EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 15, 1995

.0932

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. This morning we are pleased to have before us the National Parole Board, represented by Willie Gibbs, the chair.

The meeting this morning is to deal with the main estimates for 1995-96, and also the mission statement or the departmental outlook for the National Parole Board.

As you know, we weren't able to call the National Parole Board before us during the period set aside for estimates due to a very heavy schedule at that time with respect to the gun control legislation. Now that we've completed that bill and we're just about to complete Bill C-72, we found time for the National Parole Board before we adjourn for the summer.

The meeting this morning takes place under Standing Orders 108(2) and 81(7).

I will call on Mr. Gibbs to introduce the other people he has with him and to make his opening statement. We'll then have the usual rounds of questioning. During the questioning, Mr. Gibbs, if you wish to call to the table, to answer certain questions, any other people you might have with you who are not at the table, that's quite in order. I give you the floor.

Mr. Willie Gibbs (Chair, National Parole Board): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to introduce my colleagues.

[Translation]

They are Ms Denise Walter, senior counsel for the board;

[English]

Nancy L. Stableforth, the executive vice-chairperson at the board; and Peter Callahan, who is the director of corporate services.

.0935

[Translation]

When I first appeared before this committee last October, I stated that my position as Chairman would be difficult and challenging and that I welcomed the opportunity to make a significant contribution to the criminal justice system. I can assure you, nine months later, I am more than ever committed to improving the system.

This position has proven to be demanding - and, without a doubt most interesting. Partly because that is the nature of the assignment, but also because this is a time of tremendous activity and change. It has brought to me a new respect for the importance of ensuring that Canadians have a factual understanding of criminal justice and conditional release.

Unfortunately, the public continues to have little confidence in parole boards. In a time of increasing workload and decreasing resources, the National Parole Board has not only had to develop a strategy to improve its credibility and accountability, we've also sought efficiency. The board recognized long ago that radical changes and a completely different course of action were in order.

Since my arrival at the board, there have been a number of changes, many of them internal, and thanks to the hard work of an effective team of board members and staff. You have been provided with a Departmental Outlook, which identifies many of those changes. Today, I will try not to repeat what is in that document, but elaborate on some of its points and add others.

[English]

A review of our mission statement and the subsequent streamlining of operations and structure have forged a new direction for the board. Further to that, we have participated in the program review and remain committed to responding to the concerns raised by the Auditor General. As you are aware, some of these changes require legislative amendments, and they will be addressed in the second omnibus bill and hopefully in Bill C-45.

The Auditor General's report included recommendations related to the board member appointment process, the quality of decision-making, and the information used for decision-making. An action plan was provided to the Auditor General, and we have since made significant progress in those three key areas, some of which are in conjunction with our colleagues at Correctional Service Canada.

We have worked with CSC to improve the information available for decision-making, with a focus on risk analysis and assessment, and we are drafting performance measures for the conditional release program.

As Mr. Edwards described to you in April, our agencies have worked closely on ensuring that the case management process provides more precise and relevant information about offenders for the decision-making process, to allow the board members to make better informed decisions.

We have recently agreed to delegate some of our decision-making authority for unescorted temporary absences to CSC, in an effort to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of both agencies under the provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

At a joint executive committee meeting of CSC and ourselves in April, a proposal was supported unanimously by members to delegate to CSC some of NPB's decision-making authority for UTAs. A target date for implementation has been set for July 1 this year. CSC will then assume authority for medical UTAs and for all offenders, except those serving life or indeterminate sentences, child sex offenders, and offenders who have caused serious harm or death.

As for the new selection process for board members, I have been very pleased with the quality of candidates we have seen in recent months. I have personally chaired the majority of the selection interviews for new board members across the country, and for those I have not, Ms Stableforth acted in the same capacity. I must say that the new process has left me very optimistic about the future of the National Parole Board.

.0940

As of the first week of June, all regions have undergone the selection process, which has resulted in a list of qualified candidates for about one year. On April 28 eight new members were announced: three in Ontario; five in British Columbia; and on June 9, five other members were announced for Quebec.

[Translation]

In addition to improving the appointment process, we have taken further steps to ensure that the difficult decisions facing board members are met with the competence and knowledge that the position demands. A performance appraisal system was implemented for all board members this April.

The primary objectives of this process are: to assess the strengths and weaknesses of all board members; to identify training needs and required corrective actions; and, to ensure that the necessary follow-up action takes place.

This performance appraisal regime is a needed step to support and reinforce quality decision-making, and accountability for these decisions. Ultimately, in rare cases, I hope where a board member's performance cannot be brought up to the required professional standards, the performance appraisal process will also support the proposed disciplinary mechanism contained in Bill C-45.

We have created a national training framework, providing comprehensive orientation and continual training and development to keep members abreast of changes in law, policies and procedures, risk assessment and generally to improve performance. As well, enhanced training is now provided on risk assessment, focusing on current research, theory and opinion in behavioural and social sciences.

We have reopened the dialogue for board members across the country, by holding their first general meeting in four years just last March. The three-day sessions gave members a venue for sharing their experiences, and to consult with and learn from practitioners, researchers and others.

There is now a more structured system in place to provide for thorough reviews of specific case audits, and national investigations. They are used as training tools and as a means of ensuring that procedures are followed and duties are performed consistently and in accordance with the law. They have proven to be a valuable source for lessons learned across the country.

As of April 26, the National Parole Board has implemented a $50 fee for pardons services. After extensive consultation with governments and organizations, user fees were a realistic approach for meeting our priorities and for being more efficient. Last year, there were some 25,000 pardon applications processed. Based on this number, the resulting recovery is expected to be approximately $1.2 million annually. In the month of May, for example, we received 2,423 applications, representing a total amount of $121,150.

[English]

I have just provided you with a summary of recent changes that we have already made at the board. I will briefly raise two other matters.

Effective relationships with victims and their representatives are key to ongoing improvement at the board. To consult is to learn and to become sensitive to all perspectives so that when a decision is made, it is made after having given respectful consideration to those concerns. Our ultimate task is the protection of the public, and we will do this in the most sensitive and sensible way we can.

.0945

Two of our most recently appointed board members have had experience in working with victims of crime. Along with the Correctional Service, we are making a conscious effort to improve our services in victim liaison through the findings of a comprehensive survey of victims and their needs.

Canada has a solid parole system based on fundamental values, especially when it is compared to our neighbour south of the border and to their use and even absence of parole boards. Earlier this year, the National Parole Board participated in a conference held by the Association of Paroling Authorities International. Held in the United States, it provided those who attended, including me, with a chance to see the true impact of conditional release and what could happen in a society without it.

Canada continues to be influenced by the United States in many ways, but in the criminal justice system we are, I feel, far superior. I was left with the impression that there were many important lessons to be learned. In particular, where some states have abolished parole completely, inmates are being released based only on time served instead of a careful assessment of risk, timing and conditions of release. This prompted victims groups to call for the restoration or retention of parole so that they could have a formal board to address their concern and ensure that conditions of supervision were reasonably considered.

I have a summary of the deliberations of abolishing parole in the U.S. here today, if someone is interested. I have only one copy.

In the final analysis, the National Parole Board remains a releasing agency, not a detention board. Although we are in the business of sometimes releasing offenders serving sentences for violent offences, we are not in the business of releasing violent offenders. We at the board and many of our key partners remain thoroughly convinced of the value of conditional release in the process of reintegrating offenders into the community as law-abiding citizens.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for your attention. We are ready to answer your questions.

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

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent.

Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Thank you for your brief, Mr. Gibbs. I would like to quote an important sentence from it:

...in the criminal justice system, we are far superior to the Americans.

No doubt, that is a sentence we should base all our work on.

Earlier, you made the distinction between criminal who could be put on parole and those who could not. What would the breakdown in percentages be for our current prison population, which is more than 10,000 prisoners here in Canada?

Mr. Gibbs: I did not understand the last part of your question.

Mr. St-Laurent: There are approximately 10,000 prisoners right now in Canadian prisons. Of those, some are violent and not eligible for parole. What percentage of prisoners are eligible and what percentage aren't?

Mr. Gibbs: According to the latest statistics, there are approximately 14,500 prisoners right now, of which 65% are there because of violent crimes, according to Correctional Services statistics, in Appendix I: armed robbery, murder, etc.

First of all, all inmates are eligible for parole after serving a third of their sentence. We assess the risk involved and look at every case individually. How many are ready to leave prison? Every case is different. The percentage of inmates convicted of violent crimes is approximately 65%.

