Public Safety Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Jackie Naltchayan, As an Individual]

I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity, as individuals, to express the pain we have in our heart and talk about what happened to us.

I am the spouse of one of Leon Kordzian's victims. I was one of the first to discover that there was a scheme behind all of this. I went to the police, who told me they were sorry about what had happened to me. They told me there was absolutely nothing that could be done. The police didn't even have the decency to go and meet with this gentleman. They said there was nothing that could be done about this type of crime, that the guilty parties never go to prison and that the money is never recovered.

At that point, I set aside my own work and went into the community to find out more about the people this gentleman had dealings with — the people he talked to. I did a little investigative work and discovered there were 45 victims. I went to see them. Most of them are seniors, vulnerable people, women who are single parents, people who had made small investments, and who lost everything. These were not very wealthy investors, but they did have some savings. They lost everything. We had to mobilize all these people, change the culture and tell them that they shoudn't be afraid, and that they had to get help.

That was when we went to see Ms. Mourani — most of the victims live in her riding, in the borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville — to tell her that we needed help, that the police were not helping us at all and that nothing was being done. So, people mobilized. That was how we were finally able to discover that there were 45 victims. Of those victims, there was one who spoke neither French nor English. Mr. Kordzian took that person to the bank and got him to open a $55,000 line of credit, which he then stole. That lady is now working seven days a week at minimum wage to pay back her line of credit. Some elderly people lost everything and don't have any money left for the care they need.

And yet this gentleman is still out on the street, as though nothing had happened. He is a psychopath who planned this operation for months, perhaps even years.

As for Norbourg, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison by the judge but, all of a sudden, reality hits and we see that it takes five years to do an investigation, that you need lawyers, and so. Then, in no time at all, 11 months later, this gentleman gets out of prison. How is that possible? The judge handed down the sentence; so who actually decides? Furthermore, when he gets out of prison, this gentlemen will have some $90 million that's currently hidden somewhere in the world. He'll do a little community work, and have a good time. These people are extremely manipulative. He will go away somewhere and have the luxury of a nice retirement on the backs of people who will have to continue to work for the rest of their lives to recover what they've lost.

It isn't fair. Things don't work that way in other countries. In the United States, for example, Madoff was sentenced to 100 years in prison. In a case like that, a fraudster or thief thinks twice before committing a crime. Kordzian told me, nonchalantly, that there was nothing I could do. However, we are sitting here in Parliament today, trying to find a way of deterring these individuals.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Sapers. Of course, Mr. Sapers has appeared before at committees, I believe. I know him from Alberta, from a time long ago. I'm sure he's maybe just struggling about whether or not to make his return to Alberta. There seems to be so much opportunity there now.

Anyway, that's not what he's here to speak on this evening.

Mr. Sapers, please.

[Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator]

Thank you for that provocation, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee, Mr. Chair, and your sensitivity to the role of my office. This is an unusual presentation for us. In terms of the notice, it also was an opportunity for our office to practise its rapid response capabilities.

My purpose here is to reflect on the impact Bill C-59, the Abolition of Early Parole Act, would have on the system and on those under sentence who are serving their time in the system.

If enacted, Bill C-59 will likely lead to an increase in the incarcerated offender population managed by the Correctional Service of Canada by adding to the length of time served prior to conditional release. My office is concerned about the impact of another significant increase in the inmate population on an already burdened correctional system. An increase in the federal inmate population will affect the safety and security of institutions as well as the ability of individual inmates to receive the programs and services that will assist in their safe and timely return to their communities.

I'd like to first address the overall impact of Bill C-59. Then I'll ask my executive director and general counsel, Dr. Ivan Zinger, to speak about the specific impact of prison crowding on staff and offender safety.

Based on statistics for 2009-10 obtained from the Parole Board of Canada, in the past five years, 7,272 offenders were entitled to be considered for accelerated parole review day parole consideration at one-sixth of their sentences. Of those, 4,878 were directed to day parole. The grant rate is 67%. In the past five years, the successful completion rate of those directed to day parole was nearly 84%. Significantly, only 0.3% released on APR day parole resulted in a revocation for a violent offence, which of course is the test in the legislation as it exists. Most revocations were for administrative reasons.

