[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 29, 1996
.1539 
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting to order.
I'm sorry that we're a bit late, but the House was late. The Minister of Justice will be giving a statement shortly that many members of the committee are interested in.
.1540
From the National Parole Board today we have the chair, Mr. Willie Gibbs, Ms Lavigne,Ms Stableforth, who graduated from the University of Windsor Faculty of Law, and Mr. Siberry. That is too much information, I suppose, but that's okay.
You have a prepared statement. We'd be happy to hear your remarks, and then we have questions.
Mr. Willie Gibbs (Chairman, National Parole Board): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madame Lavigne is our legal counsel. Not only did she graduate in law but she's worked with us in practice. Nancy Stableforth is the vice-chair of the board. Jim Siberry is the executive director of the National Parole Board. Other staff are here to answer questions as required.
Since you received a number of documents from us prior to this meeting, apart from the expenditure plan for this year and the outlook for this year and next year, I will keep these remarks very brief. We sent you the additional information because we wanted you to have a better idea of the more routine work at the National Parole Board. We hope it was helpful.
I will raise only two points at this time about which we at NPB feel a certain sense of satisfaction and optimism. The first matter I wish to bring to your attention is some of our results for the past year. You will notice that the number of serious offences in the community has decreased significantly in the past year. I believe there are a couple of reasons for that.
One is the quality of decision-making, which is tied to the quality of our board members. Those of you who were here last year may recall that I mentioned our new process for selection of board members, and this is one of the improvements that we are most proud of. This past year we attracted a good number of well-qualified board members, many of them from a criminal justice background, and some of them this committee has interviewed. I think the success of those appointments in part is reflected in the decrease in violent offences for the past year.
The other evidence is that when you look at the statistics - I was referring to chart 1 when I talked about the decrease in serious offences, but now look at charts 2 to 5 - you can see that those offenders who are released by the board, that is, when it has the discretion to release or not, do a lot better than the offenders who are released where the board does not have the discretion to assess risk. These numbers demonstrate that our discretionary releases fare much better in the community than those released by law without discretion. In my view this is further proof that our risk assessment and exercise of discretion over these releases is working.
[Translation]
In addition, it is extremely important for us at NPB and the Correctional Service of Canada to focus on offenders who committed violent offences and to do our best at determining if they are no longer a threat to society at the point we consider them for conditional release. This reflects the fact that the Mission Statement of both agencies call upon us to do what is appropriate to contribute to the protection of society.
Also with CSC we have to do our utmost to ensure adequate control and structure on conditional release so that offenders do not commit new violent offences; because the consequences of such acts are disastrous for the affected Canadians and they put the credibility of our conditional release system in jeopardy.
.1545
The second point I want to raise is that it is no secret that some realities of the Criminal Justice System are poorly known especially in the area of conditional release, to interested groups and the Canadian public in general.
In response to that, we are currently working on a public education plan which will allow us to do a better job of explaining to the public what we do, how we do it and why we do it. This is not aimed at convincing or converting anyone about anything. It is a plan to inform and explain.
We believe that a well informed public is better equipped to participate in the public debate about conditional release and other corrections issues. To implement this plan, we have started to meet with victims and police groups across the country, and by September, full implementation hopefully in partnership with CSC and any interested groups will begin.
[English]
We are also working very hard at trying to ensure that the material we prepare is suitable for the end user. For example, we are currently consulting with victim groups to determine what they need to know and how we can best present that information to meet their needs. If you or any of your contingency groups would like us to come and meet with you, please give us a call. We remain open to talking about our work and the challenges we face in making decisions.
I've described some of our initiatives that are currently under way, and I'm prepared to deal with your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Langlois, ten minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I will proceed in the order I had set out for myself, even if you raised with certain points I was going to approach somewhat differently.
You indirectly broached the subject of prison overcrowding, and this was discussed yesterday. Are you in a position to give us information or clarification about persons who commit criminal acts and who manifestly are not likely to be repeat offenders and whose incarceration cannot be really justified and who may us part be responsible for the current overcrowding problem in our penitentiaries?
Mr. Gibbs: I didn't understand. You referred to people who are likely to...
Mr. Langlois: People who are not likely to be repeat offenders.
Mr. Gibbs: Repeat offenders.
Mr. Langlois: They've committed minor offences and quite obviously, they will not be repeat offenders. In those cases, imprisonment may not be the best solution. What resources do you have to assess such cases.
Mr. Gibbs: First of all, under the current legislation which dates back to 1992, a provision about the review of expeditious cases was added. This refers to inmates who are incarcerated for the first time. If these inmates are serving sentences for non-violent offences, they are almost automatically released when their case comes up for review. I would say that approximately 80 to 85% of them are released. I have the figures here somewhere. This is how we deal with less serious cases. These individuals do not have to apply for release or appear.
.1550
In more serious cases, namely people who are there for a violent crime or who are incarcerated for the second or third time are subject to a hearing and the assessment of their case is much more serious because of all the risk factors, etc. Therefore, we do have the means to deal with less serious cases.