.0950

Mr. St-Laurent: Give us an overview of the statistics before and after your arrival. What can we base ourselves on? According to the approximate figures that we have, supposedly 20% are what I would refer to as - and this is a pejorative term - unsalvageable for society. Of course, this depends on the terminology used.

This approximate figure of 20% is what I and those I deal with often hear about. Is it true that 20% of the inmate population, which would approximately be 3,000 out of 14,500 inmates, will not be paroled, whereas the 11,500 could be eligible depending on their inside behavior? On the basis of the statistics, your personal experience and the current situation in penitentiaries, do you feel that this evaluation is accurate?

Mr. Gibbs: We grant parole to approximately one third of all of the parole applications submitted. In our opinion, these people are capable of functioning and do not present any undue risks to society. I prefer to answer your question about the percentage of salvageable inmates in this fashion rather than try to guess or give a personal opinion.

Mr. St-Laurent: Earlier you referred to a $50 fee that had to be paid. If I understood you correctly, that would mean that an inmate would have to pay $50 whenever he submitted a parole application.

Mr. Gibbs: This applies to pardons. Five years after serving a sentence, a person may submit a request for pardon in order to wipe out his file.

Mr. St-Laurent: You also talked about appointing commissioners, hiring new commissioners and training. As soon as new commissioners are appointed, they are given training so that they can avoid making errors which, all too often, are catastrophic. Do we not already have people with these skills who are currently on the job market and who could be hired in an non-political manner?

Mr. Gibbs: That is exactly what we are doing. Our job opportunities are advertised in the Gazette and we are quite precise about the qualifications and skills required. Over the past few months, we have received applications from people with backgrounds in criminal law, correctional services and so on. The Governor in Council will wait until the evaluation interviews have been held before making appointments from a list of those who have qualified.

Mr. St-Laurent: All the same, political appointments are still made.

Mr. Gibbs: They've all qualified before their names have been sent to Cabinet.

Mr. St-Laurent: Let us say that some improvement has been made.

.0955

With Bill C-45, you have delegated part of your decision-making authority in the area of unescorted temporary absences to Correctional Service of Canada, and more particularly to the institutional heads. When does this come into effect? On April 1st?

Mr. Gibbs: No. This will come into effect as of July 1st.

This practice already existed under the former National Parole Act. The success rate of temporary absences has already been more than 99%, regardless of whether the decision was made by the institutional heads or by the board. The recommendations come from Correctional Service. We feel that the idea of sending commissioners into the institutions in order to make decisions about three-day absences is pushing things a bit too far.

We have retained this decision-making power for the more serious cases, when life or violence is an issue.

Mr. St-Laurent: Generally speaking, have you seen any evidence of the administrators, namely the administrators of penitentiaries, being reluctant about this change in the delegation of responsibilities that you have just made? This is an additional responsibility that you're placing on the shoulders of penitentiary heads. Are you aware of any negative reaction?

Mr. Gibbs: Not at all. On the contrary, I think that they have been receptive to this change. They were somewhat offended when they lost this authority in 1992. Now things are going back to what they were.

Mr. St-Laurent: You proposed making several changes when you first took the job. How were these changes introduced? How do you enforce these changes? You must have some type of implementation timetable. Are you behind schedule or are you ahead of schedule? Have there been some stumbling blocks? Are there some areas that are progressing better than others? Generally speaking, how have things been going in the nine months that you've been there?

Mr. Gibbs: Very well. I must tell you that I could not ask for any more support from either my minister or the government than what I have already been given. The progress that we have been dreaming about in the past is starting to become reality, whether we are talking about commissioner selection, evaluations, etc. In the past, the concept of evaluations and performance didn't exist. This has all been implemented. We completed this task in April and May.

On two or three occasions, the appointments that we were recommending to Cabinet for certain regions took a little more time than we would have liked. We completed the evaluations and the interviews in about one month and a half. Sometimes it takes several months before appointments are made. This is the only point of frustration. As for everything else, we can't complain.

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.

[English]

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Good morning. I'd like to take the first 10-minute segment to talk about the report that the Correctional Service just released this week on the Butler case so we can get into it before my time is over.

According to the report, Butler was sentenced in 1983 to a 13-year aggregate sentence for robbery, forcible confinement, attempted escape and weapons offences. Psychological information at the time suggested that he was a psychopath and had a long-standing history of antisocial behaviour.

It would appear from this report that no complete psychological or psychiatric profile was completed during his sentence because of a lack of cooperation by by Butler. But in the course of his incarceration he also had numerous offences within the institution and he never really involved himself in any of the programs.

.1000

Given that kind of background, with all that information, I would like to know if Butler as an individual would he be given more special attention upon release than any other average offender would.

Mr. Gibbs: Our best information on the case is that at the end of the time he had served prior to statutory release, he was not referred. I will ask Ms Stableforth to correct me on this, because it's information we received after the CSC report was done. He was not referred to the board as a case for detention, so the board would not have had any decision-making authority at that time.

At the time of his release, the board put three or four special conditions on him. Unfortunately, those special conditions, to the best of our knowledge, were sent from our Moncton office to Dorchester Penitentiary because they knew where he was going, his address, etc., and the parole office in the Yukon or in B.C. was going to look after supervision.

Somehow, those conditions were not received by the supervisory office. However, a review of the case showed that when he was suspended he had not broken any of those conditions so it didn't have any impact. Up to that point, the only involvement of the parole board was to impose those conditions.

Ms Meredith: Why did the parole board see the need to impose those conditions? If the request hadn't gone through you, what led you to impose conditions on his statutory release?

Mr. Gibbs: There was a practice in at least the Atlantic office - and I haven't checked the other offices - that if the board saw an inmate and denied him day parole and full parole prior to statutory release, in the Moncton office they would have a BF if they saw something they were very concerned about. They did not wait for CSC. Usually you wait for CSC to say that this person can be released on statutory release but you had better put two or three conditions on it. In the Moncton office they didn't wait for it. They BF'd it, and said we're concerned about this person and so we will impose the conditions.

Ms Meredith: You mentioned that the conditions were not sent to the proper place and that the offender was not aware of the conditions; nor were the people supervising him. Does this happen very often?

Mr. Gibbs: I would hope not. This is the first time I've come across a situation like that. We have not found out what happened between Dorchester Penitentiary and...whether it was lost in the mail, or wrong address or whatever, we have not found that out.

Ms Meredith: When he was released and placed in the community release facility in Prince George, he had a correctional release plan that indicated he was going to be there for six months. The individual changed his mind and didn't fulfill that obligation or requirement.

Is that possible? Does that happen? Can an inmate decide to change the release plan? Is there not some kind of commitment or follow-up or requirement that they follow a plan that has been developed?

Mr. Gibbs: That being the case, he should have been suspended for review as to whether the statutory release should be revoked or restructured.

Ms Meredith: But his day parole, which allows him -

Mr. Gibbs: He wasn't on day parole up to that time.

Ms Meredith: Okay, but he did become a day parolee.

Mr. Gibbs: That's right.

Ms Meredith: Even though he wandered off and did his own thing, he was still given day parole status, which allowed him to stay in that kind of facility.

.1005

When day parole is violated, should there not be a reconsideration of leaving them in that kind of community supervision? Should a bell not have gone off that this individual was not functioning well under that kind of a situation? When his statutory release was revoked, should he not automatically have been placed in some kind of confinement, more so than a community correctional facility?

Mr. Gibbs: From the board's point of view, it was an unusual decision. The decision to revoke on the one hand a conditional release, like statutory release, and grant on the other hand, doesn't happen very often. I've checked that out.

Ms Meredith: That was my next question. Is it very unusual?

Mr. Gibbs: That doesn't happen often. It's very unusual, especially in a case like this. He had a fairly rough background, with violence and so on.

Don't forget that in Bill C-45, we are asking for the authority to structure and put residency on statutory release. We don't have that authority now.

All the board members had the choice to either put him back in the institution for two years, or whatever time he had left, or until the next statutory release time came, or to restructure his release more rigidly through a day parole. They chose the latter, and it didn't work out, obviously.

Ms Meredith: You may or may not be able to answer my last question.

The decision was made to leave him to restructure his day parole process. I am sorry to say that a lot of this report has been blacked out, those sections that would probably answer that question for me. There is a suggestion that the RCMP was involved, that he was an informant for them.

Is it possible that involvement, that intervention, with the RCMP was a deciding factor that an individual who had been considered very dangerous, very high risk, was still allowed to stay in a day parole situation in a community correctional facility?