Now, in the past five years, 5,255 offenders were entitled to be considered for APR, or accelerated parole review, for full parole release at one-third. Of those, significantly, 5,227 were directed to full parole. The grant rate was 99.5%, and in the past five years, the successful completion rate was 70%. Only 0.4% of those released on full parole as a result of APR resulted in a revocation for a violent offence.

It's also important to say that release on APR at one-sixth is not automatic. For example, Parole Board of Canada data for 2009-10 indicate that 947 APR releases were directed, while 545 were denied. It's important to note that PBC only releases offenders who do not pose an undue risk to society and who will be under close supervision by parole officers while they are in the community. In all cases, released offenders on parole continue to be under sentence and are monitored by the Correctional Service of Canada until their warrant expiry dates.

The purpose and principles of sentencing are described in detail in the Canadian Criminal Code. Conditional release does not undermine these principles. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act states that public safety is paramount in corrections and conditional release decisions. It also stipulates that the least restrictive options consistent with public safety must be the guiding principles for those decisions.

The abolition of APR will result in non-violent offenders remaining in federal custody for significantly longer periods before being released into the community, this with limited net public safety benefit. It should be noted that the cost of incarceration is more significant than the cost related to offenders serving their sentences in the community under various restrictions.

We can also expect that the Parole Board of Canada will have to hold more hearings than before, as APR typically is conducted by a paper review.

These associated costs, in addition to significant incarceration costs, are important and need to be calculated.

Dr. Zinger.

[Dr. Ivan Zinger, Executive Director and General Counsel, Office of the Correctional Investigator]

Prison overcrowding has negative impacts on the system's ability to provide humane, safe and secure custody. It is well documented that overcrowding in prison can lead to increased levels of tension and violence, and can jeopardize the safety of staff and inmates.

When correctional populations significantly increase, timely and comprehensive access to offender programs, treatment and meaningful employment opportunities measurably diminish, resulting in delays for safe reintegration into the community.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator is also concerned about the differential impacts that Bill C-59 will have on specific populations, namely Aboriginal offenders and women offenders. The over-representation of Aboriginal people in Canada's prisons and penitentiaries is well known. Nationally, Aboriginal people are less than 4% of the Canadian population, but comprise almost 20% of the total federal prison population. For women, this over-representation is even more dramatic — they represent 33% of women in federal penitentiaries. The grant rate for day parole APR, or day parole at one sixth, is already significantly lower for Aboriginal offenders compared to the overall grant rate — 39% versus 63%.

The Office is also concerned about the potential impact on the women offender population. In the last 10 years, from 2000 to 2010, the number of women admitted to federal custody increased by 35%. The grant rate for APR — day parole at 1/6th of the sentence — is very good at 89%. Denying access to APR will have a more significant impact on women than men.

[Howard Sapers]

Mr. Chairman, Bill C-59 needs to be carefully understood and evaluated, as proposed changes in conjunction with other legislative proposals may have significant effects on the rate, cost, and distribution of incarceration in Canada.

We know that the majority of offenders do not appear before the parole board at their earliest eligibility. We also know that waivers and postponements of parole hearings are related to the capacity of the Correctional Service to ensure that offenders have completed their core correctional programs in a timely fashion and that case management preparation has been completed on time.

The abolition of APR will have a system-wide effect on the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to process cases in a timely fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sapers and Mr. Zinger.

Mr. Fineberg.

[Stephen Fineberg, President, Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec]

Thank you.

I'm going to speak for myself and on behalf of my colleague, Maître Jacinthe Lanctôt. We're from the Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec, which has existed since 1992. We represent the lawyers in Quebec who have specialized prison and parole practices.

The reasons we're opposed to the bill abolishing accelerated parole review are several.

We consider that the accelerated parole review program is one of the most important features of the existing correctional and release regime. It serves several crucial purposes. It distinguishes between violent and non-violent offenders, and this is something that Canadians have always wanted. Despite the amount of harm that non-violent offenders impose, Canadians still are preoccupied with the effect of violent crime, and they don't want the two categories treated equally.

