SCRA Committee Report

4.2 The Sub-committee believes gradual conditional release of offenders into the community is also the logical extension of the offender rehabilitation and reintegration process that begins inside correctional institutions. As the John Howard Society of Canada emphasized, it must be recognized that although sentences served in institutions are an opportunity for offenders to learn, only gradual conditional release makes it possible to test what they have learned since being incarcerated, while reducing the likelihood of recidivism. The John Howard Society of Canada told the Sub-committee:

Prison programs teach the theory while gradual reintegration provides the opportunity to apply the theories under supervision in the community. Prison rehabilitation programs are like teaching tennis in a submarine. You can teach the rules and the theory, but there is no opportunity to practice.³⁷

4.3 Because gradual reintegration of offenders into the community seeks to protect the public just as much as rehabilitation programs do, it is not surprising that most testimony and briefs presented to the Sub-committee supported the use of conditional release. Here are some examples:

If well managed, programs of gradual release are the best method known to reduce recidivism. Failure to involve people in these programs places the community at greater risk and in so doing contravenes the purpose of the Act. It should be expected, therefore, that all offenders, on leaving prison, would be in an appropriate program of gradual release.³⁸

The literature is clear that offenders who are part of a gradual release planning process are much more successful in their transition to the community and ultimately law-abiding behaviour than those offenders who have not had the benefit of such transitional entry points.³⁹

We believe that appropriate follow-up in the community through sound programs of gradual release is essential for the long-term protection of society, particularly if the rehabilitation of high-risk offenders is to be achieved.⁴⁰

By detaining the person to warrant expiry we give up the effective tool of gradual release with supervision, controls and expectations of treatment...⁴¹

4.4 In this chapter, therefore, the Sub-committee does not challenge the importance of conditional release within the federal correctional system. Rather, on the basis of the evidence it heard during its review of the Act, it makes recommendations:

• to strengthen the discretionary nature of conditional release;
• to clarify the decision-making powers of the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board concerning conditional release; and
• to broaden the scope of certain conditional release programs.

4.6 As stated in the introduction to this report, offenders sentenced to a federal prison term are currently offered five different conditional release programs: temporary absence, work release, day parole, full parole, and statutory release. While these programs have the common objective of ensuring the safe reintegration of offenders into the community, statutory release is the only type of conditional release presumed to be automatic under the Act. Subsection 127(1) states that most inmates are entitled to be released after serving two thirds of their sentence and to remain at large until the expiration of the sentence according to law. It provides as follows:

Subject to any provision of this Act, an offender sentenced, committed or transferred to penitentiary is entitled to be released on the date determined in accordance with this section and to remain at large until the expiration of the sentence according to law.

4.7 That being said, there are provisions in the Act that currently make it possible for the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board to control the statutory release of dangerous offenders. The Act states that inmates serving a life sentence or an indeterminate sentence are not eligible for statutory release. Moreover, the Correctional Service can, prior to the inmate's statutory release date, refer the case to the Board for a detention review if it believes that the inmate is likely, before the expiration of the sentence according to law, to commit:

• an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person;
• a sexual offence against a child; or
• a serious drug offence.

4.8 Under the current legislation, the National Parole Board may, at a hearing, authorize the statutory release of an inmate, make the statutory release subject to appropriate conditions, or opt to keep the inmate in prison until the end of the sentence.⁴²

4.9 Given the provisions in the Act, the problem with statutory release is not therefore that it lacks mechanisms for controlling the automatic release of offenders who might commit serious offences listed in the schedules to the Act, but that the Correctional Service and the Parole Board are unable to select inmates as rigorously as they can when analyzing cases for all other forms of conditional release.

4.10 It is important to acknowledge that, in spite of these legal provisions, many offenders are currently entitled to serve a third of their sentence in the community, under supervision and subject to specific conditions, without being required to show that they deserve to be released, as is the case for all other types of conditional release. Statutory release is different from other types of conditional release in that the presumption favours release rather than detention.