Mr. Gibbs: It's possible, but I can't tell you how much weight they put to it.

The Chair: I'm wondering whether this is appropriate. I'm not clear on whether this is an appropriate question to answer. Do you feel comfortable answering this question?

Mr. Gibbs: I don't know how much weight was put on that. The position the National Parole Board has today is that we evaluate risk. Whether the person is an informant or otherwise, as far as we're concerned, that doesn't hold much water. We evaluate the risk. If the risk can be managed in the community, that's what we evaluate.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: I feel that asking a question as to the weight an independent body has on a decision of the parole board is very justified in this case. I don't see where it's out of order.

The Chair: I'm not saying it's out of order. I just wanted to consider it.

Mr. Bodnar.

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): A concern I have is that if there's any disclosure that a person may be an informant - and I don't know if that's the case here or not - then it's an offence under the Criminal Code if any witness discloses the status of a person. Again, I don't know if that's the case, but I simply ask that there be caution in this because we don't want to see the commission of an offence here.

The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee on this. Maybe from time to time we should have hearings in camera. If any members have questions that they feel are of a nature that could deal with such things, we may want to have them in camera.

Do you want to pursue this now, Ms Meredith?

Ms Meredith: I think Mr. Gibbs has made his answer, and that is that he is unaware of any influence. That brings me to the end of that.

.1010

The Chair: Ms Phinney, you have 10 minutes.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you for coming, although I guess it's not voluntary. I guess you have no choice.

I'd like to first of all talk about the pardon system, the pardon services that you offer. I don't have any real objections to the $50. It does say in here, though, that it's allowed you to become more efficient. Does that mean that you didn't have to lay anybody off and therefore could keep the staff you've had, which would only keep up the efficiency you already had, or does the $50 more make your staff work harder, or are they getting the $50? Why did you put in that it makes you more efficient?

The Chair: Mr. Gibbs, could you tell us what the fee was beforehand?

Mr. Gibbs: There was no fee.

The Chair: It went from zero to $50?

Mr. Gibbs: That's right. I must say that the $50 only represents about 20% of the total cost.

Ms Nancy L. Stableforth (Executive Vice-Chairperson, National Parole Board): It's about one-third.

Mr. Gibbs: It's about one-third of the total cost.

The efficiency here is just in terms of dollars. If the budget of the National Parole Board is, let's say, $22 million or $22.5 million, it's another $1 million that we can bring in order to be more efficient.

Ms Phinney: Okay. I just thought it was an odd remark.

I have no problem with the services provided for Canadian citizens to get a pardon, and that makes it applicable within Canada. It may help them to get a job or whatever. I do have some difficulties with what it does for Canadians crossing the border. It does nothing. At any time at the American border, they can say they are sorry, they don't give credit to a pardon, don't acknowledge it, and don't accept it. The Canadian then has to go to Washington and try to get an American pardon, which may or may not be granted. Even then it isn't always considered as being 100%.

Is there any way we could improve relationships with the United States in this area and have them accept our pardons? Is anything being worked on to make it more acceptable?

Ms Stableforth: I can certainly undertake to get more information, but I can tell you in general that, of course, our laws aren't enforceable in the United States. The fact that a person receives the benefit of a pardon in Canada does not mean that the United States has to recognize that pardon. There is no sort of umbrella international agreement governing this area of the law.

I can inform you that over the years both the past director of the clemency and pardons section and the current one have worked with U.S. authorities to keep them informed of any changes in our laws and to ensure that they understand what a pardon means. There have been ongoing efforts in that regard.

I'm not aware of any initiative to have some sort of more general agreement in that regard, but certainly our clemency and pardons people have made every effort to make sure that U.S. immigration authorities understand what a pardon means under Canadian law.

Ms Phinney: Thank you.

There appear to have been considerable improvements in the selection process, and also in the training. I'm glad to see that.

I am interested in the paragraph where you talked about having a general meeting for all the members for the first time in four years. Did you get out of that what you wanted to get out of it, and did the members themselves feel they got out of it what they were expecting?

My third question would be whether you are planning one every year.

Mr. Gibbs: I'll start with the last one, which is an easier one. Yes, annually we will have a meeting.

This year, because of costs, we invited only the full-time members. To provide the part-time members with the per diem that we pay them for doing hearings and so on would have been quite costly.

Ms Phinney: With the full-time members, is it just part of their salary, part of their job?

Mr. Gibbs: That's right. They are full-time members, salaried people, and the full-time members make up about half of all the members across the country.

As for the agenda, because we were in the throes of all these changes, people had to be very much aware of what we were doing, so we did have good information session discussions and so on. Again, I think for people to be able to exchange ways of doing good work across the country is extremely important. Otherwise, we end up having five regional parole boards, and we're a national parole board.

.1015

I think that the evaluations we did at the end were extremely competent.

Ms Phinney: Was this the members' evaluation of it or your evaluation?

Mr. Gibbs: This was not a performance appraisal, but rather the evaluation of the general board meeting. At the end, we gave them various topics and discussions and asked them to rate them. They were very positive. I think it reached all the objectives that we had.

I should say that this fiscal year we're planning a massive evaluation of our training program. We evaluate various programs in any department. This year it's the training of board members. We hope to have that done by the time we come back next spring.

Ms Phinney: I didn't understand this clearly. Did you say that the part-time members would be in on this weekend training session next year?

Mr. Gibbs: What we're going to look at are ways to bring those who are interested and cover their expenses, but not necessarily pay their per diem. The range of per diem for part-time members is between $400 and $470 a day. It's fairly substantial, so when you bring 55 of them plus expenses, it can be a fairly expensive proposition.

Ms Phinney: Couldn't that be part of their contract, that they attend one weekend per year for the privilege of having a job that pays approximately $400 a day?

Mr. Gibbs: We'll consider those things.

Ms Phinney: Another area we've brought up a couple of times that I'm certainly concerned about, and that the Auditor General commented on in his 1994 report, is the amount of time there is to study a case before the decision is made. This is the two or three days before, the weeks before, or that two or three hours that they have to look at the material. Do you feel that is enough? Are you doing anything to make it a longer period of time for them to prepare for making the decision?

Mr. Gibbs: It is not an issue that really has been raised with any force.

Ms Phinney: May I suggest that there has been an issue about some people being released whom people feel shouldn't have been released. Maybe a questionable decision could have been made because you only had two hours to decide ahead of time and to look at material.

Mr. Gibbs: I don't think it's the lack of time; it's the lack of how you review and analyse. As far as the time is concerned, we give anywhere from half a day to a day of preparation for every day of hearing. To me, that's sufficient to review. Usually we have six hearings a day. To review six files between half a day and a day, I can't see why that is not enough.

Ms Phinney: He's saying that they're given two to three hours of preparation for each hearing.

Mr. Gibbs: There are two things. One is that you prepare for the hearing, and then you have the hearing.

Ms Phinney: Yes. How long do you have for the preparation time?

Mr. Gibbs: If you have six cases and you work eight hours, you have an hour and a half. There are cases, such as property offenders, that probably would not require the same kind of time as you would for a more serious violent offender. You organize your time to the case in point.

When it comes to the hearing itself, again it can last 40 minutes for some cases and three to four hours or more for some other cases. Detention cases or a lifer, for example, take much longer.

As far as the preparation is concerned, it hasn't been a big issue in my office.

Ms Phinney: We've discussed with you before the number of reports they get and the number of people who contribute to that dossier that they're reading in that hour and a half. If they have a busy day and they're serious cases, they might get an hour, depending on how it goes.

Mr. Gibbs: There are summaries made of all that information.

Ms Stableforth: Mr. Chairman, could I add a couple of points of clarification?

First of all, we don't limit board members in a sense, and many board members do in fact take extra time either by working on weekends or on evenings if they feel they want to spend more time on a case. They will receive all the cases they will be reviewing for the next week. They will then be able to set their own schedule in terms of those cases. Some files will be very thick, and board members will spend more time on those. Other files will have a more limited amount of information, and they would spend less time preparing for those.

.1020

The other issue, of course, is that those offenders who stay in the system longer may be seen by the same board members on more than one occasion. When a board member who has been with the board for a while is reviewing a file, frequently they will have reviewed that file and have seen the offender before. Some of the material will already be familiar to them.

As the chair, Mr. Gibbs has also indicated that although they receive all the original documentation that's on file for a review, they also receive summary reports from the Correctional Service that highlight the main aspects of the documents they have.

The Chair: Before I go back to Mr. St-Laurent, there are a few documents you referred to that I want to ask about.