The accelerated parole review regime removes a significant number of relatively non-criminalized, often young individuals from a destructive environment, if the board certifies that they are appropriate cases, and it removes them as early as possible, ideally before they fall in with even worse company. Accelerated parole review serves in many cases to correct the difficulties that are imposed by the needs of persons serving short sentences to build a file for the parole board to review. Accelerated parole review dramatically reduces the cost of the system. You've all seen the studies that put the average cost of incarceration of one individual at more than $93,000 a year. Clearly, supervision in the community is a far cheaper option.

Now we want to bring your attention to the concrete impact that a repeal of accelerated parole review will have on the function of the parole board. The parole board, until about two years ago, was conducting hearings for various matters, such as the imposition of residential conditions on people. It doesn't do it anymore because it doesn't have the time and it doesn't have the resources, so it takes those decisions in file studies. Now, this bill proposes that the resources of the National Parole Board be directed to the most obviously releasable cases, the people who it is perfectly clear to everyone are going to be released. This doesn't apply, obviously, to everyone who's eligible, but in the category of accelerated parole review, there are many individuals who are clearly non-criminalized and who should be removed as early as possible, and that's what the board will do when it finally gets to them. But from now on, it's going to be conducting in-person hearings for these cases where its energies aren't even needed.

Is this good governance? Is this a good use of our resources?

The accelerated parole review is not a gift to people. What it does is it extends the period of supervision of these appropriate candidates--supervision in the community. Supervision in the community is not a failure of the system. It's social reintegration in a structured, managed way. It's in the interest of public security. It gives us hope that these individuals will not be committing new crimes and creating new victims in the future. That has always been the purpose of supervised release, and here we're backing away from it. It makes no sense.

Some members around this table perhaps are not aware of what day parole looks like. There are various forms of day parole. Although the parole board finds itself obliged to release many people through accelerated parole review, it still determines what the day parole is going to look like, and when it deals with many of the accelerated review cases, it imposes community projects that are operated out of closed halfway houses. That means that people are obliged to perform volunteer work, unpaid, at a place supervised by Correctional Service. At the end of their working day, they have to come back to a halfway house. They're not allowed out on the way back. They can't go to a restaurant. They can't go to the bank. They can't go to their home. They can't see their families. They have to go straight back to a closed halfway house, and that's where they spend their evening. These people are not leading a comfortable life. They are supervised. If a person receives 12 years and is released at two years to a halfway house, for the next 10 years that person is supervised. People released on accelerated parole review are subject at every moment to suspension.

I had a client serving a 13-year sentence who was released at one-sixth, thanks to accelerated parole review. He did not respect his responsibilities. He stole one piece of steak from the community program he was working for. He was out one week. He did two-thirds of his sentence. The parole board revoked his release for stealing one steak from his community project and he did two-thirds of the sentence. Everyone is under that pressure and that scrutiny. It is not a good time.

Let's remember that when you lose your accelerated review, you're never eligible for accelerated review again. It's a one-shot deal. I could give you examples of the kinds of clients who have been eligible for accelerated review: relatively naive and innocent people who are sometimes used by organizations. They receive federal sentences despite their lack of priors because the courts insist on general denunciation of certain crimes, especially drug-related crimes.

The courts of appeal have decided that the principles of general denunciation should be given emphasis by the sentencing judges, and people receive huge sentences--although the judges understand that in some cases they're not a risk to the public--for the purpose of denunciation of the crime. These people should be brought out as soon as possible, because they don't threaten the public.

Abolishing accelerated parole review is pointless. This could be dealt with in other ways. Victims who are here tonight have a right to justice. They've been badly used, very badly used, but the kinds of people who have abused them don't need to have an automatic get out of jail free card. All one has to do is fine-tune this bill to remove from the people who are eligible for accelerated review the kinds of criminals who have abused the victims who are here today.

Large-scale fraud artists don't have to be eligible for this program. There is no need to kill the whole program for deserving people in order to target those large-scale fraud artists and other kinds of people that one does not want to see freed. Justice does not mean dealing cruelly and in a counterproductive way with the kinds of people Parliament had in mind when it adopted this program.

The last thing I would like to say is that our association--like lawyers across the country--is firmly opposed to the retroactivity that the bill is proposing. This is shocking. This is scandalous.