Mr. Langlois: In your answer, you alluded to the 1992 correctional system legislation. This act provides for compulsory review of certain provisions related to incarceration.
In cooperation with the Canadian correctional system, are you prepared to submit recommendations that will facilitate the review of these provisions of the legislation and, if so, I would like to have some indication about the work that is being done.
Mr. Gibbs: It's being done in two phases. The first was already begun in exactly the way you've just described. This involves all cases of incarceration, and the whole philosophy of incarceration. The report is being prepared right now, but I couldn't tell you exactly where it's at.
Needless to say, you will be informed when the report is tabled sometime after the minister has received it. I don't know exactly how this will work. Naturally, you will be consulted about that report.
We will begin with incarcerations and we will then draft a more global report on the legislation, and that report should be completed by the fall of 1997.
Mr. Langlois: In your opening remarks, you referred to crime victims, who are often completely forgotten in this process, since our system, for all intents and purposes, does not allow them to be heard at the trial stage.
At the parole stage, when an application for a parole is filed under the current legislation, do you have the authority to inform the victims except in the case of murder of course, and could you ask for the advice of these victims?
When there is a possibility of a repeat offence, are you at liberty to inform certain people of the presence of the medium-risk offender? In the case of a very high-risk offender, I suppose that you would deny parole.
Mr. Gibbs: First of all, in cases of murder, there is always the family of the victims. Therefore, there are always victims.
With regard to the first part of your question, in all regions and in all Correctional service establishments, we have staff whose main job is to look after crime victims. Some victims don't want to get involved because they're trying to forget everything.
In the case of victims who do want to get involved, who want to obtain information, they can obtain it when inmates become eligible for a certain forms of conditional release, etc.
.1555
We also use the victims' comments during the trial as well as in court reports. We even request information from victims who are not interested in appearing. Therefore they do have some input in the process.
Victims who want to attend hearings are welcome. I don't think any victims has ever been prevented from attending.
Mr. Langlois: This committee is currently mandated to examine Bill C-226 - which has been renumbered - that seeks to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Given your expertise and that of other members who may be with you today, do you have any opinion you would like to express regarding the application of section 745 of the Criminal Code?
In your opinion, has the application of section 745 given rise to abuse, to the granting of parole in cases that have led to subsequent criminal acts of the same nature, or does this section effectively fulfil the function it had been designed for at the time, that is to impose a compulsory 25-year sentence, while leaving some hope to those who receive such a sentence? Are you in a position to pass judgement on section 745?
Mr. Gibbs: I would prefer to quote our statistics and let you judge for yourselves.
These figures are dated March 31, 1996. They deal mainly with inmates who are serving sentences for first degree murder, but also second degree murder when such inmates are eligible for parole after 15 years or more. But in most cases, the offence was murder in the first degree.
Of 193 eligible inmates, who have already served 15 years of their sentence, 76 applied for paroles in the late 80s. But that figure is increasing every year.
Sixty-five judicial reviews have been completed. Of the 65 cases, 51 had their sentence reduced or their parole eligibility date moved up. In the other 14 cases, the applications were denied.
Mr. Langlois: By the jury?
Mr. Gibbs: By the jury.
Of the 51 people, 40 had been sentenced for first degree murder and 11 for second degree murder.
.1600
Of the 51 eligible inmates, 26 were paroled or are in the process of being paroled, 18 received full parole, 8 received day parole, one died when on full parole and 24 are still incarcerated. Some are granted temporary absences with or without escorts, as the case may be, and so forth, but the number is minimal.
Of all those inmates who have been released on parole, five reoffended or breached the terms of their parole. One of the five was accused of arm robbery, three were reincarcerated and had their parole revoked for breach of terms of parole and one escaped. We don't know where he is; we've lost him. That's the full record.
Mr. Langlois: So, that's five out of 51 if I understand you correctly.
Mr. Gibbs: Yes.
Mr. Langlois: That means a rate of recidivism or a breach of parole of 10 per cent, and one person lost.
Some honourable members: No, no, no.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Langlois, you're at fifteen minutes now. Could we get that number confirmed and move on? What was the correct answer?
Mr. Gibbs: Madam Chair, not all of the 51 were released; 27 were released.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Hanger.
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Gibbs, I have three protected documents. I think they're protected B as noted. They refer to investigations into events surrounding three individuals: David Barlow, John Hutton and Harvey Ilg. All of them were killers and all of them reoffended while out on parole. In fact, Barlow was released in 1993 and was charged in 1994 with attempted murder and again shot at police officers in an armed robbery. Hutton, also a killer, had reoffended in a situation...in and out over the period of releases he had. Harvey Ilg, after being released, was convicted of impaired driving.
In these cases, and in particular Hutton and Barlow, the board of investigation report made reference to something called a seduction-erosion principle. A definition was noted in the Barlow report. It seems to imply that pressure comes to bear on board members and others to release, and no consideration is really given to the safety of the people out on the street. What can you tell me about this business of seduction-erosion that might take place within the board? Where does the pressure come from?