On page 1 of your statement, you referred to the second omnibus bill. What bill are you referring to there? Is this a bill to be tabled or one that's already here?

Mr. Gibbs: It's a bill to be tabled, yes.

In the massive review of the agencies, boards and commissions under Minister Massé, there were all kinds of legislative issues affecting administrative tribunals and so on that they wanted to put through. They created one omnibus bill. They call it number one, and then there's another one coming called omnibus bill two.

The Chair: This won't be just a criminal justice bill?

Mr. Gibbs: No.

The Chair: But you expect it will cover matters dealing with the parole board?

Mr. Gibbs: Exactly. It will cover the structure, etc. For example, the number of full-time members is now capped at 45. We hope to get that cap off in the legislation so that we can have as many full-time members as we require.

The Chair: So this is under Mr. Massé? The clerk is not here for a moment, but I'd ask our staff to be in touch with Mr. Massé and keep us advised of that bill.

You also mentioned an action plan that you've provided to the Auditor General. Is it possible that we could get a copy of the action plan so we can distribute it to members of the committee?

Mr. Gibbs: Certainly, we can do that.

The Chair: Finally, on the last page of your opening statement you referred to a report that indicated that some states in the United States had abolished parole completely, with the result that inmates were being released at the end of their time without any supervision. You said that victims groups were calling for the restoration of parole. Do you have that report?

Mr. Gibbs: Yes, we have a copy of it here. Also at the conference I referred to, the APAI, a panel of experts, but among them victims, very forcefully promoted the restoration or retention of parole. We'll leave a copy of this report.

The Chair: Please leave a copy with the clerk as well.

I'll ask the clerk to send out a notice in case any members want to get copies and read it.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Earlier, you partially answered the question. Is there an increase or a decrease in the volume of cases being heard? You say that you will soon want to request more board members. Is this because the number of cases is increasing?

Mr. Gibbs: The number of applications will probably go up a bit, because the prisons' population is slightly increasing. But based on our experience, part-time board members are less efficient, because they don't generally live near the regional office or the institution.

.1025

We bring them in for two days to analyze the case and to hold the hearings, and we have to pay them for three days. Full-time board members can do this work in two days.

I sincerely believe that we need part-time people not only at the federal level, but also in the seven provinces and two territories that we cover. It costs a little more.

Mr. St-Laurent: Despite the $50 fee that has been added?

Mr. Gibbs: There again, the $50 fee has nothing to do with applications for parole. It is for a pardon application.

Mr. St-Laurent: I apologize for making you repeat that.

What financial resources does the board devote to domestic violence? You must have a specific sector for domestic violence.

Mr. Gibbs: I believe that Treasury Board gave us $140,000 for domestic violence two or three years ago. We no longer receive the money. It was a project that only lasted three or four years. However, during training, domestic violence is always taken into account. The funds devoted to domestic violence come from several sources. So we can't ignore it. Whether it be during training or in case assessment, it is always of concern to us.

Mr. St-Laurent: What about natives, do you treat them differently? There was an approach used for natives that I liked; it involved returning the inmates to their communities. Is there closer contact with native communities?

Regarding parole, is it easier in native communities than in non-native communities?

Mr. Gibbs: Correctional Services had invested a lot more resources in that area recently. Two new institutions are being built in Maple Creek and Hobbema: one for women and another for men.

I have also been told that there will be more resources from native communities to facilitate native reintegration. We invite elders to all hearings where natives are to be assessed, especially in the prairies, and the inmate can decide himself if he wants an elder to be present. The elders receive a per diem for the time they devote to this activity.

Mr. St-Laurent: Regarding board members' work, when they make a decision, an individual is released or put on parole. Is there a process in place to inform board members of the success or failure of the decisions they've made? Over a year, they make a lot of decisions and meet a lot of individuals. Is there a computerized process or some other process that takes that into account?

.1030

Mr. Gibbs: Recently, we implemented a system that accounts for the cases that go wrong or do not turn up well. This is unfortunate, because board members make very good decisions. Only 13% of all parole is revoked because the individual has reoffended. When the crime is serious and accompanied by violence, or in the case of murder, there is an investigation. We share the results not only with the people involved in the decision - it would be serious if they failed to follow the necessary policies or procedures - but also with the other regions of the country.

I hope to carry out a study of the good decisions, and this is something we are preparing to do. We cannot examine all decisions, because we do not have sufficient resources. We are, however, trying to make people in other regions aware of these results, especially the most positive ones, in order to share examples of these good decisions with them. That is the direction we're moving.

[English]

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Bodnar, I just want to remind the committee that we'll be doing clause-by-clause this afternoon with respect to Bill C-72, extreme drunkenness as a defence. I've already received one amendment from members.

I just want to remind you that if any of you have any amendments, you should give them to us as soon as possible so the clerk can translate them. You're not required to do that, but it's always helpful.

I don't know whether the government will have any or not. This is not a long bill, but it would be better if we were well prepared for it this afternoon.

Mr. Bodnar, you have five minutes.

Mr. Bodnar: In your presentation today you've made reference to an agreement to delegate some of your decision-making authority for unescorted temporary absences to Correctional Service Canada. I take it that will mean the individual jails eventually are going to be determining the UTAs.

I have a problem with this because this puts a decision-making power not into the hands of an independent body but into the hands of someone with an interest. These are the keepers of the prisoners. This then can be open for abuse. In other words, a decision on whether somebody gets temporary absence isn't determined on the performance of that person, whether they are well-behaved, but can be determined on whether that person supplies special information in the jail, etc.

Was this considered in the making of this agreement?

Mr. Gibbs: Having been a former warden, I can say that we knew this could happen, but it's the judgment of the individual warden to make the decision formed on risk.

I would have the same preoccupation you mention if this involved the delegation of day parole or full parole authority because in my view it would then be a conflict. You could use it to empty part of your prison. But a two- or three-day temporary absence doesn't make any kind of dent in your population.

It is a privilege like many privileges they have inside. As a former warden, I was approached many times by inmates, whether it was for temporary absence or a privilege inside, to ``make deals.'' My approach - and I trust it's a similar approach by the current warden - was always: I don't make deals, but I'm all ears.

Mr. Bodnar: That's the problem. The parole board is set up as an independent body, an independent body that deals with what are really quasi-judicial decisions.

You are now taking that authority, or at least a small portion of it, and you're giving it to a group of people who, I would suggest, are not independent. It is open for abuse.

.1035

On the provincial side, I'm wondering whether the provincial jails give the UTAs themselves. Who's in charge of UTAs at the provincial correction centres?

Mr. Gibbs: At the provincial level they have quasi-100% authority. They can release people from the first day they arrive.

Mr. Bodnar: That's what's happening when they're emptying jails, because they don't have room for people serving 15 days or 30 days for impaired driving. The person will walk in one day and it's the revolving-door policy; the person is out on the street the next day. People lose confidence in our system when a person is sentenced to jail and is seen on the street the next day, because the jails have let this person out for other reasons.

Mr. Gibbs: I want to put this thing in the right perspective. First, I'm not here to discuss the provincial system. The eligibility for temporary absence doesn't change, whether it's a warden who decides or whether it's the National Parole Board. It's still six months, a sixth of the sentence, or whatever time is required.

Second, if the success rate - the results - whether it was 10 years ago or more or going back 20 years ago when the warden had full authority, was 99%-plus, it's still 99%-plus. So it hasn't changed.

Furthermore, the wardens have plenty of authority today with work release up to 60 days. Under the new act they can put people on that program. So a 3-day temporary absence doesn't change a lot. They have authority for escorted temporary absence.

I don't think it's giving them a whole lot of power; it's just a matter of being more efficient and just as effective.

Ms Meredith: I want to follow up on the appointment of board members and their evaluation. You mentioned that a number of recent appointments have been made, five in B.C., three in Quebec, and three elsewhere. Were all these appointments taken from your list of qualified applicants and were they appointed in...? Do you just qualify applicants or do you have some that are more qualified than others? Do you evaluate the qualifications of the applicants when you submit them for appointments?

Mr. Gibbs: Yes, we do. First of all, yes, every one of them was taken 100% from the list. We do, but I have to leave the final decision to the judgment of the minister and his colleagues. That's a Governor in Council appointment. They pick from the list, and whether it's number five or number two, that's up to them.

Ms Meredith: Okay. In your presentation you also mentioned that you started an assessment process in April of this year.

Have you been able to assess all the permanent and part-time board members at this point?