4.11 Thus, inmates who have refused to participate in rehabilitation programs and have not followed the rules of the institution, yet who are not at risk of committing an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person, a sexual offence against a child or a serious drug offence before the expiration of their sentence, are released after serving two thirds of their sentence without their case necessarily having undergone a comprehensive review by the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board. Indeed, at present, offenders granted statutory release who have refused to participate in the social reintegration process may have fewer conditions attached to their release than do some offenders granted parole.

4.12 The Canadian Police Association illustrated this situation by stating: "Despite an offender's blatant refusal to participate in rehabilitation programs and repeated aggressive conduct within the institution, the offender is eligible for automatic release, in the form of Statutory Release, at the two-thirds point in their sentence. The National Parole Board can only consider detention if recommended by CSC."⁴³

4.13 In light of the above, it is not surprising to find that many front-line staff who work with federal inmates on a daily basis have expressed a great deal of frustration with this type of conditional release. In their view, no inmate should be automatically granted statutory release, especially since the presumption that it will be granted allows some inmates to adopt an uncooperative attitude toward the process of social reintegration. It is claimed that some inmates, knowing that they will eventually be granted statutory release regardless of what they do, prefer to serve more of their sentence in an institution without feeling obligated to participate in programs or to cooperate with the corrections staff.⁴⁴

4.14 The Sub-committee shares the front-line staff's concerns: it believes that no inmate should be released automatically from prison and that the rules currently governing statutory release serve to undermine the importance of inmates' conduct in prison.

4.15 Various witnesses, including the Correctional Service, attribute this significant difference between statutory release and other types of conditional release to the fact that statutory release is a last resort aimed primarily at protecting society. The reasoning behind that position is that statutory release makes it possible to prevent inmates from being released without any supervision at the end of their sentence. It must be remembered that most inmates sentenced to prison will one day end up back in society and that when their sentence expires, the state no longer has the authority to supervise and monitor them.

4.16 While critical of the rules governing statutory release, the Sub-committee believes that this type of release is far better for public safety than releasing inmates without any supervision at the end of their sentence. It considers that statutory release, because it affords a supervised transition between prison and the community, is essential to the safe reintegration of offenders into our communities. It should be remembered that when an offender is conditionally released, the risk of a repeat offence continues to be monitored by a parole officer, who may suspend the release at any time if a new offence is committed or if any of the conditions of release is breached.

4.17 That being said, the Sub-committee believes that statutory release, as provided for in the current legislation, allows inmates to be released too automatically into the community. It therefore proposes below legislative amendments aimed at strengthening the discretionary nature of the conditional release system and making the Board and the Correctional Service more accountable for the release of inmates after they have served two thirds of their sentence. The Sub-committee would like to emphasize its belief that it is essential for the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board to exercise some discretion in granting statutory release to all federal inmates.

4.18 The Sub-committee believes it is vital that the cases of all offenders be reviewed to determine whether any should be referred to the Board for detention review. This would make clear to the general public and to inmates that all decisions relating to conditional release are based on professional risk evaluation.

4.19 At present, before granting an inmate statutory release, the Correctional Service is required to review the case only if the inmate has committed a violent offence listed in Schedule I of the Act or a serious drug offence listed in Schedule II. At present, the Correctional Service policy states that all offenders undergo a comprehensive risk assessment before being granted statutory release. The Sub-committee believes, however, that incorporating that policy into the Act would make it clear that statutory release is not automatic. It might also encourage inmates imprisoned for an offence not listed in the schedules to the Act to participate in rehabilitation programs.

4.20 In the same vein, the Sub-committee feels it is important to review all offenders' files in order to identify cases that warrant special release conditions (such as observing a curfew, abstaining from alcohol or drugs, undergoing treatment, refraining from being in contact with certain individuals, complying with a residency requirement, or being in more frequent contact with the parole officer). The Correctional Service currently refers to the Board only those cases that in its view warrant the imposition of special conditions. This practice therefore means that the two organizations responsible for conditional release of federal offenders have to be involved in statutory release for offenders deemed to be at risk of reoffending. The Sub-committee also feels that if inmates realize that they may have to comply with special conditions further limiting their freedom, they are more likely to become involved in the process of social reintegration. This would consequently improve their chances of having the privilege of serving a portion or the remainder of their sentence in the community before having served two thirds of their sentence.

