Evidence of meeting #65 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Do you have any thoughts on that, Madam Brisebois?
Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
I have nothing further, really, to comment on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Madam Péclet.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for being here today.
You are giving us an insider's view. Often, we discuss things with lawyers or experts, but it is good to hear the viewpoints of people who will actually apply this bill if it passes.
Mr. Head, my first question is for you.
I had a look at the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Section 76 talks about the reintegration of offenders into the community. The mission of the Correctional Service of Canada is to incite, encourage and help people to become law-abiding citizens. The act also lists all of the ways of doing this, in particular through school programs—you referred to those briefly. It also refers to the fundamental values that are an inherent part of the program.
In the next-to-last paragraph of your presentation, you mention that the proximity of parole eligibility dates are one of the factors considered when assigning offenders to programs, and that a bill like this one could have certain repercussions.
Could you tell us a bit more about that point?
Thank you.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Sure, most definitely. It's a very good question.
One challenge we have right now, particularly with any long-term offender, including those serving a life sentence, is that when we have to prioritize the available resources and the programming capacity we have, we're going to invest in those who have shorter sentences and who have parole eligibility dates coming sooner rather than those who have them coming 25 years from now, so that is a bit of a challenge. It means that somebody who's serving a longer sentence may not necessarily, under the current regime we have, be initiated into meaningful programs for quite a number of years.
We have actually had to retool the manner in which we deliver programs so that we're able to start initiating programs for any offender, regardless of sentence length, within the first 50 to 70 days that they come in. About 40% of my institutions currently have started that new regime, and over the next year, or year and a half, the remaining 60% will be doing the same.
Right now in those other institutions a long-term sentence is basically being put aside so that we can deal with the shorter sentences. On any given day about 23% of my population are serving life sentences, and about 25% of my population are serving between two to three years—so you can see the competing priorities there—and then the rest fall within the other range.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
My next question is addressed to both witnesses.
You enforce the act, and I know that you cannot comment on the political aspect of things. My question has to do with the enforcement of the act.
Under the Rome Statute, an offender must be eligible for parole after 25 years, regardless of his sentence. This is an international treaty which Canada ratified.
I won't go through the history of parole since the 1800s when this was adopted. However, I would like to know whether this principle is included in the enabling legislation. In your opinion, should that principle regarding the 25-year period be a part of the legislation you enforce?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
The overall Corrections and Conditional Release Act basically has enshrined the principle that good public safety can and will be achieved through a strong conditional release system. That's why you see that, even with the more serious offences and the life sentences, there is parole eligibility. It doesn't mean you automatically get it, as you know. Individuals have to earn it. They have to show that their behaviour has changed and that they have become law-abiding citizens. Our legislation in Canada has enshrined that principle. Conditional release is one of the key elements of public safety when you're dealing with offenders.
Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
No. I agree with Mr. Head in the sense that, in the conditional release process and system, the fundamentals are public safety and looking at the specific case factors, and as an offender goes through the sentence, whether or not some of those factors have changed. Again, public safety is the paramount consideration in all decisions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner is from the Conservative Party, Mr. Wilks.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Don and Suzanne, for being here today.
I wonder if you could perhaps just expand a little bit upon the programs that are available to these people in the federal institutions, based on the fact that—and correct me if I'm wrong—under the two-plus-a-day system, these programs are available but not mandatory. Am I correct in saying that?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Yes. When offenders come into the system, we do a series of assessments and we develop what's called a correctional plan. We ideally develop that plan with the offenders and encourage them to participate in the programs, but we cannot force any offender to take the programs that are identified.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
To take that one step further, if inmates are brought to one of your institutions and are convicted of first-degree murder but don't have any additional convictions—that is, the ones related to Bill C-587, sexual assault, etc.—they would not be compelled at all to look at any of those programs because they were never convicted. Is that correct?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
We would continue to pursue them.
