EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 9, 1995

.0934

[English]

The Chairman: We'll commence this morning's Justice meeting.

Today we have appointees to the National Parole Board for examination by the committee. We have before us Catherine Knox, who has been appointed to the National Parole Board, prairie regional division.

Good morning, Ms Knox.

The procedure we have here consists of questions and answers by the opposition and by government. You could make an opening statement, but generally on these appointments one is not made and we simply proceed to questions and answers. I believe everyone has your curriculum vitae.

Who from the Reform Party wishes to start?

.0935

Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Good morning, Catherine.

I should open by saying I have spent a great many days in parole board hearings across this country, in a great number of hearings. I've seen some good decisions and I've seen some bad decisions. I happen to think qualifications are very important and personal circumstances surrounding appointments are very important.

I wonder if you would share with us your views as far as parole goes. Do you think it's necessary? What's the value of a parole board?

Ms Catherine M. Knox (National Parole Board, Prairie Regional Division): I consider the parole system, as a conditional release system, to be an essential component of our criminal justice system.

Our realities are such that a number of the population will engage in criminal activity, and a necessary consequence of that for many of them will be a period of incarceration, but inevitably most of them will be returning to live in the community. Parole provides a means to supervise and structure those returns to assist them in reintegrating in a positive way. For many people, that makes the difference between whether they do successfully resume a law-abiding life and whether they return to criminal activity.

Mr. White: Regarding your appointment, I don't know if it's fair or right to ask this, but are you a member of or do you have an affiliation with any political party?

Ms Knox: Sir, I do not and I have never had an affiliation with any political party.

The Chairman: Mr. White, I can indicate that I'll give you leeway in that area, but there has been a ruling of the Speaker that it is not a matter that goes to qualifications or competence of an individual.

Mr. White: It doesn't, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately those things happen in this day and age, as we know.

The Chairman: Well, Mr. White, it may happen, but the question is competence of the individuals appointed. That's what the Standing Order rule indicates and that's why the members appear before us.

Proceed.

Mr. White: Ms Knox, what is your opinion about having victims on parole boards?

Ms Knox: A great deal of my work in the past ten years has been spent working with victims and advocating for victims. In the past, victims have been sorely misrepresented within our criminal justice system. They've in fact been ignored.

There is a role for victims to play. Some victims may be able to appropriately do work on a parole board, but I would have to say it would very much depend on the individual and on the personal philosophy they would bring to the board, including their response to their victimization.

Mr. White: Thank you.

Could you give us your views on section 745 of the Criminal Code?

Ms Knox: Section 745 of the Criminal Code, as I recall, is the section that allows for the review of the 25-year minimum sentence.

Mr. White: Yes.

Ms Knox: That section I understand is just now being used because of the timeframe within which it's been imposed. Depending again on the particular circumstances of a case, I consider it to be an appropriate tool to be available, as long as it doesn't mean that everybody who makes an application fifteen years into their sentence is granted a release.

There may be some people for whom it's appropriate. Equally, there may be many people for whom it is not appropriate.

Mr. White: So I guess you are suggesting life doesn't mean life, but life is fifteen years or more.

Ms Knox: Sir, I'm not suggesting it doesn't mean life. I'm saying there may be some circumstances where it might be appropriate to review the 25-year minimum.

Mr. White: Would you think there are circumstances where life sentences without parole would be appropriate?

Ms Knox: Most definitely, sir.

Mr. White: How does a parole board member represent a position on the parole board? Would you think you represent the views of your community or a specific case? What ideologies do you come to the parole board with?

.0940

Ms Knox: I would see the ideology one should bring to the parole board as somewhat of a quasi-judicial role - to be aware of and have some understanding of all of the issues and to attempt to render judgment that is objective and independent of any one particular force. It should be an objective judgment, made with full knowledge and possession of all of the facts, designed with the primary interest to protect the community but also to facilitate, where possible, the successful integration of an inmate back into the community.

Mr. White: I've been involved in several circumstances where murder was involved. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been at sentencing hearings where I believe the parole board made an incorrect decision. Do you think there should be some form of repercussion or some form of action taken when parole boards make bad decisions, or is that, in your opinion, just part of the risk involved in making decisions?

Ms Knox: I believe parole board members should be required to exercise professional, informed judgment. The reality is they are being asked to predict future human behaviour.

Prediction of future human behaviour is an extremely inexact science. If decisions are rendered with all of the best information possible and it turns out somehow that one of them is a wrong decision in the sense that the person who was released reoffends, then I think there's a responsibility to look at the whole picture and not to say automatically, ``Oh, my God! That was a terrible decision. He should never have been let out.''

Sometimes people who are let out with the least likely predictability of reoffending or acting in a violent manner do indeed become violent. Some people who are released who are extremely violent or have been extremely violent in the past do not in fact reoffend.

I think it's erroneous to assume that if something happens, the parole board member made a wrong decision. The decision should be examined and certainly very carefully scrutinized, but I do think it is an error to immediately assume a mistake was made by the parole board member.

Mr. White: So then a review would be in order in the circumstances.

Ms Knox: I think a review would be highly appropriate for all parties involved, including a parole board member.

If I made a decision or was party to a decision to release somebody and he became involved in a violent offence such as a rape, a murder or whatever, I would want someone to sit with me and review my judgment to see if in fact there was something I had missed or something I could have done differently or whether it was just one of those things that nobody had any means of predicting.

Mr. White: Could you tell me the specific training, qualifications, skills and abilities you think you have for this position?

Ms Knox: I have a degree in social work that I obtained in 1977. Following the completion of that degree program, I worked for approximately two years as an adult probation officer with the Newfoundland Department of Justice. I was responsible for supervising persons placed on probation and doing pre-sentence assessments for judges to assist them in determining the appropriate disposition.

Following that position, I obtained employment with the Correctional Service of Canada and worked as a parole service officer for approximately two years. At that time, I made a decision that I wished to enter law school. I applied and successfully completed a law degree at Dalhousie University.

Following the completion of my law degree, I was hired and worked for the Department of Justice of the Government of Newfoundland as a crown attorney for ten years. I ceased that employment in April of this year. During that ten-year period, the majority of my work was in areas of high-profile victim crimes.

I've done a lot of work with persons who have been victims of domestic assaults and elder assaults, and with child victims of sexual and physical assaults. I've been extensively involved in training police officers, social workers and all other persons within the professional community who work with individuals who are victims of crime and offenders as to the appropriate and proper way to deal with victims of crime, offenders and others.

It is that background that I bring to the position.

.0945

Mr. White: Thank you. That's impressive.

Correctional Service Canada has a project known as Project Bleach. It's providing one-ounce bottles of bleach for the purpose of sterilization of needles for cocaine intake by inmates to prevent the spread of HIV. Would you, as a parole officer, agree with that approach?

Ms Torsney (Burlington): It has nothing to do with parole.

Mr. White: It certainly has a lot to do with parole.

Do you think that would impact the circumstances under which a person is released and then maybe reoffends? Would the parole board look at the...?

Ms Knox: I would have to say I don't feel qualified to answer that question. I know little of the program, I know nothing of the philosophy behind it, and frankly it's not something I have the expertise to respond to.

Mr. White: Would a program like that impact on parole boards?

Ms Knox: It would depend. If inmates were involved in episodes in the institution that caused them to display behaviour that should be considered when you're assessing the propensity to reoffend, or whether they have a propensity of violence, certainly that's a consideration for the parole board.

With the kind of program you're talking about, as I said, I really don't feel, in an abstract kind of way, I'm in a position to comment on whether I approve or disapprove.

Mr. White: Thank you very much for your answers.

The Chairman: Is there a member from the government side who wishes to ask any questions? Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I have just a few questions. I wonder, Ms Knox, if you could tell us what kind of training you received after you were appointed to the parole board.

Ms Knox: Following my appointment on August 29 this year, I was contacted and scheduled to begin a training program with five other individuals who had just been appointed. The first thing I was asked to do was attend at an institution and observe parole board hearings for a day, which I did, prior to starting my training. Following that I attended a training program for two weeks of classroom instruction. The two weeks of that program were very intense and gave us information about the kinds of releases provided for under the Parole Act, and the kind of information that would be made available to allow us to make decisions as to whether or not either of those forms of release should be granted.

Because we were working in the prairie region, we were also given some training around special interests. For example, we were given some training about the involvement of elders in hearings for native offenders. We spent some time with an elder being made aware of issues that are peculiar to the aboriginal population.

Following that two weeks of in-class training we were taken to institutions within the Saskatchewan area and required to attend and observe hearings. Prior to attending and observing the hearings, we were each given the files that would be considered. We were required to do the decision-making process and record the decisions as we would have made them. At the conclusion of the hearings we were brought back into the classroom for a day, and our decision-making was critiqued against the decision-making the regular board members had been involved in.

Next week I'm scheduled to attend another full week of training in Saskatchewan. I've just received the agenda on it. Again, a number of topics will be covered. In particular, we will be spending some time looking at the new legislation, Bill C-45. But up to this time my training has been on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you believe there are inmates who are incarcerated for certain types of crimes for which you must proceed with extreme caution in considering whether to grant parole or not?

Ms Knox: I've always believed that, not only in a parole context. As a prosecutor I was also required to make decisions on how to proceed with charges and sentencing hearings. I maintain the view today that there are some people who must be dealt with very cautiously regarding their release. Equally, I'm of the view that there are many people who come into the system who, with the proper supports and training, can in fact be returned to lead a law-abiding life in the community.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you think that is related in any way to the type of crime? Or is it more related to the personality quirks or traits of the individual?

