Public Accounts Committee on April 29th, 2015

[Michael Ferguson]

The audit was not an audit of the Parole Board. We were looking at how Corrections Services Canada actually prepares the offenders, and their file in that case, for consideration by the Parole Board.

We didn't go that extra step on how the Parole Board was making its decisions.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

To help me understand how much more strict the Parole Board is than Corrections Canada about releases, are you able to tell me whether there were any people released by the Parole Board in respect of whom Corrections Canada recommended against release?

[Michael Ferguson]

I'll ask Mr. Barrett to answer that question.

[Frank Barrett, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To clarify for the member a bit, in this report we don't look at why there is occasionally non-concurrence with the Parole Board.

However, last year we published a chapter on the expansion of facilities. We did note in that report that there was a study done. Correctional Services Canada was looking at cases where they recommended release and release was denied, and the rationale for that.

In that internal Correctional Services study, they found that even though in those cases the service believed that they were ready for release, when they looked at the evidence presented, the evidence in fact was insufficient for the Parole Board. The question before them was whether the Parole Board was being fair and unbiased, and the conclusion was yes because they didn't have enough information.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just to go back to my other question then, did you discover any case where Corrections Canada had recommended against release where the Parole Board granted release, and can you give me a percentage of that?

[Michael Ferguson]

Again, what we were looking at here would have been in situations where Corrections Canada was taking forward a case to look for somebody to be released. At least I don't believe they would have been taking forward cases to say, don't release this person on parole.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Every offender has the right to a parole hearing and that there would be cases where Corrections Canada would recommend against release. I wondered if there were any such cases where the Parole Board released in spite of that.

I'm just trying to get a sense of whether I'm right that Corrections Canada seems to be more lenient than the Parole Board in the matter of releases.

[Frank Barrett]

I don't know that I would say more lenient. I think that the point is generally when you see non-concurrence, it is because Corrections Canada is recommending someone for release and the Parole Board is saying no.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Let me move onto a second subject.

A few years ago, there was quite a bit of fearmongering put out from certain quarters about the fact that the Conservative government's crime measures would result in a whole flood of people being admitted, an increase in admissions to the prison system that would overpower it.

I understand that your report discovers that there are people staying longer in the system. I wonder if you could tell me—and I'm specifically referring to paragraph 6.24—did it turn out that there was a huge increase in the number of admissions to the corrections system as a result of these measures?

[Michael Ferguson]

In paragraph 6.24, we specifically say, “Although the crime rate has decreased, and new admissions into federal custody have not increased, the total male offender population grew by 6 percent”. So that deals with both the fact that the crime rate had decreased and the admissions had not increased.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sorry, time has expired.

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

We move back to Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the report on the ombudsman, it seems clear that, between 2010 and 2013, the service was not operational in terms of administration, or was at least limited in its ability to meet its commitments. If we look at all the points you put forward, the situation seemed to stem from a work environment that could be described as toxic.

How is it that a service could perform so poorly for three years without the Department of Defence or another entity telling the senior officials responsible for the bad conditions and work environment to remedy the situation quickly? The working conditions clearly deteriorated over those three years without the senior officials making any changes.

[Michael Ferguson]

I think we go into that issue in some detail starting in paragraph 7.71, where we talk about the fact that there were complaints that were brought forward. In paragraph 7.72 we noted how National Defence—

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I read it. I know that the working conditions were bad. What I want to know is why the situation was not remedied by the Department of Defence, which was the higher authority. That situation was allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that files took an average of two years to process instead of six months. One file was even closed after seven years instead of six months.

[Michael Ferguson]

I understand your question and I'm in the process of answering your question.

In paragraphs 7.71, 7.72, and 7.73, we talk about the fact that National Defence did in fact undertake some investigations. Some of those complaints were brought forward to them. They had to undertake some investigations into those, but they didn't do them appropriately. If those investigations into the complaints had been done appropriately, it could have perhaps prevented or fixed these types of problems earlier rather than when they were fixed. I think it was a case of just not having the right practices for dealing with the complaints in place.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Has the situation been resolved?

If something similar was to happen again, would the Department of National Defence be able to remedy the situation much more quickly?

[Michael Ferguson]

Certainly we hope so. We brought these issues forward to National Defence, and I think earlier in the audit we indicate that National Defence hadn't seen this organization as a priority because of the size of its budget, but in fact what it does is very important, regardless of the size of its budget. We have now seen an awareness of the issues that exist there and the complexity of that relationship, and that National Defence and the ombudsman need to have those practices in place to make sure that these types of issues don't happen again.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Auditor General, it is especially troubling to see that the period during which that service was performing poorly coincided with the period when many female members of the Canadian Armed Forces complained about being sexually harassed on one or more occasions.

In paragraph 7.8, you say that you examined those activities.

Did you check which cases took the most time to be resolved and whether they were processed correctly? If poor working conditions resulted in unreasonably long processing times, was the quality of the processing of those files also affected?

[Michael Ferguson]

I don't have the information about the exact types of investigations that were being undertaken. Certainly when you look at the ministerial directives, we are saying that the office the ombudsman should try to resolve issues within 60 business days, but many of these—I think we identified 122—were taking more than two years to resolve. This situation was such that the investigations were just not getting done, and they are important investigations. This is an important service to members of the armed forces and civilian employees of National Defence.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you. The time has expired.

We go to Mr. Hayes, the last in our formal rotation.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to share my time with Mr. Woodworth, if I may.

I would like to go back to report 1. We've talked a lot about developing a pan-Canadian antimicrobial resistance strategy, but this report is about a little bit more than that. It also speaks to surveillance of antimicrobial resistance and use, and prudent antimicrobial use. There is one area where you state, “The Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada have taken some steps to promote prudent antimicrobial use in humans.” Can you discuss what those steps are, please?

[Michael Ferguson]

There is a section on that starting at 1.58. Of the steps that have been taken, I think the primary one is making sure that, for use in humans, just about all of these drugs can be obtained only with a prescription. We've also seen that they have tried to put in place some guidelines for health professionals to help them understand how to use the drugs, although we identified that the agency still has some other guidelines that it has identified that need to be developed.

There have been some steps in trying to promote prudent antimicrobial use in humans, and the most significant one is making sure that they are available only through prescription.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

With respect to surveillance, it appears that, in April 2014, the agency itself reviewed its resistance surveillance activities and identified several weaknesses in its system. Do you agree with the agency's self-analysis? Are there more surveillance weaknesses that you identified that the agency itself has not identified?

[Michael Ferguson]

We have listed in section 1.48 the weaknesses that were identified. I believe that list was sufficient as an analysis of the types of gaps in their information collection. Some of them are fairly significant, showing that they do not have that broad source of information about antimicrobial use and resistance.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.