Evidence of meeting #127 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offender.
A video is available from Parliament.
Nicholas Swales Principal, Office of the Auditor General
The only observation I would make is that we didn't attempt to understand the motivation for the parole officers in meeting with the offenders in a particular pattern. We just observed whether it was consistent with the intent of the policy.
Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC
Commissioner Kelly, it's identified as a concern under paragraph 6.47 and then under 6.46. Are you troubled by that finding, or do you find that there are explanations that are acceptable in this?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Again, having worked in the community with offenders, if it's something that happens all the time, that every month you meet with the inmates three times within six days, that would be concerning if it's month over month.
But in the community, there are instances where offenders may go through a crisis. If they go through a crisis, you will find parole officers who may actually see the offender for four days in a row to help them get through the crisis, and then they may not see them, but may touch base through a call or a text message. That does happen, and there are reasons that you would sometimes see that a parole officer has seen the offender more often.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
Just before we go to Mr. Christopherson, I want to be clear on this as well. Are you saying that never would a parole officer want to have the check mark that she or he has met with them so many times and so they do this over a few days? You're saying it wasn't gaming. It might have been for very good reasons.
Conservative
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hayes and Commissioner. I appreciate you all being here.
As you probably know, back in another life I was the minister of Correctional Services in Ontario for a few years, which I have found is sometimes to the advantage of witnesses in that I know what the challenges are in the real world and what you're facing. At other times, it plays to your disadvantage because I can see where the spin is in a way that I might not otherwise see.
I have some thoughts before I get into detailed questions.
First, Commissioner, you clearly know your file, and your 35 years show, but I have to tell you that I am not impressed with your written word. Your personal words are better. I won't blame you; I'll let you off the hook and say it's your communications people. It's like the military. They do not seem to have the ability to say, “We screwed up. We didn't do as well as we should have. We failed to achieve certain objectives.” When the Auditor General report says that, it's not that it's a big secret. Acknowledge that. I got so furious the last two times we had the military. Clearly, blatantly, they screwed up. Do you think they would say so? It made for a very uncomfortable hearing that didn't need to happen.
So I say to you and the other communications departments that come before us, don't give us a lot of spin and tell us how wonderful you are. We know the good work you do. Acknowledge where you fell down and where you didn't meet the standards that are expected, as outlined in the report.
I leave that with you.
I also want to comment that, on page 5 of your remarks, Commissioner, you said, “ln fact, there are now more women under community supervision (51%) than in federal custody (49%).” I just want to say that, with the exception of some cases, society is never really well served by locking women up, especially moms, in non-violent cases. I'm very glad to see there's a move to recognize that, if there has to be a sentence, where possible, we should keep women and moms in the community. It just makes, I think, good sense for all of us.
In the opening remarks of the deputy, we found “did not properly manage”, “did not have a long-term plan”, “did not provide”, “did not meet” and “did not properly measure”. I won't take the time, but I marked out the comments in terms of the focus of the audit and whether you passed or failed. Basically you failed. In most of the areas there were clear problems.
So let me delve into a couple of things.
First of all, on page 1 of the Auditor General's report, it states that “40% of all federal offenders...were supervised in the community”, and yet only 6% of the budget goes to community corrections. Doesn't it make sense, even from an economic point of view, if not from a societal one, to be putting more money in there? It's 40% of the offenders, but they only get 6% of the budget.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Yes, that's true. It costs quite a bit less to keep offenders in the community than it does to keep them incarcerated.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Indeed it does, which is why I found it perplexing in paragraph 6.11 that “It could take more than two years from the time a site was selected with a community partner to the time the first offender was placed at a new facility.” I agree with you that one of the benefits to society with community corrections is that it costs us a lot less money, and hopefully we're achieving the same goal, as Mr. Arya said, which is to return people to society as law-abiding citizens.
I want to come back to that point specifically. You knew the population was going to grow. You knew that; your own reports had said it, but you didn't plan for any more facilities.
I want to know why.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
We're changing that. At the local level and at the regional level, a lot of work is being done. Both Mr. Tousignant and I have been regional deputy commissioners, I in the Pacific region, Mr. Tousignant in Quebec.
In the last three years, 200 beds have been added. This is in large part because of the work done at both the local and regional levels. I do agree with the Auditor General that we need to have a line of sight on this at the national level.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes. Commissioner, with respect, my question to you was you had studies in front of you that you knew with certainty the populations were going to increase. We know for citizens who find themselves in conflict with the law that community corrections is best. We also know that it's cheaper to do it that way.