Mr. Gibbs: Everyone has been assessed. Only the ones whose mandate is due to expire shortly, in the next few months, and are not subject to renewal were not necessarily.... Some senior board members did the evaluation on some and not on others, but all those who had at least six months left in their mandate were assessed.

Ms Meredith: As a result of that assessment - and I know that future legislation will give you an opportunity to react to those assessments - what is the process now? If through these assessments you find that you have parole board members who perhaps would be best suited doing other things, how are you handling that without this future legislation in place, or are you just putting off those kinds of decisions until such time as you have legislative authority to do something?

Mr. Gibbs: Unfortunately, without Bill C-45 being passed we can not legally or otherwise do very much about it and adopt the formal procedure. What we are doing in those few cases where we have some difficulties with their performance is giving them more attention and more training, monitoring their decisions a lot closer and so on. That's the best we can do at this stage. If they are part-time members, we tend to use them a lot less, if at all.

.1040

Ms Meredith: So there are ways you are trying to accommodate to make sure the people who are sitting in parole hearings are more than qualified.

I had an interesting experience, which you're aware of, on Tuesday when I sat in on a hearing. I want to reach beyond what I experienced. Therefore I would ask you if you find that having intervention by witnesses in their presence - they're now being allowed to observe these hearings - has a positive effect on the parole hearings. Do you see it as a beneficial change that is occurring in the system?

Mr. Gibbs: It's beneficial because it makes us more sensitive and more aware of the other side. You know, for a long time we at CSC and NPB were concentrated, not exclusively but significantly, on the offender only. In the last several years... Now that we observe the status of the victim, it makes us a lot more aware of the consequences and the suffering; it's being taken into consideration in our decision.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, you have five minutes.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. I'm sorry, I was a bit late coming in, so before I ask you any questions I just want to make sure this hasn't been covered. Has anybody asked you about the Paul Butler case today?

Mr. Gibbs: Yes. We spent about 10 minutes on it with Ms Meredith.

Mr. Wappel: That's fine. There's a lot more than 10 minutes, but that's all right.

Mr. Gibbs, I'm interested in your comment on your visit to the United States for the Association of Paroling Authorities International conference. You made an important point in your opening comments here about a major difference between Canada and some of the jurisdictions in the United States, in particular some states that have abolished parole completely.

Now, I have constituents. I know there are people in Canada, some mentioned by Mr. Bodnar, who are very frustrated with the National Parole Board and the parole system. They argue there should be no parole. It's interesting in fact that there are jurisdictions that have no parole, as you said yourself. You have found, as you said in your opening comments, that it doesn't seem to be working.

Would I be correct in assuming that those jurisdictions that have no parole were not at the meeting of the Association of Paroling Authorities International since they had no parole?

Mr. Gibbs: If I recall, there were one or two representatives of states where parole had been abolished. I suppose they were there to keep the faith and somehow keep fighting to try to reinstate... So yes, they were there.

Mr. Wappel: Were they official representatives of the state, or were they the people who were unhappy with the state abolishing parole?

Mr. Gibbs: Obviously they were unhappy because they were involved either as parole officers or parole board members. One was a former chair, for example.

I think if you read some of the results in here, you will see some of the difficulties the ones that have abolished parole are having.

Mr. Wappel: Now, you lifted something up and you said something ``in here.''

Mr. Gibbs: Yes, I presented that before you arrived. It's called Abolishing Parole: Why the Emperor Has No Clothes. I'll give a copy to the chair. It's $12 U.S. We bought a few.

Mr. Wappel: Well, you'll just have to raise your fees for parole applications.

.1045

Tell me this: what is the experience with respect to recidivism rates in states that have no parole, as compared to Canada, let's say? Let's talk about serious crimes, violent crimes. Is there any evidence?

Mr. Gibbs: I couldn't answer that.

Mr. Wappel: Is there anything in the book?

Mr. Gibbs: In the book they talk mostly about the very serious over-incarceration in the U.S. Because of that they're now up to 550 per 100,000 inhabitants. They have to get them out through the back door before the end of the sentence.

That's where not only practitioners of correction but victims are saying there is no discretion here and the person being let out through the back door can be five times more violent than the person who is coming in. So the control is only the time served.

Mr. Wappel: Yes, but I'm getting at the fact that you've said there are victims groups who are calling for a restoration or retention of parole so that there can be supervision and that sort of thing. But some might argue that if a jurisdiction that has no parole has a recidivism rate significantly less than a jurisdiction that has parole, maybe there's something to it.

So how can one compare the two systems without comparing the recidivism rates? And if that is true - and I see you shaking your head in the affirmative - then why don't we have those statistics so that we can compare them with our system?

Mr. Gibbs: It's an excellent point. We have parole and we have our statistics, our success rate and so on, but it would be most appropriate to compare it with just jailing people, letting them out cold turkey and that kind of thing and see how they make out.

Mr. Wappel: Whose role would that be? Would it be your role as chair to gather those statistics, or would you be making a recommendation to the Solicitor General to liaise with those states to get those statistics?

Mr. Gibbs: Most of the research we have access to is with the Correctional Service and the secretariat of the Solicitor General. They have a correctional research branch. So it would be between the two of them, but we have access to that and we will look at that. I think that's a good point.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I personally want to ask you something, because Mr. Wappel raised it. He was talking about money, about raising fees. You mentioned that the $50 fee for a pardon is one-third of the cost.

Mr. Gibbs: The whole cost is approximately between $150 and $200. That's with the RCMP.

Mr. Gallaway: So if you were to go to a full cost recovery, you'd have about 10% more in your budget. Your budget is $25 million more or less.

Mr. Gibbs: It could be. Is the accountant here?

Mr. Peter Callahan (Director, Corporate Services, National Parole Board): We wouldn't raise the cost. There is no addition to our cost. We would gain additional revenue.

Mr. Gallaway: Yes, that's what I'm saying. But if you were to raise the cost of the application for a pardon...?

Mr. Callahan: It doesn't come into our budget, by the way; it goes back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay, it's all the same pot. Who determined the fee? I'm assuming it's the department, but is it on your recommendation, or is it just an arbitrary figure?

Mr. Gibbs: Whether it wasn't paid or whether a person gets a pardon?

Mr. Gallaway: No. Who determines that the $50 application for a pardon would be the amount?

Mr. Gibbs: It's mandatory and that's it. If you apply, you send your $50 with your application.

Mr. Gallaway: Who decided that it would be $50?

Mr. Gibbs: Who decided?

Mr. Gallaway: It was by the recommendation of the board.

Ms Stableforth: There was a consultation among the board, the secretariat, of course, and the RCMP. I believe the previous government had already indicated they believed it would be appropriate to start with a more modest fee. They indicated at the time that it didn't represent full cost recovery. But in terms of implementing a user fee for the first time, essentially the government determined that they would start off with a fee that represented a partial, but not complete, cost recovery. It could be changed later, I suppose.

Mr. Gallaway: For a Canadian with a criminal record, for example, to obtain advance permission to enter the United States, they could obtain a certificate allowing them to enter for a period of one year. The cost is approximately $100 Canadian, but it's only good for one year, so I suggest that this $50 is a terrible bargain.

.1050

In terms of what you call your credibility and accountability, you mentioned in your brief that you started a national training framework. What then did you have prior to this? If you've started a national training framework for all board members, what existed before?

Mr. Gibbs: I'll just talk about it briefly; I think Ms Stableforth was there at the time. First of all, in the past, until about a year or so ago, it was not a prerequisite that the new board members get their orientation right away. So that presented a problem a few times. A person could be part of hearings. So we made that a prerequisite. Also, at one time not too long ago it was only one week; now it's two weeks.

So training existed, but we just organized and solidified it and put in all the required modules, like risk assessment, on which we base our decisions. So we enhanced it.

Ms Stableforth: On that last point, as Mr. Gibbs said, we have had a full-time senior adviser on training and professional development for many years, certainly as long as I've been with the board, and that's been since 1988. We have always offered training to board members, including new members.

As Mr. Gibbs has indicated, we've made a commitment in this document, which was issued last year, to ensure that solid orientation training takes place in advance of the board member participating in any decisions, even as a second vote or as a third member of a panel. We've expanded that program, that initial orientation, from one to two weeks and we've also provided for a second-stage orientation.

So in some ways it reflects training that was taking place with board members beforehand. It's just that now we are ensuring that there is a firm commitment not only that the training take place initially with new board members, but that there is follow-up developmental and refresher training at regular intervals.

