safe rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders as productive, law-abiding members of the community.
• The corrections and conditional release system should encourage offenders to actively participate in this process, and corrections and conditional release authorities to see that the process is effectively carried out.
• Decisions should be fairly and equitably made by corrections and conditional release authorities. Sentence management takes place in the context of the rule of law and the duty to act fairly, where offenders' entitlements and rights are constrained, but not nullified, by the correctional environment.
• The corrections and conditional release system must reach out to involve Canadians.
• The corrections and conditional release system put into place by Parliament in 1992 is still in transition. This is most apparent in the physical contrast between older correctional institutions and those constructed more recently. This transitional phase is also obvious in the recruitment and training of, and demands placed upon, those employed to deal with offenders; emerging new ways of working with a difficult clientele; and the makeup of the offender population and the challenges they pose to those managing their sentences.

---

1^# R.S.C., c. C-44.6 (S.C. 1992, c. 20), as amended.