4.21 As a result of these proposals, no inmates would be granted statutory release before their case had undergone a comprehensive review by the Correctional Service and the Parole Board. Moreover, by allowing the Correctional Service and the Board to take offenders' conduct into account in considering statutory release, the Sub-committee feels that it will be possible to further encourage offenders to participate in the process of social reintegration and, therefore, reduce the risk of reoffending.

4.22 In light of the foregoing, and given that the primary issue is to ensure public safety and security above all else, the Sub-committee makes the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION 11

The Sub-committee recommends that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to require Correctional Service Canada to review all cases eligible for statutory release in order to determine whether they should be referred to the National Parole Board for a detention review.

RECOMMENDATION 12

The Sub-committee recommends also that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to require the National Parole Board to review all cases eligible for statutory release in order to determine whether special conditions need to be attached to the inmate's release and, if so, to identify these conditions.

4.24 The Sub-committee repeatedly heard at its hearings that the conditional release programs most successful in reducing recidivism were those that relied on discretionary decisions by either the Correctional Service or the National Parole Board. In its brief, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime stated:

It is interesting to note that the conditional releases with the highest success rates are those that rely on the judgments of professionals and are based on proper risk assessments that focus on public safety, where the lowest success rates are for those releases by law, including statutory release and accelerated parole review.⁴⁵

4.25 While the Sub-committee notes the lower success rate among offenders released under accelerated parole review for day and full parole, it does not believe that accelerated parole review should be eliminated. In fact, it believes that two amendments should suffice to make accelerated parole review correspond to the Sub-committee's position on conditional release: tightening the eligibility criteria; and changing the risk of recidivism criterion to be taken into account by the National Parole Board in reviewing cases.

4.26 The Sub-committee considers it crucial to recognize a significant difference between the accelerated parole review procedure and statutory release. Unlike statutory release as it currently stands, accelerated parole review ensures that all eligible offenders' cases are carefully reviewed by the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board. Moreover, under the Act, if after reviewing a case the Board has reason to believe that the offender will commit a violent offence listed in Schedule I of the Act before the expiry of the warrant of committal, the Board is required to deny release under the accelerated parole review procedure.

4.27 Unlike the current conditions governing statutory release, accelerated parole review is not a right, but is a simplified case review procedure reserved for offenders considered non-violent who are serving a first federal term of incarceration.

4.28 Under section 125 of the Act, an offender eligible for accelerated parole review is:

• sentenced to a federal penitentiary for the first time;
• not serving a sentence for murder or aiding and abetting murder;
• not serving a life sentence;
• not convicted of an offence listed in Schedule I of the Act;
• not convicted of a criminal organization offence; and
• not subject to a court order making them ineligible for parole before serving at least half of their sentence (this condition includes offences listed in Schedule II of the Act).

4.29 Unlike other offenders, those who meet all these conditions are automatically streamed into a simplified review procedure for possible day or full parole, with no requirement for a hearing before the National Parole Board. They may also benefit from day parole, not six months before their full parole eligibility dates as is the case for offenders ineligible for accelerated parole review, but after serving six months or one-sixth of their sentences, whichever is longer. In reviewing these cases, the Board must also use the criterion of violent recidivism, not general recidivism, as is the case for offenders ineligible for accelerated parole review.

4.30 Although the Sub-committee considers it important to retain accelerated parole review, so first time federal offenders considered non-violent need not be subjected to the negative influence of some repeat offenders, it also considers two amendments to the accelerated parole review procedure essential. The Sub-committee believes offenders incarcerated for Schedule I or Schedule II offences should not be eligible. As well, the recidivism criterion taken into account by the National Parole Board in reviewing these cases should specify general recidivism, not violent recidivism. It is the Sub-committee's view that the Parole Board should grant parole only if it is convinced there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any offence will be committed before the expiry of the warrant of committal.

RECOMMENDATION 13

The Sub-committee recommends that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to ensure that the accelerated parole review procedure is not available to offenders incarcerated for offences listed in Schedule II to the Act, regardless of whether there has been a judicial determination of parole eligibility.