Mr. Gallaway: I believe one of the criticisms we've heard in this committee is that there appear to be regional disparities, and of course perception is everything. In other words, if an application is made in Nova Scotia and a similar application.... I realize you can never equate the two. Certain decisions made in certain areas of this country appear to be much more lenient than those in other areas of the country.

I guess the concern is how you are ensuring then that there is some degree of uniformity. You're mow talking about starting a national training framework, but if somebody in Nova Scotia has twice as much training on, let's assume, risk assessment than somebody in British Columbia, one would assume you're going to see these kinds of regional disparities. That's what I'm getting at.

Do all board members reach a certain level of training, and is there some way of verifying that these people are actually absorbing what they're told?

Mr. Gibbs: Generally speaking, the orientation is all uniform. We try to give the refresher to every board member anywhere from three to five days a year.

It's regionally based, but it's also nationally monitored. Yes, as I said a while ago, if we're not careful, if we don't send the right signals, messages and directions, there is always a danger that you end up having five regional boards. Obviously we want the application of our legislation, our policies, to be as uniform as possible.

Now, it's an uphill battle. Québécois in general see conditional release differently from maybe people from Ontario cultures and so on. We try to give the message very clearly to our board members that they're not there to make popular decisions. This is not the game. They are to apply the legislation, the risk and so on, case by case.

I found the experience with the Lortie case.... I thought it was an excellent decision. A lot of people disagreed with me and with the board, but it had more repercussions outside of Quebec than in Quebec. So to me that's an example of the fact that it's an uphill battle, one part of the country as opposed to the other.

.1055

Ms Meredith: I'd like to talk a little bit about statutory release. There was an instance in my constituency where an offender who ended up killing a young girl had been denied parole and a few months later was given statutory release.

I noticed in the Butler case that in May 1992 he was denied day parole and full parole, yet within eight or nine months he was given statutory release.

Do you feel we need to be reviewing statutory release? Does it work? Should there be changes to how it is being used? Should a person get out based on a timeframe rather than on earning the right to be released?

Mr. Gibbs: The detention provision of the act is based on three main criteria. So unless you meet -

Ms Stableforth: There are three criteria for a regular parole.

Mr. Gibbs: Unless those criteria are met, in the opinion of CSC, the case is not referred to the board. When the case is referred, the board itself has to determine that really those criteria are met and the person is probably going to do serious harm or death before the end of his expiry.

We get a very high number of referrals and we detain a very high number, especially in Ontario and the prairie region, whereas in the Quebec and the Atlantic region the number is much lower. Yet we don't see worse consequences in those two latter regions than those we see in Ontario and the prairies. So we have to leave the referral to the Correctional Service, as the law dictates.

Ms Meredith: The law also says that even though you have denied somebody parole because you felt they are too high risk to place back into society, once they reach the end of their sentence, the end of their warrant, this individual, whom the board over a period of time has deemed to be too high risk to be placed back into society, must be released back into society.

Would you support legislation, or do you feel that legislation is needed to allow more flexibility so that individuals who are identified over a process of time and at the time of release are still considered to be a high risk to society, likely to commit serious bodily harm or death to an individual, should be...? Do you feel there should be changes to give you the flexibility to recommend that that person have post-sentence detention?

Mr. Gibbs: My understanding is that's what the law reads today.

Ms Meredith: That's right.

Mr. Gibbs: Therefore, it is there for people to use with good discretion. I have a personal opinion that it's being overused a bit in some regions, not necessarily underused in the other. But anyway, that's -

Ms Meredith: But dangerous offender designation has to occur at the time of sentencing. Often the person's personality, their psychopathic tendencies or what not, are not fully identified until they are in a system of control or in an environment where they're watched on a regular basis. Yet there's no provision for that recognition to allow the system to keep that individual until he poses no risk or a low risk to society.

Do you feel that as a body of legislators we need to be looking at changing the law to provide that the system keep high-risk offenders, people who are likely to commit serious bodily harm or commit death? That is not available now under the dangerous offender legislation. Should we be changing the law to allow that to happen?

Mr. Gibbs: Beyond warrant expiry?

Ms Meredith: Beyond warrant expiry.

.1100

Mr. Gibbs: That is now being reviewed very carefully by Justice - your group - and maybe you could talk about that.

Ms Stableforth: Yes, I think certainly Ms Meredith may be aware that there have been discussions. There was a recent forum on high-risk offenders. These issues are being very actively discussed by government.

I don't think it would be appropriate to express a personal opinion, but certainly I know that the issue both with respect to post-sentence detention and perhaps post-sentence supervision, long-term supervision, for certain types of offenders.... Mr. Rock and Mr. Gray have both indicated...and in fact the forum was organized in early May. So I believe those issues are being actively considered by the Department of Justice.

It is the Department of Justice, of course, that would put forth legislation in that regard. But the board is certainly being included in those discussions.

Ms Meredith: Are you supportive of those changes within Justice?

The Chair: You can answer, if you wish, but you're public servants and not policy-makers.

They give their advice directly to the minister. The minister decides and Parliament decides, but they can answer if they want.

Mr. Gibbs: We're not -

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I honestly question whether they should, frankly, because if they answer this one and don't answer the next one, it puts them on the spot.

The Chair: These are really questions for the minister.

Mr. MacLellan: Even if they are in agreement, there may be something later on which they're not agreed, and they'd be forced or asked to answer as well.

Mr. Gibbs: Thank you for your advice.

The Chair: I have a few questions. I'm reading from an editorial in the April 3, 1995, Globe and Mail It says: ``A prison population grown 17% since 1990, and expected to grow by 25% over the next five years''.

In commenting on that, it points out the fact that parliaments are providing for longer and harder sentences, courts are giving longer sentences, and they say ``parole boards are so petrified of making a mistake that they play it ever so safe'', meaning that they're conscious of public opinion and therefore they're tightening up, too.

That's what The Globe and Mail says, but I'd like to know to what extent that is true. How does your release rate on applications made stand, let's say, for the last year for which you have statistics compared with previous years? In fact, are you refusing more applications, or are you granting more or less the same? What is your release rate? Do you have those figures for us?

Mr. Gibbs: Yes, we do. It's approximately 33%. I said that a while ago. The release rate over the last decade has varied between a low of 29% or 30% to a high of 38% for all applications.

When the legislation changed in the fall of 1992, the ancillary parole reviews came into place. Under these reviews first-time penitentiary offenders - of non-violent offences - are automatically released unless there is evidence that violence is going to take place before the end of the warrant.

Between those statistics of APRs and regular application, that's what we come up with. There's no doubt that a year or so ago, and several months before that, the board went through a pretty difficult period, to say the least.

The Chair: We remember.

Mr. Gibbs: Right. It's natural that because of all the criticism and so on, being all human, they became a bit gun-shy.

Also, when I stepped in to the job we had to review a lot of things. Obviously we reviewed quite a few of the cases that had backfired, asked why, and tried to put in place some new policies and directions that would try to avoid those kinds of failures.

.1105

That was a situation. So we've worked in that environment. Now that we have, in my view, a better quality of board members through selection of new board members, evaluation and so on, and now that our policies on decision-making are going to be reviewed in total, I think we'll put back a more reasonable, commonsensical approach.

Again, it won't be because of political or public pressure that we'll make our decision. It will be because the person is ready to be released without undue risk.

The Chair: Did you say as well a little earlier this morning that the success rate has remained more or less the same? When I'm talking about success rate, I'm talking about completing parole without infraction, without infraction of the conditions or another offence. It has remained at more or less what rate?

Mr. Gibbs: It's in the low 70s, about 72% success. Out of the 28% who fail prior to warrant expiry, 15% is revocation due to conditions not being respected and 13% is because of new offences.

The Chair: I also wanted to ask something with respect to indeterminate sentences under section 752 of the Criminal Code, the dangerous offender provisions. Under the law you're supposed to review those in the first place at three years and every three years thereafter.

What is your rate of release? How many dangerous offenders have you released from prison, let's say, last year and how many cases did you review of people who are in prison under those provisions? If you have to look, maybe you could give it to the committee at the end of the meeting rather than take up time now.

Ms Stableforth: I will certainly verify this, Mr. Chairman. I looked at the statistics not too long ago, and my recollection is that it's very few. I think that's been -

The Chair: Very few releases?

Ms Stableforth: Yes. Fewer than 10 have been released.

The Chair: That is out of how many reviews? Perhaps you could look up those figures and give it to us at the end of the meeting.

