Public Safety Committee on March 27th, 2014

[Kevin Grabowsky]

There is institutional...yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay, let me read to you what Mr. Cenaiko indicated the Parole Board considers. He said to me:

The Parole Board of Canada will review the file from start to finish. That file would include the background history of the offender and any societal issues he may have grown up with through his life. It would look at his criminogenic behaviour and criminal activity throughout his life. It would include the judge's comments at sentencing each time, or just the one occurrence when the offender was sentenced. Our board members would review the police reports in relation to the offence and look at the whole picture of the individual—how he got into the institution, the crime, and the nature and gravity of the offence he created.

Then they look at psychological assessments, psychiatric assessments, while in the institution; his institutional behaviour while he is in there; the conduct in relation to the successful or unsuccessful programming that he is taking in the institution. Then they look at his community release plan.

That's what the Parole Board factored in.

Perhaps I could ask you a kind of two-part question.

I think it was made quite clear to us by victims that there seems to be a real frustration in that they don't feel they have a sense of any kind of involvement or even information or accessibility to the decisions being made by the warden. I suspect that's probably why when we listened to Ms. Gray-Donald on the first panel today when she spoke about the CSC having a significantly higher release rate when making these decisions than the National Parole Board.... I suspect that probably the lack of involvement by the victims and their families is largely responsible for that, because when you take that into consideration, there is a whole other level of understanding of exactly the impact this has.

I wonder if you could give your thoughts on whether, from what I've read to you that the National Parole Board considers in its decisions, there would be similar factors that are considered when the CSC is doing its reviews, and if not, tell me what is different, whether there are additional things or if something is lacking.

Certainly, to me, it seems as though input from the victims is what is lacking when the CSC is doing its reviews on the ETAs. That, to me, would indicate probably where this frustration comes from on the part of victims and also where there seems to be a significantly higher release rate.

Would you care to comment on that?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

You're correct on one part. For our role as correctional officers dealing with that, when those decisions go forward it's institutional behaviour that makes up some of the factors. It's programs. Has he been attending? How is he attending? Is he involved? Does he have employment inside the institution? Is he an escape risk? Those are the factors for our input that goes in. It's his institutional behaviour, whether he has incurred institutional charges or outside charges while being incarcerated.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. McCormack, maybe I could ask you the same question. I know you're not directly involved per se in this process, but I'm sure you have a pretty good understanding of the factors the Parole Board is looking at, the factors Correctional Services Canada is looking at. To me, it's quite clear that the thing that's missing when the CSC is doing theirs is the victims' input and accessibility to this process. I think that is probably largely responsible for the higher rate of release.

Would you care to comment on that?

[Mike McCormack]

I believe that would be a contributing factor. I appeared before the committee on Bill C-479, the victim's role. That's what we're looking at, the victim's role. That is definitely having an impact on what's going on in the broader system. For instance, in the Hancox matter, there was no victim notification at all; there was nothing surrounding that victim. For sure that would have an impact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Richards, for your contribution today.

This time, I have—properly, in order—Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First I would like to thank the witnesses who are here with us today.

Mr. Grabowsky, from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, it is a pleasure to listen to you via teleconferencing.

Mr. McCormack, from the Toronto Police Association, it is always a pleasure to have you with us.

If you will, I will address my questions to Mr. Grabowsky mostly.

I found your presentation extremely interesting. You pointed out that Canadian correctional officers lacked certain resources that are in fact necessary for their work. I agree with you. In my riding there are now two federal penitentiaries, Montée Saint-François and the Federal Training Centre. I often have the opportunity to discuss things with correctional officers in the field. The situation you describe today is very similar to the situation in our Laval penitentiaries.

Concerning the employees' safety, I would like to know how many correctional officers accompany inmates when they have escorted temporary absence permissions. Are there one or two?

How do you assess the current level of safety employees have at work? You said that there were certain incidents, at the Drumheller facility in particular. Can you describe the current situation?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Currently we've been negotiating, and have negotiated, with the employer that for maximum and medium security inmates, when they are in that security level, there are two officers, and they are armed. For our minimum security level, there is no ratio, so one officer could be taking six, seven, eight, twelve inmates out, minimum security.

For ETAs, in the cases that I spoke of, there was one officer in an open vehicle both times. It was an unsecured vehicle. Both times the inmates took control of the officer and took the vehicle. It was while the officer was distracted by driving. The one inmate faked a heart attack. The officer was pulling over, and the inmate produced a weapon. We take inmates, these first- and second-degree murderers, for the first time out into the community with one officer, if they're at the minimum-security level. Back in 1987 it was an inmate from a maximum security level institution with one officer, open vehicle, into the public.

For us, it has to be changed. We can't keep maintaining that type of thing. In the bill it hasn't been addressed. Right now it could be the fact that it wouldn't even be a correctional officer. It may be a volunteer of the institution from a church group who may take an inmate on an escorted temporary absence. That hasn't been addressed or tightened up in the present bill, and we feel it must be.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Currently, are correctional officers the only ones who are authorized to be in charge of escorted temporary absences, or ETAs?