For example, if an individual convicted of murder came in, and just assuming for a moment that the other charges were dropped or bargained away, whatever the case may be, we would still look at the complete history of the individual. If sex offending had been part of it, although the final charge was just murder in the first degree, we would identify that as a need for the offender and encourage him or her to participate in the programs.
This is probably a good example because, as you're well aware based on your own background, individuals do not like having a sex offending label on them for all kinds of reasons, and individuals such as that will resist every effort by my staff to get them involved in sex offending programming to address that need. But we will continue to note it and pursue it, and it will be brought to the attention of the Parole Board at whatever time for decision-making as well.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Could you tell me if there are any repercussions, not necessarily to inmates but in general, when looking at a parole hearing if they have turned down opportunities to take programs that would better enhance them for release?
Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada
This speaks to what's been done since their incarceration to mitigate the risk and whether or not the offender is actually actively looking to address the risk factors. That's a part of the consideration the board is looking at in terms of the program, whether or not the offender has successfully completed it and made some advancements as part of the sentence.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
What you would see, more than likely, based on the way you described it, is that the Parole Board would probably not grant a release. It may make recommendations for us to do other things to try to show that the offenders are addressing their needs, but more than likely they would not be granted their release.
In the same case, internally we have other levers we can use. For example, an offender who is not following the programs would be unlikely to be eligible to be transferred to lower levels of security, down to medium and minimum level. So there are other levers we can use in encouraging offenders to take the programs they need.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
You mentioned an interesting point just a minute ago with regard to inmates not liking to be labelled with regard to sexual charges and specific to the general population and the segregated population. I would also assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that most inmates who are convicted of charges of a sexual nature are put into protective custody more times than not, or are not put in the general population, to protect them from grievous bodily harm. But when putting them into segregation is there an opportunity to have group therapy for those who have been convicted of sexual crimes?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Just very quickly, when I started 37 years ago you probably saw more of those sex offenders in protective custody kinds of settings. Nowadays that's not so much the case. We've actually worked hard to integrate them in the population. Having those kinds of separate operating systems is very costly and not very efficient in terms of doing programming.
Having said that, we'll have some cases who we may have to put in segregation for their own protection and in some cases for protecting others because their behaviours are aggressive to other inmates who are vulnerable. While they're in segregation we'll work with them through the psychologists, the social work staff, the programming staff, and the parole officers to try to modify their behaviours so that we can get them back into the general population and into the full stream of programs.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Our final questioner is Madam Boivin from the New Democratic Party.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Commissioner Head, just so I am clear about some of the answers that you gave, when you were talking about the three to five this would apply to are you saying that is the number of cases that actually are in your system that would fit the criteria? We all know it won't be retroactive because it can't be, but it gives you an idea of what you could encounter in the near future. Was that what you were saying?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Yes. We went back and looked over the last three to five years, just as a quick way of getting an approximate. What we found was that it averages out to about one person per year who meets that full definition: abduction, sexual assault, and murder. It averages about one per year.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
You were also prudent in stating—and this might be a case that some legal scholars will make with us—the fact that when a new case of that nature would proceed in front of the court it's quite possible that in view of Bill C-587 being in effect, the crown and the defence could have some type of deal that will make it so that the person would end up pleading guilty to one of the three offences so as to avoid the impact of this bill. I think you did mention that fact, so that could also show how the impact of the bill would be close to zero.
Mr. Goguen was talking about the fact that the whole concept of Bill C-587 is built on the discretion of the court and for once everybody on this committee agrees that it's a good thing. That's not the problem with the bill in my opinion, but he said something about longer sentences with the bill, but it's not a longer sentence because the sentence is life. Am I correct? It's life. It's just the possibility of parole and when it will happen that will change.
When somebody leaves the incarceration system, Ms. Brisebois, after successfully going through the Parole Board and they are lifers, is it the end of their attachment to the system or are they still lifers? Am I correct?