RECOMMENDATION 14

4.31 Under the Act, the purpose of conditional release is to contribute to the maintenance of a safe society by means of the rehabilitation of offenders and their appropriate reintegration into the community, including the imposition of appropriate conditions of supervision. This purpose affects the respective decision-making functions of both the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board concerning the gradual conditional release of offenders into the community.

4.32 Under the Act, offenders presently have available five different forms of conditional release, each designed to achieve specific objectives of reintegration into the community. These include temporary absence, work release, day parole, full parole, and statutory release. Of these forms of conditional release, only parole - including day parole and full parole - relies solely on decisions by the National Parole Board. The others - except for statutory release - rely on discretionary decisions by the Correctional Service or the National Parole Board.

4.33 As part of their duties, institutional heads may also release, for specified periods, inmates they consider at low risk of recidivism, on specific conditions and only if they believe this release will foster offender reintegration into the community. Institutional heads usually grant two types of conditional releases: work releases; and escorted or unescorted temporary absences.⁴⁶

4.34 Work releases allow offenders considered at low risk of recidivism to work or perform community service for a period not exceeding 60 days. The Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies emphasized one benefit of this form of conditional release when it stated:

One major benefit of work releases is that they enable offenders to take advantage of training or work that they might not necessarily have access to in prison. In addition, since they are in the community, their learning or working conditions are much less artificial than in an institution.⁴⁷

4.35 Temporary absences allow institutional heads to reintegrate offenders into the community temporarily for specific purposes. Escorted and unescorted temporary absences can be granted on medical, administrative or compassionate grounds, to perform community service, facilitate offenders' contacts with their families, or allow them to participate in personal development programs.⁴⁸ In its brief, the Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies emphasized the importance of this form of conditional release:

[F]or offenders, temporary absences represent an opportunity to begin their community reintegration in a serious manner. This is an essential program that most offenders should be granted before being released on day parole or going on a work release.⁴⁹

4.36 Under the Act, although institutional heads have full responsibility for granting work releases and escorted temporary absences, the National Parole Board usually has full authority and discretion to grant unescorted temporary absences to offenders serving life sentences imposed as minimum sentences or commuted from death sentences, indeterminate sentences, or sentences for offences listed in Schedule I or Schedule II to the Act.⁵⁰ Subsection 117(1) of the Act, quoted below, nevertheless allows the National Parole Board to delegate these powers to the Commissioner or institutional heads.

The Board may confer on the Commissioner or the institutional head, for such period and subject to such conditions as it specifies, any of its powers under section 116 in respect of any class of offenders or class of absences.

4.37 Given the complexity of the Act, it is not surprising that a number of those with whom the Sub-committee met in correctional institutions argued that these overlapping responsibilities of the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board cloud the decision-making processes concerning conditional release. The Sub-committee shares this opinion and believes that the responsibilities of the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board concerning conditional release should be more clearly defined.

4.38 In order to more clearly define the decision-making powers of the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board, the Sub-committee, like a number of individuals who testified before it in camera, believes it would be preferable to combine temporary forms of conditional release (temporary absences and work releases) into a single structure that would be the responsibility of the Correctional Service.

4.39 In the Sub-committee's opinion, there is no need for a separate section of the Act governing work releases, since the sections governing temporary absences already confer the necessary powers to allow offenders to be released to participate in structured work and community service programs.

4.40 In light of the preceding observations and the fact that the recommended amendments would simplify the wording of the Act and likely help the public better understand the conditional release system, the Sub-committee makes the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 15

The Sub-committee recommends that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended in order to combine work releases and escorted and unescorted temporary absences into a single structure and to make the Correctional Service responsible for granting, renewing and extending these forms of conditional release at its discretion.

4.41 Given the importance of temporary absences to offenders' gradual conditional release into the community, the Sub-committee considers it necessary to provide offenders with the possibility of appealing Correctional Service decisions in this regard. It therefore proposes that institutional heads be authorized to grant all escorted and unescorted temporary absences, including work releases, which would become a type of temporary absence, and that offenders be entitled to request National Parole Board reviews of these decisions, if the applications are denied.