Mr. Gibbs: I think the seduction-erosion principle is when a person spends a long time in an institution and the staff of the correctional service perhaps feels the need to do something with the person. Those cases certainly became serious incidents like this before we had proper risk assessment. Prior to the risk assessment system we have now it was perhaps a little easier for that to take place. If a person had spent a long time inside and was ``a good inmate'', they may have gotten some fairly positive recommendations for release.
.1605
I should point out that after I was appointed to the National Parole Board, those two cases came to my attention quite quickly. It was just before and just after I arrived at the board. I used those two cases, and in particular Hutton, in my opening remarks at the general board meeting back in the spring of 1995 to point out that lifers in particular are very serious cases. We have to ensure that those people have really come to terms with their offence and with their life, and that the risk is very minimal before we consider them for release.
So it was an obvious concern. I don't know if you had the opportunity to read my opening remarks from the general board meeting last year, but I spent quite a bit of time talking about those cases. I think we have improved a great deal since that time.
Mr. Hanger: It's interesting that you would say this, given that these two reports are probably glaring examples of what can go wrong. They point to some serious faults within the system. I don't see them being corrected at this point, given that you have as your main principle, and I believe it's outlined here, that you're responding to criminal justice issues resulting in the safe home, safe street initiatives that the public expects.
I recently went through a couple of the federal penitentiaries and we talked a great deal about risk assessment. I understand that for the most part risk assessment is conducted by members within the CSC in the particular institutions. They advised me that the pressure is even on them to reduce risk assessment, even risk assessment that goes to the National Parole Board. So as not to infringe upon any one particular person who may submit a negative report, they submit generic reports done by committee. Those committee reports fall into the hands of the National Parole Board.
With members like Hutton, who I think was before the board to the tune of 20 times, and Barlow, who was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 times, the pressure would come down upon the board members to make a decision to release. You claim that steps have been taken to prevent that from happening, yet my most recent information from not more than a year ago tells me that CSC is doing the same thing. They feel that the pressure is upon them to submit these kinds of reports to the National Parole Board, and public safety is still in jeopardy.
What steps have you taken to prevent that from happening?
Mr. Gibbs: First of all, our board members were trained in risk assessment prior to CSC staff, so it's not only CSC staff who apply risk assessment. Our own board members do that when they review a case before going to the hearing.
It's not like it was three or even two years ago. It's a different story. We've done a lot of things to correct it. As a result, in the first year, in 1994-95, we had twelve cases of day or full parolees who committed murder. In the last year it has gone down to seven parolees. If you look at the statistics I gave you awhile ago, it's a total of fifteen, but eight of them were committed by statutory release people where we didn't have any discretion.
.1610
So one is too many, but the numbers are coming down. I think the corrective action we've taken is -
Mr. Hanger: What is that corrective action? Have any of your board members been instructed to read these reports?
Mr. Gibbs: All of them.
Mr. Hanger: And you can guarantee that?
Mr. Gibbs: I cannot guarantee that all of them have read all the reports, but I can guarantee that every regional office has the report, with instructions to distribute appropriately to all the board members and the key staff of each office. That I can guarantee you.
Mr. Hanger: You indicated that you were taking corrective steps to overcome this pressure coming on the board member to release. What else were you doing?
Mr. Gibbs: I'm not sure. What else were we -
Mr. Hanger: You said you were taking corrective measures to -
Mr. Gibbs: Right.
Mr. Hanger: Okay, well -
Mr. Gibbs: Our release is based on the risk that the inmates present, the plans that he has for release.
We have a much more elaborate orientation training for all new board members, two weeks-plus, depending on the region. In Quebec it's fourteen working days all together. So we're improving in many areas.
Mr. Hanger: I guess what I'm searching for is something as a guarantee. You might say that the protection of the public is at the top of the list, as opposed to the offender and his wants and needs, but I don't seem to be hearing that.
Mr. Gibbs: Well, protection of the public is our first principle in the act, and we endeavour very seriously -
Mr. Hanger: I know it's stated in there -
Mr. Gibbs: - very seriously -
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, we're over our time, so maybe you can let -
Mr. Gibbs: I just wanted to say that we take that very seriously. You know that we don't get results like this because we're asleep at the switch.
If you look at where we have discretionary powers...of 100% of the serious offences that were committed during the past year, only 9% were committed by day parolees and only 26% by full parolees, a really significant improvement over the previous three years.
If you look at others, the rate for people who complete, let's say, their day parole successfully was 84% last year compared to 78% the year before. Twelve percent were brought back for revocation of condition, not because they committed another crime - only 4% because they've committed another crime. If that's not being serious about the protection of the public, I don't know what is.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Thank you.
First, let me commend you for your presentation this morning. I was really pleased to see you'd focused on the quality of decision-making and the fact that we have some pretty terrific appointments to the board.
From talking to one of the recent appointments I certainly know that the training program you were talking about is quite rigorous and fairly daunting for some of them.