.0950

Ms Knox: In many instances it's very difficult to separate the personality traits of the individual from the type of crime he's incarcerated for. Almost inevitably there's a correlation between them. Occasionally you will see an individual charged with a crime that's quite out of keeping with his usual character. That, of course, would require some special consideration. But my experience in the past 18 years has been that there is very much of a correlation between the personality and the crime cycle.

Mr. Gallaway: What do you believe the role of the victim's input ought to be at a parole hearing?

Ms Knox: I think victims have two roles to play at parole hearings. First, victims can give information and a perspective on the individual who has been considered for release that is not really available through the professional authorities. What the police, psychologists, and caseworkers relate does not always give as full and complete a picture of an individual when he is on the street as we can get from a victim.

Apart from the information they may give about the individual, I also believe there's a certain healing benefit to victims in being able to participate in the system. It allows them to feel like they're taking back some control of what has happened to them, which in many instances has devastated their lives.

It is an extension of the kind of benefit I see victims getting from being allowed to participate in the pre-incarceration process - the time we spend with them when we're preparing for court hearings. Allowing them to do victim impact statements at sentencing hearings is often a very beneficial thing. As I said, apart from the considerations of the parole, I do think it has some benefit for victims as well.

Mr. Gallaway: Within Canada, in certain quarters with certain philosophies, there's a belief that parole shouldn't exist anymore. In certain states of the United States it just doesn't exist now and has been repealed. In certain philosophical camps within Canada there's a belief that parole should only be applicable in very limited circumstances. This may be somewhat of a rehash of a previous question, but how do you feel about the role of rehabilitation as opposed to the role of punishment? In other words, should we revoke the whole concept of parole and keep them locked up?

Ms Knox: My understanding of the process, as it's unfolding in the United States, is that the switch that has been made within its system has not been successful; as least statistics don't appear to support it to date.

I can relate to my own personal experiences as both a probation officer and a parole officer and say there have been many instances where people who I thought had the potential to continue to slide into more serious and continuing criminal activity pulled back, got control of their lives and made positive decisions about their futures.

In the little time I've spent on the parole board to date, and at the hearings I've attended, I've seen a number of people who I think have great potential to do well, given the proper supports and supervision. I suspect in the cases I've seen, and I know in cases I have worked with, that if the supervision and supports had not been there, the prospects for success for these individuals would have been extremely diminished.

Mr. Gallaway: You have been a crown prosecutor for some 10 years. I wonder if you could just indicate to us the type of cases you prosecuted, or did it run the whole gamut?

Ms Knox: For a number of reasons after I returned and began working as a prosecutor, including my background in social work, I became involved in the kind of prosecutions that had very sensitive victims. I did a lot of work, for example, with victims of sexual assault. I returned to Newfoundland when there was just beginning to be an acceptance of the extensive number of children who were victims of sexual assault. I essentially took over the responsibility for prosecuting those kinds of offences.

That spiralled into the eventual revelations in Newfoundland, within a couple of years of my return there, of a great deal of abuse within the clergy. I was involved in prosecuting a number of the clergymen who were charged with offending against children. This ultimately resulted in my taking responsibility for the prosecution of all the brothers who were charged in the Mount Cashel orphanage scandal that was revealed in 1988. Between 1989 and 1992, I had the exclusive responsibility for prosecuting the persons who were charged in the Mount Cashel offences. Following the conclusion of that, I continued to be involved in a lot of prosecutions for high-profile victim crimes, murders, sexual assaults, physical assaults, domestic violence.

.0955

As I indicated earlier, as a result of my responsibilities in those areas and concerns that I had about the way the system was working, I worked very closely with other authorities, both policing and social service delivery and medical, to do a lot of training so that those kinds of victims could be dealt with more appropriately within our criminal justice system. Primarily, however, my work has been dealing with victims of very violent, very intrusive crimes.

Mr. Gallaway: Thank you. Those are all my questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. White, anything further?

Mr. White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that when you attend these parole hearings, you see a number of the inmates taking courses, usually three years prior to getting out. It seems almost like the thing to do to impress the parole board. What are your feelings on courses taken by inmates? Are they productive? Are they...?

Ms Knox: Sir, I would have to say that my own personal experience and my dealings with offenders over the years would cause me to suspect that each one of them has to be looked at on its own merits. We all know many of the people who are in the criminal justice system are very experienced at being con artists, and many of them are very good at playing the game. Some of them will in fact take courses to impress the board because they think it is a way for them to get an early release.

At the risk of sounding very hard-nosed, I am not easily conned. I haven't been easily conned for many years, and I think I can bring that same level of knowledge of human behaviour that I have acquired over the years to my job as a parole board member.

Mr. White: That's good to hear.

Another case I had occasion to hear about was that of an individual who was up in front of the parole board at a hearing and who was due out on mandatory release. He had had 39 convictions since 1975. I guess the parole board probably knew what was going to happen when they let him out and that it would be no surprise to anybody. What is your opinion of these kinds of repeat offenders? Should they be incarcerated for life if they are not rehabilitatable? How do you handle a circumstance like that?

Ms Knox: Again, sir, it's very difficult to give a single answer to a very broad question. I do believe each case has to be assessed on its own particular facts. I do believe there are individuals who should in fact be detained because the risk that they will offend within the community again is so extremely high that it should not be taken. But I think it would be wrong to make a policy decision that says everybody who reaches this point will be forever incarcerated. I do think there is a place for judgment and a place for exercising discretion. Good judgments that will allow some of those individuals to reintegrate into the community can be made.

I come back to my earlier comment that predicting human behaviour is a very inexact science. Each individual has potential to change. Many of them will not, but I do think we have the tools within the parole system and the prison system to allow us to do some assessment of potential and to sometimes recognize that there has indeed been a positive change and that it is safe, or reasonably safe, to release an individual back into the community.

.1000

Mr. White: A question was asked of you on victim impact statements. What is your position on verbal, rather than written, impact statements at parole board hearings?

Ms Knox: Again I would have to say this has certain implications that I'm not sufficiently informed on in order to deal with it in terms of management and policy. I've often used verbal victim impact statements in a court setting, but that had the kind of structure that made it a viable option. Within a parole board hearing - and you've indicated that you've attended many - it could work fine in some instances, but I can see others in which it would be extremely difficult to have a victim required or expected to do a verbal statement because the environment is not necessarily supportive of victims at this point in time.

Again, and at the risk of sounding like I'm copping out, I guess I would have to go back to what I say about offenders: to some extent it may have to do with the ability of the particular victim.

Mr. White: I attended a session called ``Dialogue in the Pen'' at one of our medium penitentiaries about six or seven months ago. A great case was put forward by the inmates to parole board members, the staff of the prison, politicians and so on, about the legalization of marijuana. The presentation was such that a lot of individuals would not be incarcerated if it were legal. They get into prison and bad habits start, and that sort of thing.

I had a great discussion with the parole board about that particular position. If it were legalized, would the fact that a person was using marijuana on the inside impact on the parole board decision in terms of whether or not he should be let out? Do you have any comments on that?

Ms Knox: I'm not quite sure about where you're going. If somebody is using marijuana inside, do I think he should be let out or not let out?

Mr. White: If it were legalized, would it be any bigger a detriment on decisions that parole board members make?

Ms Knox: That's kind of like asking me if I know an inmate used home brew in the institution.

Mr. White: Which they do.

Ms Knox: Yes, sir. I'm very aware of that. As I told you, I'm not easily conned.

I would have to say that is just too nebulous for me to respond.

Mr. White: All right, that's fair.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Do you think that with crimes that are committed and include a sexual assault offence, rehabilitation is less likely for a person than it is with other crimes, even though the level of violence might be relatively low?

Ms Knox: I consider all sexual assaults to be violent whether or not there is a display of physical violence. By its very nature, a sexual assault is an act of violence. The level of intrusiveness may vary but the violence is present at all times.

With sexual offenders, we know many of them have particular characteristics that require extensive therapy and treatment. Again, to some extent that depends on the kind of crime they've committed, the nature of the victims they pick on, how often they've done it, the particular interest or acknowledgement they may have of the dysfunction that causes them to engage in assaultive sexual behaviours. I hate to sound like a social worker, but I again go back to my philosophical position that these individuals have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I think we make an error in judgment if we assume we can arbitrarily dictate a policy to deal with a particular group of individuals.

Mr. Knutson: My point is that if we accept that generally they require treatment or therapy, whereas someone else who commits a certain particular crime may simply need to grow up, do you think the system is providing that kind of treatment or therapy?

.1005

Ms Knox: I think that in some instances treatment and therapy are being provided within the system. However, I would feel that what can be provided in the system, if it is available, would be insufficient and that there would necessarily need to be a follow-up outside of an institutional setting. I don't think that a propensity for sexual misconduct is one that can be cured by a one-shot kind of therapy session or treatment session. Unfortunately, it's not able to be fixed in that manner. It's a lifelong problem for many individuals and it will require lifelong interventions and support to ensure that it doesn't recur.

Mr. Knutson: Generally, is that happening? Are people who are being released, either after the end of their sentence or on parole, getting that kind of lifelong support or treatment?