RECOMMENDATION 16

The Sub-committee recommends that a provision be added to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act providing offenders with the possibility of requesting National Parole Board reviews of Correctional Service decisions concerning escorted and unescorted temporary absences.

4.42 During its hearings, the Sub-committee repeatedly heard that some forms of conditional release were too restrictive and did not effectively support the objective of offender reintegration into the community. In light of evidence from Correctional Service staff and offenders, the Sub-committee considers it appropriate to extend the scope of all forms of conditional release granted for determinate periods, and parole in specific cases. The following section of this chapter presents these amendments.

Temporary Absence

4.43 The Sub-committee considers it essential to provide offenders with the possibility of obtaining temporary absences in the community, not only to acquire work experience but also, and just as importantly, to participate in educational, occupational and life-skills training programs.

4.44 Given the importance of providing the possibility of temporary absences to offenders who successfully demonstrate that this type of conditional release would benefit them, the Sub-committee considers it essential to expand the definition of personal development programs - now one ground for granting escorted and unescorted temporary absences - to include acquiring work experience and participating in educational, occupational, and life-skills training programs. This amendment to the Act would have the benefit of extending the scope of this form of conditional release, the purpose of which is to facilitate offender reintegration into the community.

RECOMMENDATION 17

The Sub-committee recommends that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to include, in the list of grounds for granting escorted and unescorted temporary absence release, participation in educational, occupational, and life-skills training programs.

4.45 In response to requests by Correctional Service staff, the Sub-committee also considers it important that the Correctional Service be able to release offenders into the community for periods exceeding 60 days, when such periods are considered likely to foster offender reintegration into the community.

4.46 Given the Sub-committee's recommendations to expand the definition of personal development programs and combine work releases and temporary absences into a single structure, the Sub-committee is confident that the Correctional Service will find in subsection 116(6) of the Act, quoted below, the flexibility it needs to set up structured work, community service, and educational, occupational, and life-skills training programs for periods exceeding 60 days.

An unescorted temporary absence for purposes of a specific personal development program may be authorized for a maximum of sixty days and may be renewed, for periods of up to sixty days each, for the purposes of the program.

4.47 Some of those the Sub-committee met during its visits to correctional institutions also noted that, since the Act has been in force, escorted temporary absences may no longer be granted for group activities for socialization purposes. However, Correctional Service staff consider these activities positive incentives in managing inmates' behaviour and encouraging them to keep in touch with the community.⁵¹

4.48 In her brief, Charlene C. Mandell emphasized to the Sub-committee:

I would submit that T[emporary] A[bsences] for socialization purposes should not have been eliminated. They provided a means for offenders to become re-acquainted with the community and to acquire useful life skills ... I submit that TAs for socialization purposes can form an important part of an offender's correctional plan, especially for long-term offenders and lifers. Therefore, I recommend that section 17 and section 116 of the CCRA be amended to include socialization as a reason for TAs.⁵²

4.49 While the Sub-committee does not agree with Charlene Mandell that socialization should be a ground for granting unescorted temporary absences, it does believe, as do a number of those who work closely with inmates, that institutional heads should be able to grant escorted temporary absences for group activities considered likely to foster offenders' socialization.

RECOMMENDATION 18

The Sub-committee recommends that section 116 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to allow institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences for group activities considered likely to foster offenders' socialization.

Parole on Compassionate Grounds

4.50 During the Sub-committee's visits to correctional institutions, witnesses pointed out that it was impossible for offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences to obtain full parole on compassionate grounds. In particular, Sébastien Brousseau of the Office des droits des détenus stated that there was no reason offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences should not be able to obtain parole on compassionate grounds.

In our view, that provision is yet another aberration; an inmate who is suffering from a terminal disease and who is about to die, who does not represent a risk to society, would not be able to get parole. These exceptions should simply be done away with, because under such circumstances parole is being granted for humanitarian reasons, and because the National Parole Board can study the case and decide whether or not the person represents a risk. If he does not represent a risk, we believe that he should be able to take advantage of this section just like any other inmate.⁵³

4.51 In the Sub-committee's opinion, offenders serving life sentences or indeterminate sentences who are terminally ill and who present, in the opinion of the National Parole Board, no undue risk to the community should be able to be granted parole.

