Evidence of meeting #55 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
That's not what I said. You can ad lib or fill in what I said, but that's not what I said, so you might as well retract it and start over.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Sorry. Continue, Mr. Davies. If you're going to quote Mr. Lobb or if you're going to summarize what he says, again, let's make sure that we try--
NDP
NDP
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
He was talking about a crook who doesn't have an addiction, doesn't have a mental illness, someone who's just raw, taking money.
Now Mr. McIsaac, Ms. Pate, Mr. Sapers, have you spent time in federal penitentiaries?
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Yes, not as prisoners.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Can you tell me what percentage of the male offender population in our federal penitentiaries would you say fits that kind of description, as opposed to--
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I challenge this type of questioning, the relevancy to this piece of legislation. What does this have to do with this piece of legislation?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think I did give a little bit of leeway on your question.
Again, the question of relevance is one to all sides. When you pose the question, it needs to be taken into account. I gave Mr. McColeman a little bit of leeway. I'll give you some leeway, but relevant to the topic.
Continue, Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes.
Describe the male inmate population that would be affected by this legislation.
Director of Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
I think we have already heard the profile of our federal offenders is those who are suffering from addiction, either to drugs or alcohol, and we've got a large percentage who are suffering as well from mental health issues.
Who exactly will be covered or eliminated in terms of the APR is difficult. The data I've seen from the parole board have not broken that down in terms of either sentence length or necessarily an offender profile.
But I will reiterate what was said before. If the system worked as well as we all wished it would, the impact may in fact be considerably less than we have been saying this evening. But the reality is that offenders, because they are not getting access to programming inside, because of the overcrowding, because of the absence of resources, are being put off much later in their sentences to be even considered for conditional release. So the cumulative effect of the removal of APR is going to be significant as time passes, as well as in the immediate future.
As I mentioned earlier, I think the best way to protect society is through safe reintegration into the community. The longer they spend inside, the less they're going to be under supervision on the outside.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have one brief comment, which is that I've heard people express that people are coming out after one-sixth of their sentence. I think it's important to note that when people get a 10- or 12-year sentence, that is their sentence. The only question we're talking about here is where they are appropriately serving their sentence. A halfway house is a place of incarceration, is it not?
February 15th, 2011 / 8:45 p.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Yes.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes.
Now, I'd like to give the last of my last to Mr. Fineberg and Dr. Zinger. We haven't heard enough from you, so I just want to give the rest of my time to each of you to comment as you see fit.
President, Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec
Okay. Thank you very much. That's good of you.
With regard to short sentences, you have to understand that people do not receive parole on short sentences. APR changes the calculation. With accelerated parole review, the board has an obligation to release people at a defined point in their sentence, unless these people are problematic. Without APR, these people have to make applications to see the board. Even if they get to see the board, even if they have their hearing, they lose. The onus is reversed. The board will not release unless the prisoner can prove to the board that there have been significant and lasting changes. And you cannot do that without programs, and the programs are not available to those on a short sentence. So when we have clients who go into a penitentiary on a short sentence, if they are not APR, we know they're doing their two-thirds. They start begging for programs from the beginning. They make written requests. They make grievances. They don't get the programs. They're not available. Automatically the board is going to refuse these people. That is the reality.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
Your time is up in three seconds, two, one. It's up.
We'll now move to Mr. Rathgeber, please.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to all the witnesses for your attendance here this evening. I know it's been a long night.
Mr. Sapers, in your presentation you indicated--and I'm reading from the written notes, page 4--“It is also important to say that release on APR at 1/6 is not automatic.” In fact, you underscored “not”. My friend Mr. Ménard, in one of his questions, referred to it as automatic or quasi-automatic when it comes to white-collar criminals. I think that's an important distinction. As I understand it—and please correct me if I'm wrong—with respect to non-violent offenders, the parole board has no discretion not to release at one-sixth, and therefore it is automatic for white-collar criminals at one-sixth.
I see Mr. Fineberg is shaking his head “no”, and I may come back to him, but I want Mr. Sapers to answer first.