Ms Knox: Any individuals who are being released with whom I have any involvement who have a history of sexual offending will have, if not a lifelong provision of support - because I can't require that...will certainly have it as a precondition to their release. Unless they agreed to that being a part of their release program for its duration, I would have extreme reservations about releasing them, and in fact would vote to deny them release.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Knox, for appearing before the committee. I'm sure that not only have the committee members been interested in the parole system, but you've educated a number of us on the role of the parole. Thank you very much.

Ms Knox: Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll take a break of approximately 18 minutes so that we can be set up for the next person by teleconference.

.1025

The Chairman: Order. I think we have enough members. We will start now.

For the further examination of parole board appointees, we have Robert Heinrichs of Swift Current, who is an appointee to the prairie regional division.

The way we will proceed this morning, Mr. Heinrichs, is that members of the Reform Party will have 10 minutes to ask you questions and for you to answer, and then we'll go to the government side for a similar question and answer period if there are questions by members. If there are many questions, we will go for 45 minutes. If we run out of question, we'll quit in quicker time than that.

So we'll proceed with the Reform Party for the first 10 minutes. Mr. White, proceed, please.

Mr. White: Good morning, Mr. Heinrichs.

Mr. Robert R. Heinrichs (National Parole Board, Prairie Regional Division): Good morning, Mr. White.

Mr. White: Just one moment, please.

The Chairman: There is no statement.

Mr. White: No statement?

The Chairman: No, generally on these we proceed with straight questions and answers because of the 45-minute period.

Mr. White: Mr. Heinrichs, as you know, parole boards make good decisions and they make bad decisions at times, I would suggest.

My first question is regarding accountability. When a criminal gets out of the penitentiary and reoffends, and reoffends in particular on something he was incarcerated for in the first place, what kind of accountability do you think a parole board member has to that?

Mr. Heinrichs: I think he has, I guess, a direct responsibility because he made the decision that allowed the person early release to begin with. So I suppose the accountability that's in place is, first of all, to the vice-chair and to the chair of the parole board itself. I'm pretty sure there would be some sort of internal investigation, and as the decision-maker, you would be called to answer for your decision very quickly, internally.

I also suspect, though, that there is a certain degree of public accountability, and that there should be, probably, because these are life and death decisions. They're not insignificant. They're extremely important decisions. I think the public accountability you'll get through the press, saying that so-and-so was released, this was the sensational incident that happened, and these are the board members that made that decision...then you as a board member have to defend that decision.

If you can defend it - you went through the criteria you were supposed to and it's a defensible position - then you should be okay. If it's not a defensible decision and you can't show that you considered the criteria that the legislation requires you to consider when you're making decisions of that sort, then it's not a very good decision. I suspect a part-time member like me, at any rate, would be used less frequently, if at all, if that ever happened.

Mr. White: Do you think a process of suspension or reprimand to parole board members is appropriate?

Mr. Heinrichs: I think possibly if it's a continuing problem.

I would see it the same as almost any job, the same as my job here. If I am not performing in my job as a lawyer here in Swift Current, or if staff and my associates aren't performing, you first will address the problem: here's where you're not performing; here's what you should do to take steps to try to correct that problem. If it's something you can correct within three or six months and it is corrected, fine. If it's something you can correct within three or six months and the problems continue to recur, then there's a deeper underlying problem, I suppose; and at that point if steps can't be made to fix it, you start to wonder if the person is in the right business.

That's the way I would look at my own job here, and I can't see any difference with this one.

Mr. White: Mr. Heinrichs, were you contacted for this position, or did you apply for it through some other source?

Mr. Heinrichs: I applied for it in the usual course. It's advertised. There's a notice in the Gazette. I applied for it, sent the resumé and a covering letter into the parole board office in Ottawa, and got the usual letter back acknowledging receipt of my application. Then subsequently I was contacted for the interview. But that's how I came about it.

Mr. White: What part of your background, then, makes you most qualified for this position?

.1030

Mr. Heinrichs: I think it's a combination. I understand that the members on the panel have my CV. I've had a number of different jobs in various parts of the criminal justice system throughout all of my working career, starting fairly young.

I was taking a psychology degree to begin with, and had a summer job as a summer constable. That was my introduction to the criminal justice system, when I had a job as a summer constable with the Saskatoon police at the front end of the criminal justice system.

I went back to school, and in between years of university I was a full-time guard at the regional psychiatric centre in Saskatoon, which is a psychiatric hospital but also a maximum-security prison. I trained in Edmonton for that. I did that for a couple of years, and I think that really helped acclimatize me to prison life. It's not the same as our life out here, and coming from my background, which was a very average, normal upbringing, it was not something I had seen before.

Those two years as a penitentiary guard were extremely good experience.

I spent years in law school and then articled with federal Justice, prosecuting, defending. All the years that I've had at the private bar are the ones that I think helped me more with the decision-making. I think being a lawyer is the one that helps me with the decision-making aspect of the job. I think being the penitentiary guard is the one that helped me familiarize myself with the very different road that prisons are.

Mr. White: Mr. Heinrichs, what is your position regarding having victims on parole boards? Is it an appropriate thing to do?

Mr. Heinrichs: Victims as board members or victims attending the hearings?

Mr. White: As board members.

Mr. Heinrichs: I suppose it's appropriate only if they're on there not by virtue of the fact that they are a victim but by virtue of the fact that they're qualified to make those kinds of decisions.

Mr. White: What is your position on statutory release? How do you feel about it?

Mr. Heinrichs: I think it's important. Working as a guard - and I think all the other guards I ever knew would agree that conditional release and, at the end of that, statutory release, if they're not out on any earlier form of conditional release, is important. It's important to give the inmates something to work for. It's for the protection of society. If they're in there not taking any programs, not getting any training, and they get out at warrant expiry, then I would suggest that's not in the best interests of society, that's not protecting society's interests.

If, however, they've been taking some training and they get to the statutory release date, if they're going to be a potential danger, then there is authority to detain them beyond that. So that's good legislation.

But if they get out, then it's good for them to have something to work for.

Mr. White: Prior to parole, many inmates take courses. It's notable that usually it is about two or three years before they're up for parole hearings. In my opinion, they take the courses to impress the board. Do you think all of these courses are valuable? Are they really getting rehabilitated through courses? Can you give me some general opinions on how you feel about courses taken in prison?

Mr. Heinrichs: They're valuable if the person who is taking them is really taking them because he wants to address the problems for which he's in there. For example, if it is a sex offender and he's taking sex offender treatment not to impress the board and try to get out on conditional release but because he doesn't understand why he is that way and he wants to address that problem, then they're valuable.

That's where the judgment call comes in, and that's where the documents that we get from Correctional Services of Canada as we're preparing for the hearings we go to are very important, because the case management teams in the prisons that work with the inmates are best suited to see whether this particular individual is responding sincerely or whether he's conning the system, whether he's just there trying to get brownie points so the board will kick him out.

Mr. White: How do you feel about victim impact statements, the potential of them being given verbally as opposed to written? It's not the situation today, but would you agree to that?

Mr. Heinrichs: No.

Mr. White: Why not?

Mr. Heinrichs: I don't know. I haven't really thought about that. I suppose I think it's good that they're written because frequently people have a lot of trouble putting their feelings or their thoughts.... It's a lot easier to put it in writing when you have time to think about it and do it ahead of time and submit it than it is to do it verbally. I've never really thought about it.

Do you mean verbally right at the same hearing where they are considering the conditional release of the inmate?

Mr. White: That's right.

.1035

Mr. Heinrichs: I never really thought about that. If that was the legislation and if that was allowed, certainly I would go along with it. I am not sure what benefit that would be to the victim, really.

They are there. Quite frequently I have been at panel hearings at which they were there. They are sitting at the back. At the ones I have been on - I have fairly limited experience at this point - they haven't particularly wanted to confront verbally, in the same room, the person who offended against them.

So I'm not sure there is a use for it, but I guess if that was the legislation, then it is certainly something you obviously would go along with.

Mr. White: Okay. Mr. Heinrichs, I recently attended a parole board hearing in which an individual had 39 convictions since 1975. He was up for release.

Faced with that kind of situation in which the individual could be considered a repeat offender, what exactly goes through a parole board member's mind when they release them? Do you think there should be options for parole board members perhaps other than just mandatory release?

Mr. Heinrichs: You're talking about somebody who comes up to their statutory release date. It's not full parole, or day parole; it's SR, statutory release.

The Chairman: It could be, yes.

Mr. Heinrichs: It's something like that.

If it was an earlier form of release, such as full parole or day parole or something like that, the board members who are making the decision about releasing that individual are going to be extremely careful to look at the file to see whether he has been on any form of conditional release before. If so, what kind? How stringent were the conditions that were put on him? How did he perform? Was the release successfully completed, or was he back inside because he reoffended and the release was terminated early?

If it is a detention hearing at which the board has the authority to detain him, again, you look through the criteria the act requires you to look through. If he fits into those criteria, he doesn't get released.

It is the protection of society that you are always looking at. The parole board is a releasing authority. The legislation is clear on that. It says the primary concern and factor that they have to consider in guiding their decisions is the protection of society. Can they successfully reintegrate somebody like you just mentioned, with a list of those kinds of convictions, into society while protecting it. If there is some concern about that, I think you have to err on the side of caution if you can.

Ms Torsney: A previous witness talked about some of the value of conditions of parole, which include training. Particularly for people who are convicted of sexual assault, would you agree that there should be a system, perhaps for life or a period of time that should be re-evaluated, for people to be on courses, taking therapy, or having behaviour management? It would be something to make sure they don't reoffend and put the community at risk.