You mentioned that in its current form, the bill would allow a volunteer or a person belonging to a religious organization to do that.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Somebody else can accompany the inmate.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Can someone besides a correctional officer accompany inmates convicted of first or second degree murder?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

That's correct. Currently that's what the CCRA allows.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So you require that a correctional officer always accompany inmates when they have escorted temporary absences, and, ideally, that there be two employees with secured vehicles at all times. Did I understand correctly?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Currently for a minimum security level inmate, we are asking that there be two correctional officers in a secured vehicle.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

You talked about several incidents that happened when the correctional officer's vehicle was not a secured vehicle. Do those types of incidents happen often? Do they happen every year? How often do they happen?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

We see that every day with escorts from minimum security.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes, but I am thinking about the incidents you talked about, such as those that occurred at the Drumheller facility when a correctional officer was taken hostage by an inmate. Is this the type of thing that your members face? Do they run the risk of such things happening often?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

There are escorted temporary absences occurring every day from minimum security. Seeing as they are all inmates for first- or second-degree murder, that varies. But every day there are single or lone correctional officers in unsecured vehicles escorting inmates all across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine.

Thank you, Mme Doré Lefebvre.

Now, Mr. Norlock, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Chair, through you to the witnesses, thank you for being here.

My first question would be for Mr. McCormack.

Let me just say that 43 years ago when I was a young rookie officer dealing with victims, especially victims of domestic assault, and I think you would be familiar with this, because policing is in your family history, a woman—usually it was a woman—even with black eyes and serious injuries would have been told by a police officer after she was removed from a residence that she would be given an opportunity, and the police would assist her, to swear information before a justice of the peace, but the police wouldn't.

Would you agree with me that today, some 43 years later, we have vastly improved in that, in especially domestic assault but other assaults also, not only would the perpetrator be arrested and have a bail hearing but assistance would be given to the victims through victim services, etc.? Would you also agree with me that with regard to treatment of victims throughout the whole system, particularly now dealing with Bill C-483, we just need to go the extra mile to balance the scales so that it is at least equal? Would you agree with me? Would you make some comments in that regard?

[Mike McCormack]

First of all, surrounding domestic violence and policing and law enforcement and the culture, we have changed. We have learned a lot from those days. That's exactly the way it was when I started the job. Violence was looked at through quite a different lens and that was the way it was handled. We have learned a lot over the last 30 years from a law enforcement perspective in what is going on with crime and how people are victimized.

The only thing I don't agree with is when you say that this type of legislation is going the extra mile. To me, this type of legislation is about fairness. It's not going the extra mile. The extra mile has a connotation that we're going above and beyond. I think you're seeking the threshold for these victims.

I'm not only here speaking as a police officer who worked in some of the toughest communities in Toronto where violence was a reality, serious violence, murder, and so on, but also from our officers' perspectives. We've had officers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice: they lost their lives. You heard about Bill Hancox, and the last time I was here I talked about Michael Sweet.

Some of the cornerstones of what we were talking about around BillC-479 were just the acknowledgement of victims and letting them have a role and a say, because what continually happens in the legal system is that victims are never a victim on the first occasion and then it's over and they go back to their lives and everything's fine. They are continually revictimized.

Part of having somebody who is accountable and responsible for the death of your loved one is that's always there in the back of your mind, even when we're going through a process like the parole process when there are hearings every year and so on and so forth. That's one level.

To have the victims there to take part in that and to at least feel as if they're having an impact on what's going on is one thing, but then when we talk about Bill C-483 taking away.... It's one thing for them to participate in the parole process, but then to have any citizen go home from that process and then to be arbitrarily cut out and the system usurped and the warden say that we're going to go on these ETAs, where's the procedural fairness? I believe that revictimizes the victims.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I thank you for that. When I said we're getting to where we want to go, we're not quite there yet, but I think very soon we will be striking the right balance.

I think you were here for most of Ms. Hancox's testimony. She talked about the feeling of vulnerability each time the victim's family, and she is a victim, obviously, has to write these statements and tell how she feels and how it affected her, that the accused in our system has the right to know.

They have to expose their innermost feelings time and again. The feeling is here we go; this guy or person in prison—in this case it's a woman—begins to exert some kind of control again over her life, even though she's lost that control, given that there's no father or mother at home.

I wonder if you've experienced that. You mentioned revictimization, but knowing how criminal minds work, it's an exercise of control. Even from the distance of prison, they continue to control. Whether it's right or not, there's still that feeling. That may be why a lot of victims ask to be left alone. They've gone through hell here and they don't want to go through it again.

Would you make some comments, please?

[Mike McCormack]

It's a catch-22 situation. I just went through this with Christine Russell and her family. I've gone through it with the Sweets, and Ms. Hancox. It's a catch-22 in the sense that they continually have to open their souls and pour their hearts out and have the person who perpetrated this.... There is an impact. That's why they call it a victim impact statement and people need to hear how it has affected them.

There is a cost to the victim. What I've heard from the victims is the choice is whether to disengage and then there's a perception and a sense of guilt that they're not participating in the system.

It's almost as if they get in a wheel and they can't get out of it because they continually have to go through it. It is a revictimization.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thanks very much, Mr. McCormack, and thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Mr. Easter.