I notice that you said you have a better training program and a better evaluation program. I wondered specifically if you could elaborate on how that evaluation program is going for the current board members and how you're providing feedback to board members on whether their decisions are going well or need to be addressed.
Mr. Gibbs: You're talking about the performance appraisal of each board member?
Ms Torsney: Yes.
.1615
Mr. Gibbs: In the next two or three weeks we'll have completed the second round of these performance appraisals.
The regional vice-chairs - we have five of them across the region - look at a variety of things. First of all, they look very closely at how each individual board member tends to make decisions, they review their decisions, and so on. They look at investigations, reports, if certain board members from that office are involved, and why.
They contact the appeal division in Ottawa to find out how many appeals were reviewed on certain board members and why they would have to reverse the decision if that was the case. So they gather all that information.
We have an eight-point list of criteria where we evaluate the person. Then there's feedback given to the person and a discussion. If the person is satisfied with the pros and cons of the evaluation, right so. If they have arguments, they make them.
Then all those are sent to the central office where we have a review committee made up of myself, Nancy Stableforth and Jim Siberry. We review all the appraisals for every board member. We note any discrepancy, and that is returned again to the board member.
So that's the cycle.
Ms Torsney: Have any board members been recommended for further training?
Mr. Gibbs: Oh, yes. That's obviously a big part of the appraisals. We have what you would call more general training that applies to everyone, and then we have individual training when a person shows certain weaknesses, whether it's writing decisions or whatever.
Ms Torsney: Have any board members decided to move on to a new career as a result of the evaluation process?
Mr. Gibbs: I think we've had some resignations, some people have taken sick leave, but it has not been a mass exodus, no.
Ms Torsney: That's good.
What's in place in terms of letting board members know the results of their decisions on an ongoing basis? Do the board members get notification of those people who have reoffended, for instance?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes. On every decision, every case that backfires, especially if they reoffend, we have a system where we provide that information to the board members. If it's very serious, we have an investigation.
We don't only look at cases that go wrong; we also look at many cases that go right. Given the resources, we've started now to try to pick up the good decisions that were made and why, and start kind of a best-practice environment where we can feed back and say, here's a good way of doing it. We've made some advancement that way.
Ms Torsney: I really appreciated receiving your statistics. I noted that in the second chart, charges by serious offence by release type, you have the information for day parole, full parole and statutory release. I wonder if you have any stats on those who were detained until the very end of their sentence and then went out.
There are a lot of people who say there shouldn't be any parole, we should leave people in until the end of their sentences, and then we won't have that ability to pull them back in if they break the conditions of their parole, for instance.
So there are two trains of thought, and I wondered if there was any statistical support for keeping people in until the end of their sentence.
Mr. Gibbs: We don't have that right now, as we do for these, but I understand that CSC has started the research in that area. I think they've only started with the high-risk offender at the end of their...
You see, there are a few people who complete their statutory release, and they're not necessarily considered very high risk. We detain them for a reason, but perhaps by the time they're released, they're not necessarily high risk at that time.
.1620
I understand that CSC is just looking at the high risk, so it's a limited number. I'm not sure they've taken a look at all warrant expiries, 100% of them, and have done research on that. I can't answer that.
Ms Torsney: I'd like to go back to the evaluation and the changes you've made since you've become chair of the board. It seems as though there have been some pretty big changes happening at the board.
As a result of reviewing the good cases and the bad cases, have you changed and worked with any of the partners that provide you information, whether it's victim statements or the corrections system or whatever, to demand that they change some of their procedures and provide you with different information? If so, can you give us some examples?
Mr. Gibbs: The key is preparation and the analysis of each case by CSC. We always strive to get better information, better analysis. So, yes, at times we find some weaknesses by various means. I meet every six weeks with the CSC commissioner and line up all the problems.
We have recently looked at a risk assessment profile. We want to make sure that there are decision-making policies, that when a case management officer in an institution makes an assessment of risk, it is based on those policies, because it's through our decision-making policy that the person will either be released or will be denied release. We want to make sure that it is in concert with that, so we have done that.
I don't know if my colleagues want to add anything to that.
Basically, we try to work very closely with CSC to improve the case preparation and case analysis.
As far as victims are concerned, obviously they are people whose input we consider very seriously. Recently we started to develop a new information brochure for victims. We've asked various groups, CAVEAT and so on, to provide some input as to what they really want, how they want it, and so on, of course with the current legislation.
If the legislation changes, maybe we can open the door a bit more. The current legislation still fairly limits the kind of information we can give victims, although we can give more to the victim than to the general public.
Ms Torsney: I think my time is probably up, but I wanted to commend you for the last part of your presentation, which was that you're doing some community outreach.
I think a lot more people need to know about what you're doing and how you do your job. That and some good decisions will increase their faith in the work you do and the people who work with you. I really think that's an important role, and I'm glad you're out there doing that.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll start five-minute rounds now. Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: First of all, I'd like to thank Ms Torsney for asking a few questions that I had intended to ask myself. I will therefore take less time.
I would like to clarify somewhat the current evaluation process for board members. Has it improved in the past two years? We have experienced some problems. Have they been remedied?