People plead guilty when they don't have to based on the law as it exists when they're making their decision. They consult their criminal defence lawyers. They consider what their options are. They see that accelerated parole release exists and it's one-sixth of the sentence. They don't defend themselves in court. They don't want to pay for a long trial. They say, “I'll take my pill”, because there is this accelerated parole review. It's meant for a guy like me who's a non-violent person with no history of violence. But now they discover that they never should have pleaded guilty. Now they discover that, retroactively, this bill is going to take away what the government offered these people. It's shocking. It's probably unconstitutional, and I guess we're going to find out, because there are going to be countless challenges all across the country as people try to convince courts, through testimony maybe from their defence lawyers, that they pleaded guilty specifically in reliance on this law that you've now yanked away.

Whether it is unconstitutional or not, it is improper. Bill C-39 did not want this to be retroactive. Why? Not because the government wanted to do favours to people who were serving sentences, but because the government recognized that it is not right to remove this retroactively. It is not the way Canadians do things. I urge you to kill the retroactivity if you adopt this bill. That is not proper public policy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, sir.

Now we will proceed to Madame Lanctôt.

[Jacinthe Lanctôt, Vice-President, Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec]

I can give you one or two examples of people who benefited from the accelerated parole review procedure. These are recent examples given to me by colleagues, particularly the example of a young 26-year-old women who was arrested in Aruba for narcotics trafficking and importation. She was given a long prison sentence — eight years. She had come under the influence of her lover. When she was in jail, she realized that she was pregnant. She was able to be transferred back to Canada fairly quickly, given her circumstances. She benefitted from APR and was released to a halfway house. She had a lengthy term of day parole, because the longer the sentence, the longer day parole and community supervision last. So, she benefitted from that procedure, was released and was able to care for her child in the halfway house.

I have another example for you. It involves an individual, a working father who had significant financial problems and whose house was contaminated by fungi. The legal procedures were long and costly, he lost his job and things went from bad to worse. He lost, not only is job, but his spouse. He went through a marital separation. That was when he allowed himself to be tempted by a childhood friend who proposed that he get involved in narcotics trafficking and, in particular, growing cannabis. Thanks to APR, that individual was able to be released on day parole.

The young woman I referred to earlier had no history either of violence or any other type of crime.

As for the man, he had a history of simple possession of drugs and theft, but other than that, he had no other history. He was therefore able to benefit from APR and was released to a halfway house. There he took advantage of the resources available. He received help to better manage his finances and other advice, to try and get his life back on track. He would never have received these services had he remained in jail for a long period. As others stated before me, the longer people stay in prison, the greater the danger of their contamination by criminals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to our first round of questioning.

We'll go to Mr. Holland, please, for seven minutes.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the start, let me say to each of the victims who spoke, first of all, my deepest sympathies for what you went through.

Secondly, we completely agree with the notion that large-scale fraudsters--such as the one who defrauded you--should not have access to this provision. In fact, at justice committee some two years ago, we introduced measures to make that change. We feel very strongly about that.

But our concerns rest not with large-scale fraudsters; they rest with, as I think many witnesses have identified, all of the other people who are being now caught up in these changes. We're confused as to why there is a need to lump everybody in there if the target is the type of people who defrauded the people around this table.

First, to Madam Campbell, what's the cost of this bill?

[Mary Campbell, Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I think the position of the government has been that costing is considered a cabinet confidence. Consequently, I don't think I'm able to answer that question.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Sapers, we have some 18 crime bills before us. Do you think it would be prudent of Parliament to vote on those 18 bills without some estimation of what the costs would be? I ask you in your position as a correctional investigator.

[Howard Sapers]

I think that represents a challenge for Parliament, for all members.

From my perspective as correctional investigator for Canada, I'm not in a position to comment specifically on the financial impact, but I can tell you that there's a system shock that's beginning to set in. I heard somebody use the expression “policy whiplash” in terms of the men and women who operate the system having to adjust and readjust to the pace and the rapidity of the changes that are coming. Obviously the financial part is part of that accommodation.

So the Parole Board of Canada, the Correctional Service of Canada, and all of the partners they work with in the communities, of course, are under some duress just keeping pace with the change and having then to reallocate funds and seek new funds through Treasury Board submissions, etc.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm going to come to Madam Pate in just a moment on this question. But before I go there, one of the concerns I have with the ballooning and expanding prison population is that it gives less resources to go after the very types of people these victims are concerned about, the larger-scale, more serious offenders. The system becomes diluted.