Mr. Heinrichs: That is already there in the sense that if you have a sex offender coming up for a parole hearing and the file indicates he has taken no treatment programs at all, I would submit he is not very likely to be released.

Say he is taking some programs, but it is fairly early in his sentence. If it looks like he is getting some benefit from the programs, in a situation like that the parole board has the authority to say that they will let him go on day parole, but not overnight. He would have a residency requirement. He would have to take such-and-such a program.

There is a fair number of stringent controls that they can put on them prior to warrant expiry, I guess.

Ms Torsney: Sorry, Mr. Heinrichs. I guess that is what I was really referring to. It's not just during the period in which they are eligible for some kind of release, but after that period.

This is so that, even after warrant release, there would be a system that said John was not able to cope without making sure that he was in a program and checking in once a week, once a month or something, until the end of his days or until they re-evaluate him to see that, five years down the road, he's productive and is no risk to the community.

Would you be interested in working on that kind of system or making that a condition of some people's parole?

.1040

Mr. Heinrichs: At this point I can't really comment on it, because I'm operating under the jurisdiction that the board operates under right now. If the sentencing judge says your sentence is six years and the warrant expiry is this date, then beyond that we have no say. That's up to you folks as the legislators to change it. If it ever does change that way, then the boards would be required to comply with whatever the current legislation of the day was.

I don't think I can really comment on it right now. I wouldn't feel qualified to do that.

Ms Torsney: Okay. I notice that your resumé is really quite terrific. You've had a variety of experience. Certainly as a defence attorney and as a prosecutor you would have had a lot of dealings with victims. Do you have access to some of the latest thinking from various victims groups and those who are trying to eliminate violence, like CAVEAT? Do you know what their thinking is in terms of the protection of the community? Have you had that kind of involvement? I couldn't exactly tell.

Mr. Heinrichs: I have not had anything specifically outside of the training I had since being appointed to the parole board.

Ms Torsney: Okay.

Mr. Heinrichs: I've had nothing like that directly myself.

But the training program we just went through with the parole board - I understand it's a new one and we're among the first appointees to go through it - is a good one. In fact, the follow-up is good. There's another one coming up at the end of this month, which is a board training workshop. I think that area is included. So it's not one that I've had a lot of prior experience with, but I think I'm getting it now.

Ms Torsney: Certainly they have some great publications that you can get access to on a mailing list. I am really pleased that we've improved the system to make sure there are standards against which one can be properly measured. If there's an issue that needs to addressed in terms of decision-making, paperwork burden, whatever, there is a mechanism to have some checks and balances in place so that wrong decisions are not made and the community is not put at risk.

When we first came into office, we were dealing with some of those mistakes that had been made in the past. The new legislation has gone a long way to improving that and making the system more objective.

It's not necessarily fair to just assume that since an accident happened, the person who made the decision was wrong. We have to make sure there is a system that evaluates you on those decisions. So we're pleased this is in place.

Mr. Heinrichs: I agree with that. Actually, another aspect of this training we went through is the whole risk assessment program. They have a specialized program on that now that I think was only developed in November 1994 or some time around then.

It's relatively new and extremely good. It is regardless of whatever job you come to the board with. You might be quite trained in decision-making but not necessarily in risk assessment, which is a different type of decision-making. It's a very good course and one that I think is a tremendous improvement over anything that was there before.

It's always a subjective thing, but I don't think it's as subjective as the public sometimes thinks it is. There are objective criteria that you can go through when you're dealing with a particular case. At the end of the day, you can look at various factors and say that he comes out okay on these but not on these, therefore.... It gives you more of a basis on which to make your decision. So that's good.

Ms Torsney: Good luck with your job. Just remember that people are very mobile in Canada and you have the safety of all our communities in your hands.

Mr. Heinrichs: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Heinrichs. How's everything out in Saskatchewan?

Mr. Heinrichs: Good morning, Mr. Ramsay. We're in the middle of a two-day prairie blizzard right now. It's wintry and cold.

Mr. Ramsay: I want you to know that my mother lives in Saskatoon. I want you guys to look after the province properly.

Mr. Heinrichs: We'll do that.

Mr. Ramsay: I've asked our good chairman to do the same thing because he's closer to Saskatoon than you are.

Could I ask you this: what are you doing presently? What is your present occupation?

Mr. Heinrichs: I'm a lawyer.

Mr. Ramsay: So you're just a general practitioner?

Mr. Heinrichs: Yes, it's a general practice. In Swift Current, pretty well everybody is. It's a small community. I'm a lawyer in a firm now that usually averages between four to six lawyers. We have a bunch of branch offices in the surrounding area. So it's general.

.1045

Mr. Ramsay: Will you be carrying on with your practice even though you have been appointed to this position?

Mr. Heinrichs: Yes, I will. My understanding of this part-time position is that it would require about one panel or one week a month, including study time. They give you a fair amount of study time leading into the panels. So my understanding so far is that it would be maybe about a week per month.

However, I understand the legislation may be changing or is changing. Bill C-45 is coming out, and they may have a provision for more full-time members. Then I don't know; it may be that they don't use the part-timers as much.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you have any concerns about any conflict of interest that might arise?

Mr. Heinrichs: No, I don't. That's something I addressed the first week we were training. I asked what would happen if I came across a case where maybe I didn't represent the fellow but I knew somebody who did or my firm did or the case was from Swift Current or whatever.

The response to that, which I was satisfied with, was that if you have any concern about that, then you say so right away when you see what panel you're slated for and what people you're going to be deciding for. Tell the office in Saskatoon that you don't feel comfortable making this decision on this individual because you know something about the case. I think I would just declare myself unable to hear a case like that.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

What I'm interested in knowing is what attitude you will bring to your job and to the parole system.

I would like to ask you how you feel about section 745 of the Criminal Code. There is presently a private member's bill working its way through the system - in fact, it's before our standing committee now - that would eliminate section 745 from the Criminal Code. How do you feel? Do you think it should be eliminated or would you prefer it to stay?

Mr. Heinrichs: I'd probably prefer if it stayed. At this point in time, my understanding of that section is that it allows a jury to make a decision at the 15-year point on whether or not the person should be considered for parole. If they decide no, then that's the end of it. If they decide yes, that inmate is then just considered for parole but is not automatically out. I feel there is a fair system of check and balance there already.

Mr. Ramsay: So you do not feel that for first-degree murder, life means life with a minimum sentence of 25 years.

Mr. Heinrichs: I feel it's important to give them something to work for, not just for the well-being of the inmate; it's for the protection of society. They come out after 25 years and they're possibly so institutionalized that there's little hope of them reintegrating successfully. This is not true in every case, but possibly there are cases in there where if they can work toward this 15-year judicial review and hope to be released early, they are more sincere in their efforts to rehabilitate themselves and get out.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you believe 15 years is an adequate sentence for the wilful taking of an innocent life?

Mr. Heinrichs: I think the legislation the way it is now says that's there. Is 25 years an adequate sentence for the taking of a life? Life is life for the victim. It's gone. But the system we have in Canada and the one we all live with and work with says it's 25 with a possible 15.

I don't think the 15 is dangerous, because there's a check and a balance there. Sometimes the public thinks they're automatically out at 15, but they're not. First there's the decision by the courts and the jury and then it gets to the parole board, who may or may not release the person anyway.

What's adequate for the taking of a life is a pretty esoteric question, I guess. It's what we have to work with and as long as there are enough checks and balances to ensure that the protection of society is still the foremost concern and the big factor that everybody has on their mind, then I think we're okay.

Mr. Ramsay: I'm interested in the attitude you bring to your job, and that's the reason for my questions. If you had an opportunity to change anything within the parole board system or within the justice system that relates to parole, is there anything you would change?

.1050

Mr. Heinrichs: At this point in time, I'm not sure. I'm not sure there's anything I would change right now. Being appointed at the end of August and going through the training course - and I've actually sat on only one panel so far - my focus is naturally on being able to do the job that I'm mandated to do. Given more experience in the area, there might be something some day that I'd be willing to change, but right now I can't think of anything.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you believe that the first priority of the justice system should be the protection of society, the lives and the property of members of society, or the rehabilitation of the offender?

Mr. Heinrichs: Well, I think for the parole board it should be the protection of society, and it is the protection of society under the governing act.

Mr. Ramsay: Some decisions made by parole boards in the past have caused some people to question the value of the entire parole system. What do you see that could be changed to eliminate that concern?

Mr. Heinrichs: I think what I referred to briefly before, but didn't really expand on, was something they have done to eliminate that concern. I don't think there has been a lot of public education about it yet, so they might not know about it.

It's the whole idea of risk assessment. That's the business the parole board is in. It's not just a gut reaction: ``Gee, I think this guy will do okay on the outside'', or ``Gee, I don't think this guy will''. It certainly isn't a perfect science by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's more scientific and more objective than the public generally think.

I think the risk assessment course that they developed and put us through showed us the kinds of factors that you look for in the background of a particular individual. They get much more detailed than that. It's a good course, and that's something that helps take the decision-making in parole boards out of the realm of by gosh and by golly and into the realm of ``I feel confident that I've got a basis for this decision''. That's one thing.

I don't think the public really know about that yet, though. It's difficult to educate them about that.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course the consequence of error by a parole board is enormous. Looking at the attitude that you bring into the parole system, do you feel that as a member of the parole board you'd be willing to err on the side of the safety of society rather than on that of the release and perhaps the rehabilitation of the offender?