Knowing you were going to have increased demand, why did you not plan and ensure you had the facilities you knew you were going to need?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
At both the local and the regional level, work was being done.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
It's because they know their population. For example, in the Pacific region a lot of work was being done. We knew we had a number of offenders with mental health issues so we opened a halfway house called Maria Keary Cottage for those offenders. A number of offenders were aboriginal, so the district director was extremely involved in working with community partners to find available space.
The same thing was happening in every region, and that's why the Auditor General also recognized an increase in the number of beds. However, now we're developing a comprehensive long-term accommodation plan, a national plan.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
And my question was why didn't you do that before.
Thanks, Chair.
Randeep Sarai Surrey Centre, Lib.
I want to thank you. I have a lot of constituents, and a lot of family and friends as well, who are corrections officers and work in the force. It's a very admirable career. Most of them have had very satisfactory lives and currently are employed with them.
I also have a city with a lot of youth crime. Surrey Centre and Surrey in general have been exposed to that, so concern about people reoffending is a high priority.
One of the concerns I had was it appears that a significant portion of offenders did not meet parole officers enough. Was part of the problem the fact that there is simply a shortage of parole officers? Was that prevalent in the Pacific region specifically?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
I don't have the information on where it was more prevalent. Frequency of contact, again, is one element of a broader community supervision strategy. I outlined some of the other things that occur when offenders are in the community. Certainly if they reside in a community-based residential facility, they are seen by the staff from the facility on a daily basis. There are curfew checks. They also participate in employment and in programs so they are seen by program officers.
We're changing our policies to ensure that the district directors monitor the compliance with frequency of contact, and, obviously, ensuring that it's properly documented.
Surrey Centre, Lib.
Would you be able to table to the committee based on region? I would like to know particularly if there's a shortage of parole officers on the west coast, particularly in the Greater Vancouver Lower Mainland region.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
As I said, based on the numbers I have on the west coast, the ratio for parole officers to offenders is 1:13, and in the Pacific it's 1:11.
Surrey Centre, Lib.
Okay. That's good.
In Surrey there's a concern that some offenders are so dangerous—and this is more of a public safety concern for the parole officers themselves—that they have no place to meet them because the offender himself or herself is at risk of being a target, and therefore they are not meeting the offenders as stated by their conditions.
Is that the case? If so, how do you mitigate that situation where somebody is on parole or in a parole-like setting, however, their own lives are at risk, and therefore, the Corrections Canada officer is not able to meet them or meet them only in very secure areas such as a police station. Are there ways to mitigate this?
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Yes. In terms of the frequency of contact, normally we try for a balance between home visits, where you can see where the offender is residing, and visits in the office. We also have what we call a “staff safety assessment template” that has to be completed. If there are concerns, the supervision can take place in tandem: it's not just one parole officer, but two parole officers who actually see the offender.
In cases where there are concerns about potential gang activities, you're quite right, the visit may also occur at the police station, the office or elsewhere, but certainly not in the offender's home.
Surrey Centre, Lib.
You also stated that there are delays in release to facilities due to offenders being rejected. Are people delayed in getting parole or access to neighbourhood facilities because the community-based organizations are rejecting them, so therefore there's a long delay in getting into one of the 14 Correctional Service Canada facilities? Would that be the issue? Is there a shortage of correctional facilities managed by Corrections Canada? Is that the cause of those delays in getting out?
February 19th, 2019 / 9:30 a.m.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
There are different reasons.
You're quite right, the CBRFs that are operated by our partners have admission criteria. In a lot of cases, they may not accept sex offenders, for example. In those cases where the CBRFs are not willing to accept the offender, then it's CSC's responsibility to accommodate them in one of our community correctional centres. In the Pacific region, there is the Chilliwack Centre. Belkin House in Vancouver is an enhanced CBRF.
In terms of why they sometimes wait to be accommodated, there are a variety of reasons that we are now going to be tracking more closely. In some cases, the offenders wait to complete programs that they've started in the institution. Sometimes they'll wait for a specialized bed. In some cases, they'll wait for their preferred location; I will admit that we see that mostly in Toronto. We have two CCCs, one on Keele Street in Toronto and one in Kingston. If the offender wants to go to Toronto, sometimes it's full, so they go to Kingston first.
Surrey Centre, Lib.
I think that my last question is a concern for Canadians in general, but particularly for my constituents. We're seeing a good pattern where people are getting placed into community-based facilities more prevalently. I just want to confirm that the reoffending rate has dropped, as a result of that, and not increased. There's always a public perception that we release people too early and they're about to reoffend, but I'd like to get it on the record that the rate has actually dropped, if I'm correct. Could you elaborate on that?