In fact what we found through questions on the order paper--and I'm looking for you to confirm this--is that as the population is expanding, the number of dollars available for program and services to actually make people better is either staying the same or is diminishing. So in real terms, the amount of money available for rehabilitation to make people better has dwindled relative to the number of inmates.

Can you confirm that is a concern you share? What is the trajectory of that?

[Howard Sapers]

There have been some new reinvestments, particularly in the area of mental health services. But overall the capacity of the service has not expanded, from a program and intervention standpoint, at the same rate it's projected to expand in terms of bricks and mortar.

Many of the announcements we've seen have been for expanding living space capacity. We haven't seen the detailed plans on how that's going to be married to the capacity to provide an increased number of programs and the other interventions that go into good corrections.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Pate, I will come to you for a second, first on the question of whether Parliament should vote with a blindfold on. Do you think it's appropriate that Parliament vote for things when they have no idea how much they cost?

Second is on the question that I asked about diminishing services. With larger and larger populations, more and more first-time non-violent offenders spending longer periods of time...having reduced services, for somebody who is on the front lines of dealing with rehabilitation, what do you think that impact is going to have? As well, can you expand on your comments about how this bill is going to disproportionately affect women?

[Kim Pate]

Thank you very much, Mr. Holland.

I had the privilege and responsibility of being on the advisory committee when the Parliamentary Budget Officer was trying to cost out one of the previous bills. And with the difficulty they had, as Ms. Campbell has identified, in obtaining information from the government about the costs, we have a significant concern.

The last time we had a costing of the amount to keep a woman in prison, it was around $185,000 a year. Of the figures I was provided today, I was advised this would impact approximately 910 women a year—minimum. Those are 10-year-old figures. So at that amount, we're looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood, I would say, of $10 million, and that's for women alone.

We know that disproportionately it will impact the number of women who may be retained in custody for a longer period of time. When we're talking from one-sixth to potentially longer than one-sixth, we're talking at least one year probably, maybe longer; it could be shorter—it could be as short as six months—but nevertheless, we're talking in the millions of dollars just for women alone.

We're talking about numbers that at 910 per year could mean two more prisons at least. It could also be three more prisons to five more prisons, depending on which figures you're looking at.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

And the figures you gave obviously don't include capital costs for prison construction.

I'm interested in going one step further. The Conservatives often talk about us not talking about victims. Maybe they fundamentally misunderstand the point that if you have a lower rate of recidivism and you prevent crime, you either don't have victims in the first place or you've reduced the number of victims out there, which I think is an extremely important point.

I'm wondering about the impact, particularly when it pertains to women, which is your specialty.

Mr. McIsaac, would you respond with regard to men and the impact this bill will have on rehabilitation? If they need a translation, that means not allowing crime and reducing victimization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have 10 seconds, so very quickly.

[Kim Pate]

It would have profound impact on the ability to reintegrate. Already we see those resources being cut. We see those resources being cut for those whose sentence is completed, which is likely to put them at increased risk. We also know the rate of victimization for women in particular, indigenous peoples, and for most of the individuals who are in prison.

If this would discourage major fraud, then probably many of us would be speaking in favour of it, but we know that's not what it will do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Pate.

We'll now move to the Bloc Québécois.

Ms. Mourani, you have seven minutes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening to all our witnesses, and thank you for agreeing to stay so late to provide your insight with respect to this bill.

Mr. Sapers, I have several questions for you. I am trying to understand the figures you have provided. You cite statistics for 2009-2010, according to which 7,272 offenders were entitled to be considered for APR in the last five years. You also talked about the number of offenders released on day parole after serving 1/6th of their sentence, if I'm not mistaken. Those numbers cover a five-year period. That means that more than 1,000 people per year, approximately, were eligible.

If you could provide statistics on an annual basis, I would be better able to see the full picture. Are we talking about more than 1,000 inmates a year?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger]

Perhaps I could provide some clarification. When we were asked to appear, we went onto the National Parole Board's website and found its performance report. That report provides percentages, but not exact figures. We therefore asked the Board for more precise numbers. The figures we quoted today are the ones we received from the Board. They cover a five-year period. We also were given figures for 2009-2010.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Which are the ones I have here.