Mr. Gibbs: I can only repeat what I've said in English. Is that what you want? As I told the honourable member, the process is as follows. The regional vice-chairs conduct an evaluation. They gather information on the decisions made by the board members, whether good or bad. The information is gathered at the Appeal Division in Ottawa, where we examine files on investigation that were conducted about certain inmates that were paroled but that had to be reincarcerated.
.1625
Mr. Langlois: Excuse me, Mr. Gibbs, but that's the answer you gave Ms Torsney.
Mr. Gibbs: That's right.
Mr. Langlois: I probably worded my question badly. Given the process you describe toMs Torsney, have you noted any significant improvement compared to what existed before?
Mr. Gibbs: Last year was the first cycle of the performance appraisals. Before that, there was almost none. There was something, but it had fallen by the way side. It was insignificant. During the first round of appraisals, almost everyone made many suggestions to improve the process, and we took these into account in the cycle that will end within two or three weeks. We will then see if our new formula works better than the one we had last year and whether it produces better results.
Mr. Langlois: On a completely different subject now, we've heard that in the past two years, the temporary board members who were hired may have had - and I'm using the conditional, because this is a question I'm asking you - slightly different remuneration depending on whether they were male or female.
Can you provide us with figures about remuneration so that we can see whether the pay was the same for everyone? If it was the same, this will put an end to these rumours. If it wasn't, it will allow us to take corrective action in this regard.
Mr. Gibbs: I will send you this information. When I took over my position, the per diem for part-time board members was between $400 and $470. Everyone was at the highest level.
I discussed this with my colleagues. I didn't think it was fair because some were board members have more experience and are better qualified and whose performance is therefore better. They should be paid accordingly. They almost all started at the lowest level. When someone is appointed, their salary is negotiated. I can assure you that this has nothing to do with the fact that they are men or women. I will send you the information.
Mr. Langlois: I'd like to thank you. I must leave to go to another meeting. I think that there was a great deal of room for improvement at the board, but in the past two years a lot has been done and I'd like to congratulate you for that.
Mr. Gibbs: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Finlay, you have five minutes.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm filling in for a couple of colleagues.
I very much appreciate your comments, and I am learning a great deal. I'd like to ask a question about the loss of full-time equivalents at the parole board since 1993-94.
I note that the full-time equivalents are now down to 339; they were 381 in 1993. What follows of course? Will this reduction increase the workload of individual parole board members, and if it will, will the reduced human resources affect the ability of the board to thoroughly review and assess an inmate's case file prior to the hearing? Will it have any effect on the reliability of the board's risk-assessment-based decisions? If it will in those cases, then how can you overcome the reduction?
Mr. Gibbs: I can tell you that it's not going to affect the workload. The workload will not be greater than it was last year or the year before. It will not affect the time people put into preparing for cases to be reviewed at the office or in hearings at present.
So, generally speaking, it won't affect the time, the performance, of board members. There are several reasons.
.1630
First, if you have your expenditure book with you, figure 6 on page 16 gives the number of reviews we would do in a year. As you can see, they've been very steady over the last five years; the number is around 25,000. This past year there were something like 2,300 fewer case reviews done.
There are fewer applications, let's say, for day parole. There are a variety of reasons for that. As you may be aware, there was a bit of a dip of quite a few hundred fewer inmates, whereas in penitentiaries the overcrowding is still a problem. But it's not as big a problem today or this year as it was last year and the year before.
Also with the new legislation, we've increased the time required for long-term offenders to have a parole review to up to two years; therefore there are fewer cases to be seen.
Our quorum for board members has gone down from three to two on various cases where it was within our policy. Examples don't come to mind, but the quorum has gone down.
Also, for decisions on provincial cases, we have brought down the quorum from two board members to one. That doesn't prevent the regional vice-chair from increasing that to two if there's a fairly serious provincial case, but generally speaking it's one.
Perhaps there are others my colleagues may add, but all those initiatives have meant that we are doing fewer reviews. Therefore we don't need quite as many board members as we used to.
Mr. Jim Siberry (Executive Director, National Parole Board): If I might just add to that, Madam Chair, a number of the reductions resulted on the staff side of the organization, of course, which didn't impact on the board members' decision-making. Many of those staff were located in the headquarters, in administrative and other support functions that weren't tied to the conditional release decision-making.
The staff who did leave by and large left under the terms of the government's workforce reduction policy, early retirement incentive, and that sort of thing.
Mr. Finlay: What were they doing then?
Mr. Siberry: They would have worked in a number of areas in the headquarters and in administration, as I say, in support functions in support of the corporation, the agency, rather than in support of the board, the decision-making part of the board directly.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you.
Do I have time for one more question?
The Chair: No, but we'll come back to you, if you like.
Mr. Finlay: Okay.
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, you have five minutes.
Mr. Hanger: I'd like to get some clarification on this fast-tracking aspect that takes place within the parole system. I am going to use this Ilg case as an example.