Mr. Heinrichs: Yes, I would err on the side of the protection of society. That is my governing principle when I'm looking at any of the files. I think the CCRA dictates that the protection of society should be the governing principle.

You are a releasing authority. You want to release an individual and put him on the kind of program that is the least stringent for the individual, but only within the context of the protection of society.

Mr. Ramsay: At your age, can you be fooled or conned by these people who will be appearing before you and have prepared well to do that very job, to fool the board into thinking that they have taken all of the courses and that they have repented and they're contrite about what they have done? Do you feel that you're able to withstand that kind of preparation by some of these inmates who do that very deliberately?

Mr. Heinrichs: Yes, I do. You're right, I think there are some who do that deliberately.

The reason I feel prepared for that is primarily the two years I spent as a guard, which might not sound very long, but actually when you're working that job and doing the shift work for two years it seems like a long time. It acclimatized me to the world inside the prisons, which is very different from our own. I had a lot of dealings with inmates on a one-to-one basis.

Near the end of my being a guard, they started the living unit officer program. I don't know how far it got, because I actually left the employ of CSC and went back to law school. However, I started a living unit officer program, which took the guard who wanted to do it out of the trucks and the gates and those kind of posts, trained them in some counselling, and got them right into the units with the inmates. So you were dealing with them more on a one-to-one basis. You were talking to them more. That was an extremely beneficial experience, for me at any rate, to be able to spend more time and see how some of them operate - for example, the manipulators who are there, or those who are sincere - to try to weed the sincere ones out from the manipulative ones.

So, yes, I think I am, and that's why.

.1055

The Chairman: We're at 11 minutes already, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Knutson: I have one question. I understand there's a high level of natives, particularly, in prairie prisons and I wonder about two points. Do you think that presents a particular issue to the parole board, and if it does, are you given any training or background on it?

Mr. Heinrichs: Yes, I think it does present a particular issue to the parole board and there is some training on it. In fact, I think there's some training coming up at the end of November where there's a module speaking to that, because the different appointees have different levels of experience working with any of the first nations people in different kinds of contexts.

So we have had some training in that so far and there's more coming. Some of it is on-the-job training.

One of the good things they do right now at some of the parole hearings for the inmates who want it is that the board has a native elder there. These are elders who are there on behalf of the board. They're not there on behalf of the inmate.

I've been involved in a couple of panel hearings where they've been there, and they've been very beneficial in terms of giving me some sort of background information, because there are some very distinct cultural differences.

Mr. Knutson: That's my only question. Thank you.

The Chairman: You've only used a minute. Are you sharing with Mr. Gallaway?

Mr. Knutson: Sure.

The Chairman: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Heinrichs, it's been stated here this morning that some decisions by certain parole board members or panels create cause for concern. I think by extension we could say the same thing about certain members of the judiciary. On occasion, for whatever reason, some decisions by the judiciary create cause for concern.

I'd like to know what you feel...or perhaps in your training in terms of risk assessment, what is the burden of proof that's placed upon the applicant in terms of reintegrating into society without a problem?

Mr. Heinrichs: There isn't a burden of proof in the legal sense of, in criminal, beyond a reasonable doubt, or in civil, on the balance of probabilities. There's no burden of proof strictly in a legal sense that he has to meet.

But when you go through the risk assessment, there are any number of factors you're looking at in the guy's background, in the way he's acted in the institution as well, and his response to certain programming. This is where the reports are extremely important - the psychiatric reports and psychological reports, all that stuff. You go through all that, and in my own mind it's a pretty high burden of proof. It isn't a legislated one, but in my own mind it's a fairly high one.

Because I don't want to be the releasing authority that results in some sort of sensational incident, I want to know that this individual has addressed whatever problems he had that led him to offend to begin with. That's a pretty stringent burden of proof, I imagine.

Mr. Gallaway: In making a decision and in assessing the risk, you're no doubt given a number of reports, and the whole question of the con game has been brought up. Certainly one would assume that some people are better institutionalized. In other words, they behave better in an institutional setting than do others.

What do you think is the relative value of the reports of the corrections system in comparison to other types of reports that you receive? Do you think Corrections Canada may feed you reports that are certainly truthful but really have no bearing on the ultimate outcome because in some way it deals with how a person copes with a very pressurized institutional setting?

Mr. Heinrichs: I suppose that happens. I've seen ones where they come in and say that one of the main criminogenic factors that leads them to offend or reoffend is alcohol and substance abuse, and that by and large they've been clean. Of course he has been clean, but he has been in jail for nine years where it's a little hard to not be. There are substances in there, but not as many. So you look at that report and you'll say, well, okay, I realize that, but has he shown any kind of sincere effort in addressing that problem so we know that when that temptation hits him, he doesn't flip right back into his crime cycle again?

The reports by the CSC are good. People who are in the system tell me that they're better as time goes on, that their training is getting better, that there's a lot more sharing of information between the NPB and the CSC, and that's obviously for the common good.

.1100

The reports of the case management team within the institution are very helpful because they're the ones who work with these guys on a day-to-day basis. But having said that, of course, you don't make your decision based on one isolated report. You have to go through all of them. If there are five psychiatric reports spanning seven years, you go through all of them and see if there has been any progress, or if it is just repeating the same old problem, or if it contradicts somebody else's report. You look for all of that and try to address that in the hearing if it does look like it's a problem.

Mr. Gallaway: In a position such as this, and in any type of position, a person brings to the job certain attitudes, beliefs and values that may indirectly or directly influence the way one feels about a particular fact situation or about a particular decision. Do you think the type of training given to a member of the National Parole Board in some way minimizes that background that impinges on decision-making? Do you think the training actually creates an objective framework whereby you're making a decision based upon all the factors that are germane in risk assessment as opposed to what might be your personal philosophy with respect to parole or with respect to a certain type of offence?

Mr. Heinrichs: I think the training is good that way. I think it's objective and the training I received stressed that it is important. The legislation says what you look at, and that's what you look at when you're making your decision.

Now, I can't speak for all appointees. For me, being objective and looking at both sides of an issue and being able to argue either side of the issue is an important skill in practising law. So the attitude I personally bring is a fairly objective one anyway, given my background. I'm not sure if that's the same for other backgrounds.

I thought the training was adequate and good that way. I think the only thing you could improve on in the training was.... It was really good training, but it would be nice to do like we did in law school, where we'd run mock trials and moot courts - to run some hearings like that. Perhaps they'll develop this when they get a little more time. We observed lots of hearings; I got to observe them. When I started running them, I was there with a senior member obviously, so I have that, but it would be nice to run a couple of mock ones. I suggested that and hopefully that's something they'll incorporate in the future.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. White or Mr. Ramsay, do you have any other questions yet?

Mr. White: We have a couple each.

Mr. Heinrichs, you ran as the Liberal candidate in the last election and didn't make it. Did that experience give you any particular experience for the job as parole board member?

Mr. Heinrichs: No, I don't think so. That experience was a good one. It's a good life experience running in an election, as all of you know. It's a better life experience if you win, but I don't think it had any relevance to the job I have now.

Mr. White: Just checking.

Mr. Heinrichs, do you believe that all offenders are able to be rehabilitated?

Mr. Heinrichs: No, I don't think so. I think the dangerous offender legislation is good because it's taking out of the system the ones who probably can't ever be rehabilitated. I think there are those who can't be.

Mr. White: Finally, in parole hearings inmates are entitled to have counsel attend with them. Many elect not to do that. Is it more valuable to have counsel attend or to have the inmate present his case on his own, in your opinion?

Mr. Heinrichs: I've been at ones where there's been counsel and ones where there hasn't, and in my opinion even when counsel attends we want the offender to present his case. We'll ask him the questions and we want him to answer us, and the counsel will have an opportunity to address the board after that. It's helpful. I have been at ones where counsel brings out some very salient points, but the main thing is talking to the offenders themselves.

I like the set-up of the interviews the way they are right now. They are interviews in a sense as opposed to hearings, because you don't have a lot of the procedural trappings of a court of law. You don't have any of that. You have an interview with the offender where he has to respond directly to you. It's sometimes a very telling experience. So I like the set-up now, having counsel address the board after the fact.

.1105

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Heinrichs, on a lighter note - and really I shouldn't ask this, but I just can't resist the temptation - you said earlier that you could not be fooled or conned. Well, how in the world did they get you to run as a candidate in the last election?

Mr. Heinrichs: Well, maybe that's the only way the experience helped me.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ramsay: On a more serious note, I have just a couple of questions.

Of course we don't have capital punishment in this country and there are very few people - I think only peace officers - who have the authority to take a life. When you release a violent offender into society before the expiration of their sentence, that decision may well result in the death of an innocent person, as we know from past experiences. How do you feel about that? Your decision may result in the death of an innocent person if you release a violent offender back into society.

Mr. Heinrichs: It's a serious responsibility. In fact, it's a good question that other people around here asked when they heard that I was appointed and that I was going off for a week or a month to do these things. They said, well, that's good, you've got experience, but why would you want to do it? Why would you want to shoulder that kind of responsibility? It's a serious responsibility.

If some sort of sensational incident happened and it was a result of my decision, I don't know how I would react. For every file I approach, I take a tonne of preparation time. I approach every file very, very thoroughly, going through all the documents, measuring them up to the criteria I'm supposed to so that I can defend any decision I make - because I may well be called upon to defend a decision like that. It's a serious responsibility.