Also, to follow up on a question Mr. Gallaway asked, is the fee you fix for pardons done by Order in Council or by regulation? By what legal instrument do you decide that there shall be a fee, fix a fee, increase the fee, or whatever?

Ms Denise Walter (Senior Counsel, National Parole Board): It's by regulation under the Financial Administration Act.

The Chair: And is the decision made by ministers or by the chairman of the National Parole Board?

Ms Walter: The decision?

The Chair: Well, is it a regulation that -

Ms Walter: It's a regulation -

The Chair: Therefore it's by Order in Council.

Ms Walter: By Order in Council, yes.

The Chair: It must go through the committee of cabinet dealing with Orders in Council.

Ms Walter: That's correct.

The Chair: And any increase would have to go through the same process?

Ms Walter: That's right.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I have two very short questions, a little on the technical side. Mr. Gibbs, in your remarks today you indicate the NPB has delegated - whether that's a term of art, I don't know - to the CSC the decision-making for UTAs. Could you tell me where the NPB derives the authority to delegate that to the other agency?

Mr. Gibbs: It's in the legislation. I don't know what part, but our legal counsel will maybe read that to you.

Ms Walter: It's subsection 117(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Do you want me to read it?

Mr. Lee: Why not?

Ms Walter: All right, it's short:

117.(1) 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.

And section 116 is the section that deals with UTAs.

.1110

Mr. Lee: Second, you've indicated, somewhat refreshingly, that the fee structure for pardons now involves a $50 application fee. Can you tell me if the authority to charge those fees is located either in the CCRA or in the -

Ms Walter: It's an authority under the Financial Administration Act, a general authority for departments to charge. That's why it's by regulation under the FAA.

Mr. Lee: It's under the general cost recovery regulations under the FAA.

Ms Walter: That's right.

Mr. Lee: I think I understand that as well. Thank you.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): I have a couple of questions about the budget specifically.

I think it was last year that we had some information on the family violence program, and the Bloc member has already asked some questions. I guess if I'm thinking about it objectively, is the reason you're not spending money on anti-family violence initiatives because Corrections are already doing that kind of training with the inmates?

Mr. Gibbs: We only had somewhere over $100 thousand, but we had not abandoned that. I suppose that CSC has been doing that not only with the inmates but with their families. That's part of their mandate.

Being only a decision-making body, as I said, in our training and in our various analyses of the cases and so on, we take any violence that has occurred in the family as very serious.

Ms Torsney: It seems to me that last year there were some furniture purchases. Where are we this year?

Mr. Callahan: What year?

Ms Torsney: The most recent one.

Mr. Callahan: In 1994-95, our total capital projected expenditure is about $150,000. Of that, only $20,000 is furniture per se, and that's split across our six offices. It's not in any one particular office, and it's pretty equal across the country.

There are also automobile purchases. We use government vehicles for our board members and staff to attend hearings. I think the estimate there is about $50,000.

The balance is just upgrading our technology.

Ms Torsney: That's $80,000.

Mr. Callahan: That is $80,000 of the $150,000, and once again it's across the country.

Ms Torsney: Right.

The Chair: We always speak to the whole committee, rather than just to each other in that little corner of the room.

Ms Torsney: What is the budget for proactive communications, speeches that you do to Rotary Clubs or something perhaps, Mr. Gibbs, to identify what the parole board's mandate is in really trying to level the playing field for the parole board?

Mr. Gibbs: We have a division of communication where we have a budget. I don't know exactly what it is. Mr. Callahan could give you that.

As part of my own budget, obviously every time I have an opportunity - and sometimes I try to develop them - I go across the country speaking about the same kinds of issues as I'm speaking about today.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you a very clear rigid $150,000 for preaching the gospel kind of thing, but I can tell you that we have never looked at a lack of resources or anything of that nature for not doing what we have to do. We have put a great deal more emphasis on that - but not only ourselves. I think this is not only my job; it is the job of everyone here and the board members and senior staff across the country, and other staff for that matter, if they are so interested and inclined.

I think we also have partners in the community. They may be after-care agencies, or the CSC parole offices that exist across the country. We only have five regional offices, so we're not as present. They are just as committed and as articulate in explaining why conditional release is so important, so we try to get those people to help us too.

Ms Torsney, my final comment is that in this day and age of tight budgets, I would like to think that for the part-time employees it would be completely feasible to pay their expenses to get to the location, but not to pay per diems for the training. All of us do things after hours to improve our skills, and it should be considered a prerequisite for the job rather than pay to attend training. It's quite silly. All of us have done things to further ourselves on our own time, so I would suggest that you look at that or perhaps offer that to the part-time employees, and find it in your budget to just pay their expenses.

.1115

The Chair: Do you have any comment?

Mr. Gibbs: I don't know if we have ever considered that.

The Chair: You are not obliged to make any comment. I was just wondering whether you did have any.

Mr. Gibbs: No.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Wappel, you asked for a second round.

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

I think I have been brought up to speed on what was asked about the Butler case, so let me get back to the Butler case.

Here's a guy who at the end of January 1984 was sentenced to 14 years in prison, as we know, for a number of very serious offences, including use of a firearm, possession of a weapon, confinement, and robbery. Statutory release was for the end of February 1993. We know there is nothing we can do about that because it is a statutory release.

He was sent to the Northwest Territories, and he was charged with a further crime.

This is a guy, I think you'll agree, who was described as a psychopath, who had attempted to escape, and who had a number of institutional offences. He was described by his case management officers as capable of committing very serious acts and as having a high potential for violence.

He was charged with B and E four months after he was released on statutory release. A suspension warrant was issued and the parole board gathered on June 18, 1993, to discuss whether his statutory release should be revoked and, at the same time, if his statutory release was revoked, whether he should be given day parole.

Here is a guy who was in prison for 9 years out of 14 for serious offences involving violence. He is a psychopath, known to be a potential danger to society, and the parole board met to decide whether his statutory release should be revoked. Four months after he was released, he was charged with B and E; then after that, the parole board asked whether they should give him day parole. They didn't decide that; they in fact adjourned the hearing until the charges were dealt with.

My first question is whether that is the normal procedure for a person with this kind of profile.

Mr. Gibbs: I would think so. You wait until the person is either convicted or otherwise to make a decision.

Mr. Wappel: Okay, so that's the normal procedure. A high-risk psychopath's statutory release is normally not revoked, even though he's charged with a criminal offence, until he's convicted of the criminal offence. Is that correct?

Mr. Gibbs: It could be revoked.

Mr. Wappel: I know that it could. I am asking what the procedure is. Do they normally not revoke a statutory release pending a conviction? What are the guidelines from the board?

Mr. Gibbs: They could proceed. It depends on when the charge will be dealt with also, and the risk that is being presented.

Mr. Wappel: There are a number of factors.

Mr. Gibbs: Yes.

Mr. Wappel: In any event, the parole board members would be under the general impression that they should not revoke a statutory release until after conviction.

Mr. Gibbs: Not necessarily.

Mr. Wappel: Can you enlighten us a little more as to what the guidelines are?

Mr. Gibbs: I would think that if the person is in custody, then you can wait. If he is not in custody, it's a judgment that you pass, whether you can keep him in that halfway house that he is in until the charges are dealt with.

Mr. Wappel: Do you know if Mr. Butler was in custody pending his trial on B and E charges?

.1120

Mr. Gibbs: Yes, I think he was in the Whitehorse Correctional Centre on suspension until he was considered.

Mr. Wappel: On July 19 the parole board decided to revoke statutory release, presumably because he's not a good candidate for statutory release, and presumably because he's a danger to society. Isn't that right?

Mr. Gibbs: Yes, I guess you could assume that.

Mr. Wappel: All right. I would assume that too, and yet at the very same time, they grant him day parole. To me, that seems completely illogical. Why did they do that?

Mr. Gibbs: It's a decision that's unusual. I said that already.

Mr. Wappel: I know that. Why did they do it?

Mr. Gibbs: As I explained, in his case they had two choices: one was to revoke and send him back to penitentiary for the two and a half years he had left and after that I guess he would have been re-released on statutory release; or, they could restructure his release. It was recommended that they restructure more rigidly his release through day parole and put him back in that halfway house or put him in another halfway house. That's what they decided.

Mr. Wappel: All right. Before they gave him the day parole, as I understand it based on the Correctional Services report, he was given a 10-day travel permit. I take it this was after his statutory release was revoked. The purpose for this 10-day travel permit was for him to complete personal business.

What kind of personal business would Mr. Butler have to complete for 10 days prior to being granted day parole?