It appeared that Ilg had been released from prison on parole, and in 1992, after his release, he had been convicted of common assault, which involved a sexual assault in effect. His parole was revoked in 1993.
Three months later, in April, he was once given day parole and then later on given full parole. When he was given full parole, of course, he went out and killed his daughter. The initial charges laid were all waived...and again went into the parole mode as if it had never happened.
.1635
Is that still occurring?
Mr. Gibbs: I trust not. When I talked awhile ago about how I gave some very clear direction about dealing with lifers, those were some of the issues we dealt with.
Since that time, prior to the amendments to the CCRA, Bill C-45, we had in policy that usually after a revocation like this one you would wait about a year before the inmate was reviewed again. But there was no obstacle, necessarily, to... You didn't have to wait the year. That's what I'm trying to say. The policy didn't say, ``Thou shalt wait a year'', but you didn't have to review the case before one year. The board could still decide, whether four months or eight months later, to review the case. With the current amendment, it's in legislation that the mandatory review period is set at a year. So it's been reinforced in the legislation.
I would doubt very much, to answer your question, that this would take place today, especially with a person committing another offence. As you know, it's also part of the amendments that now it's an automatic revocation when a person commits another offence.
Mr. Hanger: I think the board members at this particular time were former Tory MP John Gormley, former Saskatchewan Tory Ken Howell and former Tory MP Jack Shields's brother William.
Under Bill C-45 you have powers to direct an inquiry into competency. Has this been done with these people?
Mr. Gibbs: No.
Mr. Hanger: Why not?
Mr. Gibbs: First of all, the provision was enacted in January 1996, and there is no provision to go back. You don't go back retroactively on all the cases that backfired. I mean, this is not the only one that went wrong.
Mr. Hanger: So you're saying that no matter what the competency, or incompetency, of the board members who make decisions such as this, if it's prior to the enactment of Bill C-45 it doesn't apply to them.
Mr. Gibbs: No, I'm not... I was going to try to finish here. We would not ask the minister, based on a case, unless there was gross misconduct, to do an inquiry for the dismissal of a board member. This is not why the disciplinary section was put in the act. It has to be some kind of a pattern and it has to be based on some gross misconduct.
In the investigation on the Ilg case, some parts could have been done better and so on, but no recommendations were made. There was no finding that board members had not applied the various policies they should have applied. There were altogether about four decisions - three for day parole and one for full parole - by about six or seven board members.
Mr. Hanger: I guess I find that -
The Chair: Time's up on that.
Mr. Finlay, five minutes.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair.
In my package here I received information on the National Parole Board corporate policy on aboriginal offenders. It's an area I'm very interested in.
.1640
I note under item 3 it says:
- Board members and hearing assistants shall be sensitive to cultural matters. The elder will be
present throughout the process, including deliberations, to share his/her cultural perspective,
knowledge and insights. The decision makers will incorporate the important aspects of
Aboriginal values, beliefs, ceremonies and teachings relating to healing in their assessment of
readiness for release and written decision.
Mr. Gibbs: There's no doubt that a lot of the programming in penitentiaries over the years was not culturally sensitive, not necessarily geared to aboriginal people. I think Correctional Service Canada now has put that in place. What the board members have to recognize is that those programs could be very beneficial to the inmates. So we have to become more sensitive.
When it comes to the hearings of aboriginal offenders, they are conducted quite differently from regular board hearings. We have an elder who is there as an adviser, who interprets the language in certain cases. It is done in a bit more of an informal fashion. As best as possible, we are still looking at risks very closely.
As far as results are concerned, we're just starting in this direction. We hope the results will come soon, but it's much too early to point to results as far as releasing more at this time or staying out longer, that kind of thing.
Mr. Finlay: Do I take it from your answer, Mr. Gibbs, that Correctional Service Canada is taking similar initiatives with respect to these offenders?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, especially in the prairies. They have one or two elders on contract who are there practically full time. So, yes, they have taken the same direction.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you.
Mr. Wells (South Shore): May I take the rest of his five minutes?
The Chair: Yes, you may.
Mr. Wells: I have just a few questions on the statutory release provisions. I want to get more information on the provisions whereby you can retain somebody beyond the two-thirds if there is some reason to believe they may recommit. Can you tell me how that works in practice, what the process is?
Mr. Gibbs: There are three basic criteria for a detention case to come from CSC. First of all, we have to get the referral from CSC as a detention referral. The criteria are:
1. The person must have committed an offence under the schedule of violent offence...or the schedule 1 or schedule 2, a serious drug-related offence.
2. There ought to have been serious harm to the victim. The amendment to the legislation excluded children. In the case of children, we don't have to prove serious harm.
3. We, both Correctional Service Canada and the parole board, have to be convinced that the person is going to go back into society - after statutory release and before the warrant expiry - and commit another serious offence where serious harm and even death would occur.
.1645
Mr. Wells: How do you determine that?
Mr. Gibbs: Through various information - psychological assessment and sometimes psychiatric - and at the end make the best risk assessment, the best judgment possible. That's how we do it.