Mr. Ramsay: Your decisions will be made upon the basis of the information available to you. What kind of information would you want to make your decisions? And what will you do if you feel you haven't sufficient information?

Mr. Heinrichs: I do it fairly chronologically when I approach a file. I'll start with the court documents. I want to see what the crown prosecutors said in their sentencing submissions. I want to see what the sentencing judge said. Sometimes they make statements directly regarding parole. It is important to me that I see those. I want those kinds of statements. I want victim impact statements, if we can get them. They are extremely important because lots of times when you're going through a mound of paper, there's nothing there from the victim. He or she is the person you kind of forget about, again, but is the person the crime really impacted. I want those kinds of statements and all the stuff at the front end.

I want the statements, when they come in, showing what the CSC staff have said is these guys' big problem. Here are their big criminogenic factors. Here is what should be done to address those. Once I get that, then I can see, going through the file, if they've addressed each and every one of those problems and done so successfully. You get all those reports from each kind of program.

I'm relatively new, but as I'm going through the prisons now I'm trying to meet each of the facilitators of these various programs. Sometimes the reports you get are long and very good and sometimes they're not that long. I want to be able to have some sort of report so that I can call up a facilitator and say, ``I'm not sure from reading this report whether the guy really completed it successfully or not. I want to know a little bit more. Tell me some more.'' I want to feel I can do that.

If I have a file that's coming up on Wednesday for a hearing and I'm studying on the weekend for it and there's not enough information there, then I'm going to ask for it to be be set over for 30 days so we get the information we need.

I don't see how you can make a decision if there's not a recent psychological report, if it's a case involving a violent offender, a sex offender, or something similar. There has to be a recent community assessment saying here is what kind of release plans he has, and here's what the community's reaction is to his coming in. And his support network - are they there? If there's not information like that, then I don't see how you can possibly make the decision.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to follow up on that. In evidence evaluation or information evaluation, what priority would you place upon the information coming from the correctional staff who have worked with that inmate?

Mr. Heinrichs: High priority. As I said before, the staff work on a daily basis with these guys. These are the people who see them every single day as opposed to just during the hearing and on paper, which is the way we see them. So I put a high priority on it. That doesn't mean I agree with their recommendation every single time. There have been times when I don't. But I put a high priority on the information I get from them because they're the ones who are there every day.

.1110

Mr. Ramsay: Have you sat on cases up until now?

Mr. Heinrichs: Yes, just one.

Mr. Ramsay: Are you satisfied the reports are coming directly from the correctional staff or are there reports being vetted by the hierarchy within the correctional institution before they reach you?

Mr. Heinrichs: I never thought of that. I was satisfied that they're coming straight from the staff. When you turn up at these hearings the institutional staff member is there. They're always asked at the outset if there is anything new, or if there is anything they want to add or clarify in the reports. At the end they've again got some input. I would assume that if they weren't agreeing with what they're signing their name to on their report we'd hear about it at the hearing process.

Mr. Ramsay: We have heard many times from staff within the Correctional Service that their reports are bring vetted by their seniors and that the information you need and you should have at your disposal is not getting through to you. What are you prepared to do about those types of suggestions?

Mr. Heinrichs: The person in the Saskatoon office in the prairie region who is regional manager of case preparation - there is a regional manager in every regional office - is the liaison between CSC and NPB. What I'd be prepared to do is ask if these concerns are valid. Are there some problems here? If so, how are you going to fix them up? It is his job to make sure we're getting the information we're supposed to get.

Mr. Ramsay: Finally, how do you feel about appearing before this committee as you have done this morning?

Mr. Heinrichs: I feel better now that it's over than I did before the start. I've never had to do anything like this before.

I think it's good. I think it's time appointees answer to the people who are elected and show they're qualified and they're competent to make the decisions or do the job, whatever the job is they're appointed to do. It should be like any other job. I see this as basically part of the job interview process, I guess.

Mr. Ramsay: Would you recommend to the government that this kind of an interview occur before you're hired rather than after?

Mr. Heinrichs: Yes, I suppose so. My only concern if I was a member like you would be that I'd have a lot more hearings, because then you're seeing everybody who is applying for a job rather than just the ones at the other end who are supposedly qualified to do it. There would be an awful lot of hearings to cover.

Mr. Ramsay: I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to you making an appearance before the committee after the board has made a selection but before the appointment. Then our questions are not really redundant because the hearing comes after the fact.

Mr. Heinrichs: I wouldn't have minded doing that.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you very much, and good luck to you.

Mr. Heinrichs: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Heinrichs, I've just one matter to clarify. It's my understanding that in the past some decisions were made by the parole board that may have been questioned when people were released and offences were committed by the persons who were released. There may have been inadequate information transferred from correctional services.

Do you see any way of being able to guarantee you do have proper information from them so the proper decision can be made by the parole officer? Even though a parole officer releases an inmate, it may be on the basis of information that is somewhat inadequate or perhaps a little sloppy in preparation. I'm not suggesting this is occurring, but perhaps it is. Can you see any way of protecting against this to make the decision-making process more stringent and also help you in making accurate decisions?

Mr. Heinrichs: The primary responsibility lies with the board member to say, ``I don't think this file is prepared well enough. This is a very sketchy last progress summary on this fellow. I'm going to defer; I'm not going to make a decision.'' And they are doing that.

I said to somebody who was questioning me before that I've done one hearing. It was actually one set of hearings - there were about 16 of them there. In that one there were four or five taken off the list because they were not adequately prepared. They were deferred for 30 days. The sources of the missing information were told the information was missing and they were supposed to get it to the board for the next month.

.1115

So I think that's the first thing you have to do. The board member has to be willing to say, ``I'm not willing to make a decision on this. I'm sending this back for 30 days until I get what I want.''

The other thing is just the internal mechanism that's already in place whereby you've got people working full-time on the National Parole Board on case preparation because the board members, especially part-time ones, are there only a certain number of days a month to prepare a study. So the full-time staff at the regional headquarters is going through the files and making sure that anything that's missing or anything that's too sketchy is filled in. I think by and large that's getting better.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Heinrichs, for appearing before the committee today. In the storm you have right now, it's 11:15 Saskatchewan time. Why don't you take an early lunch? Thank you very much.

Mr. Heinrichs: Thank you, Mr. Bodnar. I'll tell my boss that.

The Chairman: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

.1127

The Chairman: We'll continue with the hearing.

We have with us Shirley Lewis from Edmonton, who has been appointed to the National Parole Board, again for the prairie regional division. It's my understanding this is also a part-time appointment.

Good morning, Ms Lewis.

Ms Shirley A. Lewis (National Parole Board, Prairie Regional Division): Good morning. And you're right, it is a part-time appointment.

The Chairman: We will start today with questions from the Reform Party and then we'll go to the government side. They will be 10-minute rounds. We'll start with Mr. White or Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. White, 10 minutes.

Mr. White: Good morning, Ms Lewis.

Ms Lewis: Good morning.

Mr. White: As you know, parole boards across the country are known to make good decisions and sometimes to make what the public thinks are very bad decisions. I suppose it would go without saying that the qualifications, skills, abilities, and attitudes of members are extremely important.

I'd like to ask you just a couple of questions about your qualifications and so on. First of all, though, could you just tell me why you applied to be on the National Parole Board.

Ms Lewis: Basically, I had thought years ago that I'd probably do this some day, and I pretty well had done the gamut from working on the street to doing research to teaching. I felt that this is probably where my skills would be most valuable.

Mr. White: Can you tell me whether you believe all offenders are capable of being rehabilitated?

Ms Lewis: It would depend on the length of time for a lot of them. It has been my experience that some just have trouble for a very long time.

Mr. White: So the answer would be no to that, I presume?

Ms Lewis: Yes, I believe so. There's the odd one, but I would think that, as with all human endeavours, that would be the end of the great big bell curve.

Mr. White: How do you feel about sex offenders? Much has been written and discussed about sex offenders and their ability to be rehabilitated.

Ms Lewis: In this particular case my daughter was sexually assaulted. The person got 13 years and I have followed that case. He appears to be doing okay.

Mr. White: Is ``okay'' rehabilitated?

.1130

Ms Lewis: He has not reoffended, so ``okay'' to me means he hasn't reoffended.

Mr. White: I'd like to ask you a question about the accountability of parole boards. When we hear about offenders being released and reoffending through a crime of the same nature and type, the public today wonders about just how parole boards can be held accountable. Have you any suggestions about what should happen when that occurs?

Ms Lewis: I believe there needs to be an investigation as to why it occurred so similarly; this has been done in cases.

Mr. White: And after the investigation, what do you think should happen if it is proven that there has been a mistake made, for instance?

Ms Lewis: It would depend on the seriousness of the mistake and what the mistake was. If it was an absence of information that the parole board person had, maybe that's a different situation that would have to be looked at.

Mr. White: Do you believe in suspension or reprimands for parole board members?

Ms Lewis: I wouldn't have any trouble with that personally, no.

Mr. White: Thank you. Prior to coming before our parole board, inmates are often known to take course after course in anger management and other such courses. How valuable do you think the courses are in prisons today? Are they one of the major determinants in the release of offenders? Can you just give us a general understanding of how you feel about courses?

Ms Lewis: It's about all we really have to work with, and in my experience the courses have become and better and more suitable.