Mr. Gibbs: I'm sorry, I can't answer that. I don't know what the personal business was. I read the same thing as you did, but I don't know what the personal business was.

Mr. Wappel: Whose decision would that have been, Mr. Gibbs, to grant him a 10-day travel permit?

Mr. Gibbs: The travel pass was given by CSC.

Mr. Wappel: If it were given by CSC, then obviously there's not much you can help us with. Is that right?

He went to this halfway house and the parole officer said they wanted him confined, and he walks out. Is that also normal procedure?

Mr. Gibbs: Again, that is CSC's determination. If there were reasons to suspend at that time, it's the CSC parole officer who decided to do whatever. I can't comment on that.

Mr. Wappel: That was my last question, Mr. Chairman, right? It's not my last question, but my time is up.

The Chair: That's right. I have nobody else on the list. Do you have many more questions on the same issue? It seems at least that we'll have to keep these for Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Wappel: I have a couple more, if I may.

Ms Meredith: I wouldn't mind some time too.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel, I'll give you another five-minute round.

Mr. Wappel: That's probably all I need.

There was some promise made that there was going to be an investigation of this matter by the National Parole Board, as I recall it, and that certain information was going to be forthcoming. There was an internal inquiry by CSC. Has there been an internal inquiry by the National Parole Board on this case, or any kind of inquiry?

Mr. Gibbs: There was a post-audit of the case that was done. This was, by the way, done before the commissioner and I started the practice of having a national investigation any time such a serious incident has taken place. At that time, not only was the board not part of the convening order, but it was not a national investigation; it was a regional investigation.

The Chair: Both you and Ms Meredith have read the report that you're looking at, but the rest of us haven't. So that the record will be complete for today, did Mr. Butler go on to commit some heinous offence?

Mr. Wappel: Yes, he did, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Maybe it's good to put what he did on the record, so people who read the record will know what happened and will understand the questions that you've been asking.

.1125

Mr. Wappel: He was released on statutory release on February 26, 1993, and on September 4, 1993, he stabbed and murdered a virtual stranger. He was subsequently arrested for that murder and convicted of that murder. He has been convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for thirteen years.

The Chair: Continue, then. I just wanted the record to be complete.

Mr. Wappel: I'm through. I just wanted to know if an internal inquiry was made into the decision surrounding the original revocation of the statutory release. I believe your answer was that no such inquiry was made.

Mr. Gibbs: No.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you.

Ms Torsney: I would also put on the record that Mr. Gibbs was not the chair of the parole board at that time.

The Chair: I think that's well understood.

Mr. Wappel: Excuse me, I was just reminded of something by our counsel here. You did a post-audit? Is that what you said?

Mr. Gibbs: Yes, we did what we call a post-audit after it happened. An audit officer we had at the board looked at the case, and I can't recall what he recommended.

You were there, Nancy.

Ms Stableforth: To perhaps add some clarification, not too long after the incident occurred, when this offender was arrested and charged with the offence that occurred while he was on day parole, the then manager of special inquiries and case audits for the board did a quick review of the case.

I want to make it clear that this wouldn't be a full review, such as in a board of investigations, where he would go out and interview people and do the sorts of things we now see in board of investigations reports. But he did review and provide a summary of the file, which would have identified the various decisions and issues.

It is my understanding that as a result of that, in late 1993 or very early 1994, the regional vice-chair in the Pacific region was asked to thoroughly review the case with the board members who made the decision in question. She did so and reported back to the then chair that it had been done and the issues of concern had been discussed with those board members.

As Mr. Gibbs has already indicated, at that point in time the board had not moved to a practice of fully implementing a board of investigations whenever an offender was alleged to have caused a death. That process was instituted last summer for all of those types of incidents.

I feel I must clarify something else. Two passes were referred to. There was an overnight pass given to Mr. Butler, which was done against the rules of the residential facility Mr. Butler was in. That was done by Correctional Service personnel. The board was not aware of that.

I believe, though, that you would have been referring to a grant by the board. I apologize, because I was trying to get between the two passes. The ten-day pass for so-called personal business would have been a decision made by the board at the same time the statutory release and day parole grant were dealt with.

We do not have a copy of that decision with us. I'm not in a position to inform you beyond what the report you already have says - that it was for personal business. I certainly didn't intend to mislead you in that regard.

Mr. Wappel: Can you then provide us with what the personal business was and on what basis the personal business travel pass was granted? Secondly, are you at liberty to provide us with any and all of the reports that were sent to the then chair about this incident, as a result of what you were just telling us?

Ms Stableforth: We can certainly review the file and any and all reports. Obviously we would have to check, in the same way this report was vetted, on issues of third-party information and personal information. But we can certainly undertake to provide the committee members with documents we have from our internal inquiries.

.1130

Mr. Wappel: And with the reasons for the business purposes pass.

Ms Stableforth: Yes, we can certainly undertake to do that. It may take a couple of days, if we have to go back to get the original file and if that information isn't reflected in the reports we have here in Ottawa. The file, of course, has been returned to the region where Mr. Butler is incarcerated; it would have the full documentation. We can undertake to obtain that.

Mr. Wappel: Thank you.

The Chair: Have you the information I asked for earlier with respect to indeterminate sentences under article 752?

Ms Stableforth: I do, Mr. Chairman, or at least I have some information. I'm not sure it's everything you would like.

I can advise you and the members of the committee that 144 dangerous offenders have been admitted since 1977. Of that number, 135 remain incarcerated. So the numbers are fairly close to what I indicated previously to the members of the committee.

My understanding at this point in time is that four of those nine are currently in the community on a form of conditional release under supervision. Of the original ones who were released, I believe two of those parole releases were revoked, one was suspended and a couple of those individuals have died. That statistic I don't have with me.

The Chair: They died in prison?

Ms Stableforth: No. Of the nine who were released, I believe a couple have died.

That is the information I'm able to provide the committee with at this point in time. Certainly the vast majority of those offenders remain incarcerated.

As to how many times they've been reviewed, which I think was -

The Chair: No, I know they have to be reviewed every two years. What I'd be interested in, though, is how often they appeal their cases to the appeal division of your board. Do you have that information? And has there ever been an instance of the appeal side of your board granting release where the board had refused release in the first review of the case? If you don't have that today, I'd like that information.

Ms Stableforth: I can undertake to see what information we have, Mr. Chairman, but I have to advise you that I am not sure if the board has statistics on how many dangerous offenders who are refused parole actually appeal.

I'm aware, just because I used to be on the appeal division, of one or two cases. I am not aware of any where the appeal division has released directly. I am aware of at least one case where the appeal division has ordered a new hearing.

We can undertake to see what information we have, but I can't vouch that we do in fact have that type of statistical information.

The Chair: I'd be interested in the information you do have, because I know some cases have gone to the Federal Court for review.

Mr. Lee: Could I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you ask the clerk to obtain a copy of the report of CSC referred to as the Paul Butler report?

The Chair: On these matters?

Mr. Lee: Yes. It would then be available to our research.

The report will come in an expurgated version, and that may or may not suit the purposes of the committee.

Ms Meredith: Mr. Chair, I would ask permission of this committee to call CSC before we break for summer, because I'm looking for a lot of answers that the parole board is unable to give us. Because of the seriousness of the report, I think we should have CSC before us.

The Chair: That's always in our power. We're having a steering committee meeting on Monday morning. In addition, we have the correctional investigator coming here on Tuesday morning. That's the only meeting we have scheduled.

Does the committee want to take a decision on that right now, or do you want to wait until the steering committee meeting on Monday morning?

An hon. member: Let's wait for the steering committee meeting.

.1135

The Chair: Okay, we'll wait until the steering committee meeting and see if we can work it in.

Before we adjourn, you pointed out that there have been eight appointments to the parole board recently - I think in the month of April - and some others announced recently. You will have also observed that the committee did not decide to examine any of these appointees, although we have the power to do so. I believe it was due to the fact that we were extremely busy with Bill C-41, Bill C-45, Bill-68 and Bill C-72; it was very difficult.

The fact that we haven't examined those most recent appointees does not mean we have forgotten our right to do so. I just want to make clear that we will be using that power from time to time.

I believe you all receive the notices when appointments are made. I ask you to please approach the chair or raise it at a meeting if you wish us to examine any Order in Council appointment made by the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General.

I want to thank you, Mr. Gibbs, and the officials who are with you, for your appearance today and for the information you've given us. I understand you will provide some further reports and information to us through the clerk.

The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 this afternoon, when we will deal with the clause-by-clause of Bill C-72.