The Chair: That's the end, but I can come back to you.
Mr. Hanger, five minutes.
Mr. Hanger: I'd like to go back to the Ilg case. I'm finding it difficult. In 1994 the decision was made to grant full parole in spite of Ilg's background. I look at his history and his failure to comply with anything that was required of him while inside CSC, all of which I assume must have been placed before the board. In spite of the glaring violations during the times he was allowed out prior to this decision, those board members made it clear that they were going to ignore it. Their decision to release this man that cost the life of a person - I don't know what else you can call it other than gross negligence.
Mr. Gibbs: In all the decisions that were made by the board from 1993 - as I said earlier, three decisions for day parole and one for full parole - the recommendation from CSC for release was very strong. They did not point out that this person was not doing what he was supposed to do.
Mr. Hanger: Are you saying that CSC should hang for this?
Mr. Gibbs: I'm not saying anything like that. If I understood your point, you are saying that he was a renegade or whatever inside the institution, and that was ignored by the board members. That was not what was presented to the board. It was presented that he was an appropriate case for re-release, and that's what happened. As far as his behaviour after the full parole that led to the very tragic crime, the board was not notified of that and was not asked to suspend, revoke or anything of that nature.
Mr. Hanger: So you're stating that these three board members acted with justification to grant him full parole.
Mr. Gibbs: Yes. All the decision-making policies were respected.
Mr. Hanger: When the board of investigation reports come out of an incident like this, there is much that is crossed out. Why can't members of Parliament receive copies that are not blanked out like this? What's preventing us from obtaining all the information?
Mr. Gibbs: Madam Chair, you may correct me, but I believe the committee has the authority or the privilege to have in camera hearings, and then the reports are not edited.
Mr. Hanger: So we do have access to all of these reports without this -
Mr. Gibbs: No, I said the committee can have an in camera session. It has happened before and I believe it's still there, but with anything that could go public and so on, we have to take into consideration various privacy legislation and so on.
The Chair: Just as a point of information and not to take away from your five minutes,Mr. Hanger, in the past this committee has made arrangements to meet in camera, not just with this particular witness but with CSIS, SIRC and many other groups to more fully explore where legislation is obstructing the publication of particular information.
.1650
Mr. Hanger: I would like to make that application in reference to...in this particular case it's Barlow, but also Ilg.
The Chair: If you would like to do that, there's a procedure to do it. We could take it up when we don't have a witness here, unless you want to forego the -
Mr. Hanger: I'll make application at another time through a motion.
The Chair: That's fine. That's your right.
Did you have more questions? You have half a minute left.
Mr. Hanger: You may go to the other side. I'll have another one here in a minute.
The Chair: Yes, we're coming to the end of our time.
Mr. Wells.
Mr. Wells: I want to follow up on the statutory release provisions and get more concrete information on the numbers that may have been retained in custody to the expiry of the sentence under the provisions. That may be in some of the material you've provided.
Mr. Gibbs: It's on page 17 of your expenditure plan.
Mr. Wells: For some reason I don't have that one, or I left it in my office.
Mr. Gibbs: You can pass him a copy.
First of all, you will note that the legislation for detention was enacted 10 years ago, in 1986. So it took about 5 years to get to 379, including original or initial detention reviews and subsequent. Those are the reviews. They're increasing. In 1994-95 there were a little over 200 more than -
Mr. Finlay: We can't seem to find it in the book.
Mr. Gibbs: Page 17, figure 8.
Mr. Finlay: My book says 216, 217. Perhaps it's the wrong book.
Mr. Gibbs: Do you have the right one now?
I think we have around 400 cases right now that are being detained. Yes, those are reviews. I wish I could find that. They're increasing all the time, but that is the reality.
If you look at another part of this, where we have the increase in inmates who are serving time for violent offences in penitentiary...
Mr. Siberry: It is page 16.
Mr. Gibbs: At the top of page 16, figure 5, it shows that five years ago we had 53% who were serving time for violent offences and 46% or 47% non-violent. Now it's up to nearly 82%. All of this impacts on the lower grant rate that we have and the increase in detention cases.
.1655
Mr. Wells: Oh, that's good. For some reason I didn't have this booklet. Perhaps it's in my office, so I'll go back. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Finlay, you have a couple of minutes.
Mr. Finlay: Some commentators have argued that the reluctance of National Parole Board members to grant full parole to all but low-risk offenders is in part responsible for the current prison overcrowding problem in this country. Do you agree with this assessment? Have full parole grant rates decreased in recent years? If yes, by how much and over what time period? Do we have those figures? What role do public fear and opinion about crime and parole play in influencing the decisions of board members?
Mr. Gibbs: First of all, I don't think overcrowding in institutions can be attributed very much - I'm not saying not at all, but not very much - to the way the National Parole Board behaves, whether it grants or denies. In the last four or five years the population in the institutions has gone up maybe 22% or 25%, whereas our grant rate has declined but only by 5% or 6%. So it's not that low. The grant rate for the past year has been 34% for full parole. Over about the last ten years it has fluctuated from about 30% to 38%, so we're at about average.