I also find, looking at the assessments that have been done on the few hearings I have done already, that the assessments now are geared much more to risk, which is the factor that we're trying to determine.

So I believe the courses have become better and I do believe the facilitator reports have become much better.

Mr. White: What is the primary goal, in your mind, of a parole board as they sit?

Ms Lewis: I think it's protection of the public, and I think that is based on risk assessment.

Mr. White: Thank you. I'd like to ask you a little bit about your background. Can you identify probably the two most important parts of your background that qualify you for this position?

Ms Lewis: I'm not sure I could pick out two of them, but I believe it's my experience from working with people on the street, working with them in court, working with them in halfway houses, then also working in an institution, seeing them come out and working in after-care. So seeing this whole gamut of how people are on the street, how they are in the court, and how they are in prison and after prison, I think, has been very valuable.

Mr. White: Would you think that your role on the Elizabeth Fry Society tends to motivate you towards being more lenient, allowing offenders to be released, or does that harden you up more to the situation?

Ms Lewis: I don't really think it does either. I think it's balanced with the view, as I say, of having seen people on the street and right through the system, and also having worked as the night-shift supervisor at Grierson Centre, where 65 men are housed and there are only two people on.

I think I have a fair idea of the situation.

Mr. White: About victim impact statements, would you think there is any fairness in allowing victims to provide verbal victim impact statements at parole board hearings?

Ms Lewis: I don't know quite how that would work. My experience is a bit limited in the actual hearing. I have sat in on a hearing now as an observer where there was a victim, and this was a victim who had been victimized by a sex offender as a child, and she was there. It seemed to be managed rather well, I felt.

.1135

Mr. White: Many victims groups today are suggesting that victims should in fact be on parole boards. What do you think of that?

Ms Lewis: I guess I wouldn't have any problem with the fact that they are victims. I feel I'm a victim. My house has been robbed three times, so if you have to qualify that, I'm a victim and I'm on the parole board.

Mr. White: I guess I could qualify for that too. I've had a few run-ins with the bad guys myself.

Ms Lewis, I've attended one parole board hearing in particular that dealt with an individual who, since 1975, has had 39 convictions. The parole board was to decide whether or not to let him out. When faced with such decisions, what would go through your mind as far as this kind of individual with that many convictions is concerned?

Ms Lewis: I would look at whether or not he had a youth record. I'm very interested in that; I'm very concerned with whether or not he started out when he was a youth. That's one thing.

I would also look at the types of convictions. I read the entire FPS sheets and I look very carefully at any charges that have been withdrawn or stayed, and I'm very careful to look at why they were stayed. In the hearing yesterday, for instance, I questioned people at length as to why there were such related charges.

So, it's really necessary to get an idea of exactly.... The length is important, but the types of crimes are important, too, as is the clustering of the crimes.

Mr. White: Would you not consider an individual with 39 convictions to very much be a habitual, repeat offender?

Ms Lewis: I guess we have to again look at the record, look at the types of sentences that he got, read the judge's report and then find out what everybody says about it, read the police report, and read victim impact statements. You need to have all the information. That's a piece of the information, but there's a lot of information to sift through in those files.

Mr. White: When one looks at the files and listens to cases such as that, one wonders whether rehabilitation is possible after that many years of crime. I'm interested in the opening answer that I got from you on whether or not all criminals are able to be rehabilitated. I kind of understood the gist of your answer to be that pretty well all can be except for a very small portion. What is that small portion? What kind of individuals are the most difficult to be rehabilitated, and how do you identify them?

Ms Lewis: From reading the literature that I've seen so far, I guess it is probably pedophiles who have the worst record as far as being rehabilitated is concerned. I think you have to put in place every control that's within the mandate that we have in order to deal with them. As parole board members, I think the only things we have to work with are time of release and conditions of release. That is the most difficult case.

Mr. White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney: First of all, your resumé is truly impressive, both in terms of your work with young offenders and also in terms of your work with the community, whether it's with the girl guides in trying to ensure some healthy grown-ups, or any of the other work you've done. Your own taking of the entrepreneurship course and some others is really impressive as well.

I want to know a couple of things. Is the Edmonton victim-offender mediation program, in which you are a mediator, helping?

Ms Lewis: We feel it is. It's only a little more than a year or so old now. I was one of the people who put it together and I'm very interested in it. We've had several mediations that I feel could have resulted in charges that would not have been solved within the court system but could be solved there. There were also a lot of referrals for counselling, and I would rather see the referrals for counselling at this end, not at the other end, because it's much more effective.

.1140

Ms Torsney: I noticed from your resumé that obviously you've done a lot of work with women offenders and with native offenders, and I wondered whether there were specific considerations that would make it different from dealing with male offenders. I suppose some of the crimes are different. How does your experience enhance your ability to make decisions? Obviously there are fewer women in penitentiaries on a comparative basis, but with the quality we're there too. Perhaps you can expand upon how things are different, how they're the same - aboriginal, women, and men versus others. How is it different? Or is it?

Ms Lewis: Well, there are some things that are very much the same. The scene on the street is the same, but women have different problems in that the minute they go to jail the men in their lives disappear. Often, with males, the women are still there for them - their mates, common law partners, whatever.

Ms Torsney: Or they appear somewhere. I don't understand that phenomenon, but....

Ms Lewis: It seems that way to me, and I don't really know why. I don't have any ideas about who the women are to the men that go in, but they seem quite dependent upon them. But as far as the women are concerned, they usually have care of their children. This is a big one for them. The children often go to parents, and it's a problem for women. Children are always there on their minds, much more so, although I have seen a few interesting males who are also very interested in their children, and I'm glad about that - young males who really care.

For aboriginal people in general, there's a whole understanding about them that you can achieve only by being there with them and by understanding their idea of property, of sharing, of how important it is for them to seek out their roots, and of how important it is for them to be involved in their culture. I see this as something that's fairly new in the system and probably the brightest light we're ever had. As far as aboriginal people are concerned, the elders in the prison have a type of influence with them and receive respect from them. I find the elders very useful. I've sat in on a couple of hearings as an observer where the elders have been present, and I found it very useful.

Ms Torsney: I guess in the same way as there would be some transition issues involved in going into the institution, there must be some transition issues involved in going out of the institution and back into the community that would be specific to aboriginal people. As you say, having the elders there and being back in touch with perhaps spirituality and roots would be very helpful. Are there different things you'd look for in terms of evaluating somebody in a risk assessment, whether it's on the form or not, that you would be interested in looking at and evaluating?

Ms Lewis: Yes, particularly with aboriginal people. I'm very interested in looking at the type of family support they have, how strong that family support is, and whether there is alcohol and drug abuse within the family. This a big thing with all of them, but particularly with aboriginals, because they're much more family oriented. The other thing I look at, if they are going back to a rural reserve, is what sorts of controls are on that reserve in regard to substance abuse. That's often a big issue with all the inmates, but we particularly have to look at whether they're going back to a rural area. I also look at what sort of supervision is available for them. In the urban areas you have to.... I think if you can have a gradual release you're better off with all of them, really, but particularly with aboriginals.

Ms Torsney: I also noticed on your resumé that you're involved in the development of a four-phase self-esteem program for native women on reserves. Would that also play a role in evaluating women, particularly native women who are applying for parole, in terms of whether or not they've had access to something like that, whether or not they're going to be put back in a situation in which they're either re-victimized or are going to reoffend or don't have the skills?

.1145

I noticed somewhere else that you've got life skills training as well.

Ms Lewis: Yes. I haven't had any cases yet with women. When I do, I'll certainly be looking for the whole idea of how much they have connected to their culture, how they connected to their culture, and what it means to them. I'd also be looking at the same things I look at with everybody else: the risk. What's in place? What's out there? How close is the family?

You have to look at the whole situation, and self-esteem is a big thing, and I'm really pleased now with the two new prisons. I've been very active and vocal about the types of programs that will be going in there. I'm really pleased, because in the 1970s we didn't have that one factor that was missing. We did not understand that sexual abuse was the biggest problem. Now we have some tools to work with that. We also have marvellous programming that we can work with on those issues, and for women that's a very large issue.

Ms Torsney: Certainly, I commend you as well for being made an honorary life member of the Elizabeth Fry Society. It's a fantastic organization that really does a lot of work to keep all of our communities safer and healthier. I wish you lots of luck in your decision-making.

As I said to the last person, remember, even though you're in the prairies and I'm from Ontario, people have mobility and so you're responsible for all of our community.

Ms Lewis: Very true. Well, I hope it'll be more than luck. I hope a bit of brain power counted too.

Ms Torsney: Good call there.

Ms Lewis: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Ms Lewis, thank you very much for appearing before us this morning. So far, I have been very impressed with your responses to the questions. I would go so far as to say that I think it's the kind of common sense that I've heard from you that we need on parole boards.

Unfortunately, you are a victim. Your daughter was a victim, and the impact of what you went through is enormous. She would be the greatest victim, but you'd be second only to her. I'm thankful for the things you have told us today.

I'm interested in the attitude you bring to your job, and so far I think the attitude I see coming from you is exactly what we need on the parole board.

I would like to ask you this. What is your opinion about section 745 of the Criminal Code, which allows first-degree murderers the opportunity to appeal their parole ineligibility after serving only 15 years? How do you feel about that?