4.52 The Sub-committee recognizes the significance of this decision, however, and believes that National Parole Board decisions in this regard should be subject to approval by the Chair of the Board.

RECOMMENDATION 19

The Sub-committee recommends that section 121 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to make offenders serving life sentences or indeterminate sentences who are terminally ill eligible for parole on compassionate grounds. In these cases, the Act must provide that National Parole Board decisions are subject to approval by the Chair of the Board.

Parole for Purposes of Deportation Under the Immigration Act

4.53 Although at one time the National Parole Board was authorized to consider the cases of offenders subject to deportation orders under the Immigration Act and to make decisions on their release, since 1992 all offenders subject to deportation orders must serve one third of their sentences before becoming eligible for full parole.

4.54 Stephen Fineberg of the Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec expressed to the Sub-committee his position on deportation orders as follows:

I think the board should be authorized again, as it was before 1992, to make distinctions between people. There are many cases of people from outside the country who have problems with the language, have no relatives in North America, receive no visits and follow no programs because they cannot. If they could follow programs what would be the point, since they're not going to be released into Canada anyway? They can't prepare themselves for a gradual reintegration into Canadian society because they're not going to be here. So there are people who spend long years here doing nothing. Some of those cases would command your sympathy, and others would not for a moment.

All we are proposing is that the parole board again be equipped to make distinctions, and where people deserve an opportunity, they receive the opportunity . . . . We think it's in everyone's interest that Canadian taxpayers not pay when people are detained for years at a time in a country where ultimately they won't be released, when they're far from every kind of support Canadian prisoners have.⁵⁴

4.55 The Sub-committee agrees with Stephen Fineberg and believes that the National Parole Board should be authorized to consider the cases of offenders subject to deportation orders under the Immigration Act, so that they may obtain parole for the purposes of deportation at any time during their sentences. The Sub-committee believes offenders subject to deportation orders should be eligible for conditional release as soon as possible.

RECOMMENDATION 20

The Sub-committee recommends that section 121(1)(d) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended so that offenders subject to deportation orders under the Immigration Act are considered exceptional cases and may thus be granted parole solely for the purposes of deportation at any time during their sentences.

37^# Brief, p. 3.

38^# Brief by the John Howard Society of Canada, p. 11.

39^# Brief by Susan Reid-MacNevin, Director, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, St. Thomas University, Fredericton, p. 2.

40^# Evidence, Terry Carlson, John Howard Society of Newfoundland, March 18, 1999, 12:05.

41^# Brief, John Howard Society of Newfoundland, p. 6.

42^# The National Parole Board annually reviews the files of all inmates in detention and according to that review, may confirm or cancel the detention order. If the order is cancelled, the inmate can be granted statutory release; his release may be subject to a condition that the inmate live in a community institution.

43^# Brief, page 10.

44^# Regarding other forms of conditional release, it is important to recognize, as Louis Théorêt of the Ontario Parole Board stated in his testimony, that inmates who refuse to participate in rehabilitation programs are less likely to be granted any other form of conditional release than statutory release.

45^# Brief, p. 5.

46^# Offenders incarcerated in maximum-security institutions are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences or work releases. Instead, in order to control the risk these offenders present to society, the Correctional Service uses escorted temporary absences: temporary releases under intensive supervision.

47^# Brief, p. 7.

48^# Although inmates may obtain escorted temporary absences at any time during their sentences, eligibility criteria for unescorted temporary absences vary with sentence type and duration.

49^# Brief, p. 6.

50^# Paragraph 107(1)(e) of the Act.

51^# Before the Act came into force, temporary absences for socialization purposes accounted for 35% of escorted temporary absences and 25% of unescorted temporary absences. According to the Solicitor General of Canada, Towards a Just, Peaceful and Safe Society - Consolidated Report - The Corrections and Conditional Release Act Five Years Later - Report of the CCRA Working Group, 1998, page 26, eliminating temporary absences for socialization purposes is also one of the main causes of the lower number of temporary absences being granted.

52^# Brief, p. 10.

53^# Evidence, February 9, 1999, 16:10.

54^# Evidence, March 22, 1999, 18:00.