Where we have lower grant rates is with day parolees. That has come down quite a bit. We have the figures on page 22 of this book. You will see there that it has come down. There are also fewer applications for day parole.
We are being more cautious. When you base your release or non-release on a thorough risk assessment, you're careful that you make the right decision.
So it impacts, but I don't think that... Over the years our conditional release population has been around 9,000 or 9,400. It's still around 9,000 today. Right now, of the whole federal population, 62% are inside penitentiaries and 38% are on conditional release, including the three types of release. Over the years it was a little higher on conditional release. It's come down 3% to 4% over the past few years.
The Chair: We're now at the end. Do you have another question?
Mr. Hanger: Yes, I do. We're going to 5:30 p.m., are we not? That's what the agenda states.
The Chair: I think that may have been a mistake from the clerk. Our normal stopping time is5 p.m. In any event, take one more round.
Mr. Hanger: Would you define recidivism for me? Is there just one definition?
Mr. Gibbs: There probably are a lot. I'll give you my definition. There's the recidivism that goes to warrant expiry. That is where the federal authorities, CSC and the National Parole Board, have authority over the person. To me, recidivism in those cases means the ones who break the law again while on conditional release or who are revoked for breaking the conditions of parole.
.1700
Mr. Hanger: Up to what time?
Mr. Gibbs: Up to expiry.
Mr. Hanger: In other words, if they are released two years prior to their warrant expiry, recidivism in this term means until warrant expiry and nothing beyond.
Mr. Gibbs: I was going to get to that. Then there's long-term recidivism.
In the case of full parole, for example, because day parole is too short, the success of day parole isn't much higher because it's only four or six months at a time. So if you only have one or two shots at it, you're more likely to succeed. Full parole can last years and years, as you well know.
In the case of full parole, the success rate is generally from 70% to 75%. However, if you follow cases for 5 years or 10 years after the warrant expiry, it comes down to about 65%. In some cases they backfire after they've finished their parole supervision. So long-term recidivism gets higher.
Mr. Hanger: Are there specific time limits placed on these rates? When you talk about long term, are you talking about three years, five years?
Mr. Gibbs: That depends. Some time back, I think it was 15 years altogether, CSC looked at various conditional release cases. So, yes, they were followed 5 years or 10 years after the warrant expiry. The reason we concentrate on that so much up to the warrant expiry is because they are our responsibility. We want to make sure they reach at least that, and hopefully much longer.
Mr. Hanger: I did need clarification on that. It's still not that clear, because you're only taking it from your perspective in parole. From what I can tell, when they talk about recidivism rates, the stats reflect different things to different people. So I guess I'm no further ahead.
The other point I wanted to bring up was that of sexual offenders in prison, on the federal side. In a number of prisons where they house both sexual offenders and other violent offenders, there's significant tension within those institutions.
On the provincial side, of course, Headingley jail was one where there was quite an attack made on the second floor of that institution, and many of the sexual offenders were assaulted.
Obviously, it's reflecting too in the decision that parole boards make and in the risk assessment done within the institutions. In some cases they get them out early.
I was wondering how the parole board reviews sex offenders and the risk assessment reports, given the fact that, again, as noted before, there seems to be that pressure for release.
Mr. Gibbs: Whether there is pressure or otherwise, the law stipulates when a person is eligible for parole. You cannot release a person before one-third...unless there is six months of day parole. That's it. Besides that, you have to wait until the person is eligible. Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders are not all the same. There are very violent ones and so on.
Mr. Hanger: I'm aware of that.
Mr. Gibbs: The programs being offered to sex offenders have been increased. I don't know if you saw the CSC statistics over the last few years, but I think it's 5 times or 10 times more than what it was before. The programs are geared to the categories of sex offenders, and the risk is based on whether or not the inmate has benefited from those programs.
.1705
As far as curing sex offenders, I think psychologists, psychiatrists have agreed pretty well that there's no cure, but there is very good programming to ensure that the proper control and relapse prevention and so on can work very well. In fact, the recidivism rate for sex offenders tends to be lower than the average.
Mr. Hanger: Do you feel that the parole board has power enough to retain an individual indefinitely, especially a sex offender, if he has failed to comply with any programs, failed to participate in any way in those directives that are given to him while inside, and it clearly shows that he's going to reoffend from psychiatric reports when he's released? Do you feel that the parole board should have power to hold somebody indefinitely?
Mr. Gibbs: Well -
Mr. Hanger: I know there are occasions -
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, let him answer because we're at seven minutes here in a five-minute round.
Mr. Gibbs: Madam Chairman, I should point out that that very issue - high-risk offenders - is under consideration by both the Minister of Justice and SOLGEN. It's being looked at now. Under the current situation it's not there.
I'm not sure I should comment further on that, considering it's before two ministers. So I'll leave it at that. We do it obviously where we have authority, at statutory release.
The Chair: That's our time for today. I want to thank you for appearing. If I understandMr. Hanger correctly, we may be seeing you again. Thank you.