Ms Lewis: I guess I have mixed feelings on that. I guess again it depends on the types of people and the group that is going to decide that. I think the quality of the people making that decision.... Perhaps they should have that right. I think for some people who have committed first-degree murder, it's a one-shot type of thing. They've never been in conflict with the law before, but for some reason they lose it, so to speak, and they commit these crimes.

I am not undermining the crime or saying that the crime is not important, because it is. But if it's the type of person who has led an exemplary life before and leads an exemplary life inside, this is the person, I hope, that this legislation works for.

Mr. Ramsay: There is a private member's bill before the committee now that would eliminate section 745 from the Criminal Code. Would you be in favour of or against the elimination of that section from the Criminal Code?

Ms Lewis: I'd have to do some research and see who has actually managed to get through it and who hasn't managed to get through it. I'd have to look at that very carefully. I just don't have an opinion right off the top of my head. I just haven't had many dealings with anybody who has had that. I think I know only one person who's actually got out fairly early. I just don't have a really good opinion on that. I would have to look at it very carefully.

.1150

Mr. Ramsay: I'm looking for your attitude toward the system of justice, toward those who commit offences and what is a fair and just penalty according to the circumstances.

When I ask you if you feel that section 745 should stay or be excluded from the Criminal Code, really I'm asking you what you think is a fair and just penalty for someone who takes an innocent life. That's what I'm looking for.

Ms Lewis: Okay, fine. I was one of the people who was quite pleased when the 25 years came in, and at that time I thought it was a fair trade-off for actually executing people. I still think it's a fair trade-off, but again, before I could answer that, I would have to really look at how it has worked. I would like to see how it has worked, but I believe that 25 years is the sentence it should be.

Mr. Ramsay: Then the question I would like you to answer is this: do you feel that 15 years is an adequate sentence for someone who has deliberately taken the life of an innocent person? That's really the question.

Ms Lewis: Yes. I guess that again I would look at my bell curve of human nature and say that there might be the odd person out on the end of that bell whom it might be okay to let out at that time, but again the numbers would be very small.

Mr. Ramsay: So you feel that for some people 15 years is an adequate sentence for first-degree murder?

Ms Lewis: I don't think it's an adequate sentence. I do believe it's worth while to have a review, though.

Mr. Ramsay: All right. Thank you very much.

How do you feel about what we call statutory release? We now have legislation whereby a person under certain circumstances, after they've served two-thirds of their sentence, is automatically released into society under what they call mandatory supervision, in spite of the fact that parole officials and correctional service officials are concerned that they haven't been rehabilitated and will go on to reoffend.

I'll refer to two cases in which it seems as if this might have happened. One is the Melanie Carpenter case and Mr. Auger, who's the prime suspect in that murder, and the recent one in Ottawa involving the Sylvain Leduc murder.

How do feel about the statutory release that's presently within the legislation?

Ms Lewis: I believe the research shows that most people did get out after two-thirds of their sentence, which would be the same as the statutory release date. There is also within that the ability to detain people if they're convicted of a schedule I or schedule II offence, which is death or serious harm, or a serious drug offence. So those people are detained. I would hope that we're screening them out well enough that they come up for detention.

I was on a parole hearing recently when we had a detention case, and certainly he was not let out.

So there is that screening process, and I guess if I were helping to make the law, then I would look at that screening process very carefully.

Mr. Ramsay: You spoke earlier about information. In my mind, it's absolutely essential that the parole board members should have all of the factual information before them to consider when they make their decision.

Ms Lewis: Yes, very.

Mr. Ramsay: We have heard concerns from correctional staff members who work on a daily basis with some of the offenders, the inmates who are applying for parole. They tell us their reports are vetted by their superiors and it is only the vetted information that comes before the parole board. What are you prepared to do to ensure that all the information available gets before your eyes so that you can make the decision based upon all of the information and not just part of it?

.1155

Ms Lewis: My experience is really quite limited, and I'm talking from a limited perspective. I guess I've probably looked at 40 cases now, both in training and through the hearings, and I have known at least two cases where a report was put in by one of the line staff and then there was another report from the correctional management team, and they did differ in their opinion.

I don't know whether these are vetted right across the board or not; I'm just saying that's my experience so far. I've had two reports, one from a correctional person and one from a correctional management team, that have differed in their recommendation as to whether parole should be granted or denied.

I guess what I could do to make sure I get all of the information is first of all.... The person's case manager sits in on the interview, and I always make sure, because we're told to make sure and trained to make sure, that at the first hearing we ask for an update. Also, as we're reading the file, we look for anything that might be missing.

I always verify whether they have mentioned their work record within the institution or their institutional record or something from the IPSO person. I think you're aware that would be the preventive security person. What I've done the last couple of times is to ask if there is any input in this regard. I want to know what he's worked at in there and I want to know if he has institutional charges. I think that's really important. So that's a way of getting that information from line staff.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, do I have any time left?

The Chairman: You're over your time already, but if there isn't anyone from the government side you can proceed.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

When the parole board releases a violent offender into society before their sentence has been served, that decision may result in the death of an innocent person, as recent history has indicated. How do you feel about that?

Ms Lewis: Sick, as a beginning, and wanting to do my job with everything I've got, wanting my co-workers, my co-panel people, to make decisions very carefully, to read very thoroughly, to not just set the big, fat file in front of them and say I'll skim through it. No, it's not good enough. It's a tremendous amount of reading.

I'm very inexperienced in this, but my way of going through the file is that I read the police report, because that's where it started, then I read the court documents, and that's a lot of reading. Then I go to the FPS sheet and look at their total record. I try to get some idea of who we're really dealing with. I spend a lot of time on that before I even look at what they've done inside. That's the only thing I can do.

Mr. Ramsay: Where do you place your priority as a member of the parole board? Is it on the safety of society or the rehabilitation of the offender?

Ms Lewis: You have to protect society; that's what it's all about. It's conditional release, and I stress to people that it's conditional. It isn't something that everybody should automatically be granted. I just don't believe that.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Auger was on mandatory supervision. He, of course, is the prime suspect in the murder of Melanie Carpenter. Mandatory supervision is an awfully comforting phrase, but he ended up outside of Alberta, in B.C., and as I say, he is the prime suspect in that murder. That is a conditional release, yet it failed to adequately do the job.

.1200

The consequences of error of the parole board are enormous and have led to the death, I understand, of not just a few of our innocent people over the years. You must be aware of this. What is your concern about the consequences of your decision? How do you feel about it? How do you feel about your job when the consequences of error can be so great?

Ms Lewis: I thought about that for a long time before I ever applied. I do not take it lightly. I'm one of the first people there in the morning reading the files; I'm one of the last ones there at night reading the files. I don't spend just the day reading the files. I think a lot about it and I am very concerned about the decisions I make.

I guess the reason I applied for the parole board was that I thought that with my experience, the depth and width of this, if a decision had to be made, maybe I was one of the better people to make it. I find it a very great responsibility and it's one of the reasons I'm going to work part-time. I don't think I could stand this full-time, quite frankly.

Mr. Ramsay: How do you feel about appearing before the justice committee this morning?

Ms Lewis: I don't have any trouble with it at all. I think board members have to be accountable and this is part of being accountable.

Mr. Ramsay: Would you be in favour of this kind of appearance before the committee after your selection but prior to your appointment?

Ms Lewis: It wouldn't bother me at all. I don't want to be there unless I'm the best person to do it. I don't want to be there unless I'm okay, I'm good at it. I don't have any trouble with that.

Mr. Ramsay: Ms Lewis, I want to thank you very much. I think that with people with common sense like you have and the experiences that you have sitting on our parole board, we will be in good hands. Maybe we will alleviate some of the problems that parole boards have gotten themselves into in the past. I wish you the very best.

Ms Lewis: Thank you very much, Mr. Ramsay.

The Chairman: Ms Torsney, you still had a question?

Ms Torsney: This is just building on one of Mr. Ramsay's points, which was mandatory supervision and conditional release. Would it be true to say that with all your experience in halfway houses and elsewhere that you would have some very extensive knowledge and some good recommendations to make on facilities you would recommend people be sent to or be checking in with, and specific courses and things that people should be embarking upon in order to make them the most productive members of our society?

Ms Lewis: I think that is the only thing you can do - make sure you made a good decision and put the conditions on. I'm not shy about putting on any conditions that I think need to be done, quite frankly. Also, I am really pleased that I do have knowledge of programs, particularly in the Alberta area, and I am trying to increase my knowledge. I recently got a large dossier of programs in Saskatchewan and Manitoba because I want to be really familiar with all the programs.

Ms Torsney: So there are some halfway houses that you would recommend over others and would have some first-hand experience with, and know how to evaluate the ones that you're less experienced with and the things you'd be looking for to make sure they were well run in terms of sending somebody there.

Ms Lewis: Yes. You have to be very careful. In one case we had in Stony Mountain a couple of weeks ago, there was a gentlemen who really wanted to go to a halfway house and I just felt he was too dangerous and I wasn't prepared to send him there. I wanted him in the Osborne Centre, which is a correctional centre, a minimum release centre. He needed more control.

The other problem, of course, is when you have people who want to go to The Pas and places very far from control. Then you have to rely on police reports and this type of thing.

.1205

But it's something you have to be careful with. That's all we have, time and conditions, and I think you have to juggle those very carefully.

Ms Torsney: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Torsney.

Those were the last questions. Thank you very much, Ms Lewis, for appearing before us. All three individuals have helped us a lot today, perhaps also in educating us on the parole system. Thank you very much.

Ms Lewis: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.