Public Safety Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2016

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I have a final question directed at the Parole Board.

One of the issues of deep concern for us is missing and murdered aboriginal women. It's not just looking back and making sure we have a national inquiry, but also that we stop what's going on so that there are no future cases.

Specifically on the Parole Board side, are there any programs aimed at first nations with respect to the propensity to reoffend, the release process, and in particular the protection of women and children through that process?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

Again, protection against domestic violence is an extremely important consideration as we look at individual programs. The programs are not provided by the Parole Board. They are provided through CSC. However, programs are available.

When they are brought to the board's attention at the hearing or through the parole officer, we want to ensure those conditions are in place and that the offenders will have those opportunities to learn and get the training they need in the community—not just in the institution, but hopefully in the community where they reintegrate themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Cenaiko.

Go ahead, Monsieur Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Miller.

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I have two quick questions, but first, I'd like to thank you for the answer you gave my colleague opposite. I have been asked a lot about indigenous people in prison and their incarceration rate as compared to the general population. I feel that people too often take a narrow view. As you said so well, action needs to be taken at the grassroots level.

Before I was a politician and mayor, I was a teacher and school principal. Action needs to be taken at the grassroots level in communities to prevent these people from winding up in the situation they are in now. There are not two classes of citizens. When someone does something, there is a consequence, and I believe it has to apply. I applaud you for your answer.

I want to come back to my initial question, which has to do with public confidence in our prison system.

People have a lot of questions about inmates who get parole. Right now, what percentage of inmates reach the end of their sentence without parole? Can you answer that question?

[Don Head]

Thank you very much.

The percentage is very small. Those are individuals that we refer to under the legislation as individuals who are detained.

It's less than 5% of the population that is detained. Under the process that is required to do that, we have to present information to the Parole Board. The Parole Board—I'll let Mr. Cenaiko describe it in a little more detail—will have to make a determination as to whether the individual meets some very specific criteria that are set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in terms of being likely to commit a serious violent offence, commit a serious drug offence, or commit a very serious offence against children.

If they meet one of those criteria, the Parole Board can detain them. They could be detained right up to what we call warrant expiry, the end of their sentence, but the number of individuals who fall into that category is less than 5%.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

In relation to the indigenous file or indigenous offenders, we have found that the elder-assisted hearings we have, or the community-assisted hearings that are done as well on occasion, appear to be very successful for both the offender and for the offender going back into the community.

As I mentioned in my remarks, our statistics are such that 97% that are released do not commit another offence or are not convicted of another offence during the rest of that period of time they are on parole, meaning that from the day they are on parole right through to their warrant expiry date, they haven't committed another offence.

These are tremendous results we're seeing. They show that the programs that are being provided for in the institution are being carried through and that the conditions are being met as we move forward in safe reintegration of offenders back into the community.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

I will give the floor to my colleague, Larry Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you to both witnesses for being here.

Mr. Cenaiko, I just want to continue with where you were going. I think most people would agree that some people in the prison system are curable, if I could use that term. Some simply aren't, and there are some who should never see the light of day. Those are not just my words; I think most in the public would say that. I'll use an example: Paul Bernardo.

It seems whether it's every five years—you can tell me the number—the name of someone like Paul Bernardo will come up, and of course my office phones ring off the wall about it with people saying, “What the heck is wrong with our system, and why should this guy even be considered?”

Is there anything you could do to reduce or eliminate that kind of reaction in society? Heinous crimes are committed by certain people, and Bernardo is certainly one of them. That guy should never see the light of day. What could we do to appease the public on that issue?

Please answer as briefly as possible before I pass it over to my colleague here.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

Again, I think it's partly education and the fact that all lifers—and I won't speak about one particular individual—have their first opportunity for a parole hearing at 22 years, three years prior to their 25 years. They will always be on parole. Lifers will never be released back into the community without being on parole.

With regard to serious offenders, that's a good question. The legislation says that all offenders are eligible for parole, based on the time period that a judge sentences them to. It's part of the justice system in Canada that all offenders are eligible for parole, and we follow the legislation.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you both for your work and the work done by your teams.

My question, Mr. Cenaiko, relates to one of your comments. You said the overarching issue is public safety. In fact, your words were “it's paramount” in all decisions about parole or early release.

Public Safety Canada has about 14 characteristics that are considered when the rehabilitation of an offender is considered in connection with early release parole. Those would include things like understanding the impact of their crime, denunciation of past conduct, and remorse for the victims. Can you talk about how those elements of rehabilitation are considered, particularly in the cases of violent offenders?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

As board members assess the risk of an offender, they first look at the charges that the offender was convicted of. They look at any prior criminal history that he may have, as well as any relevant societal issues, such as being a victim himself in his own childhood, victimization of a victim, and those types of issues. They will also look at the institutional behaviour, the programming that the institution provides, and whether it is successful and whether the offender is engaged in the programming in the institution.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

If there is no remorse shown, or a lack of comprehension of the impact of their conduct, does that prevent release or parole?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

That would be one area that a board member would take into account. However, they're going to look at all of the factors. It's not just one factor that will decide whether this individual is going to be released on parole or not. There are a number of factors that are looked into.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Cenaiko.

We're a little over time.

Mr. Dubé is next.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being here.

Mr. Head, I just want to talk a bit about the last Parliament. There were a few tragic incidents related to solitary confinement, and there was a bit of debate on semantics, both when you appeared at the Senate committee and also in the questions that were asked of the minister. I'm asking these questions because now, with the new government, in the Justice Minister's mandate letter—and it's an issue that overlaps our committee and the justice committee—the minister has been asked to see that our practices come more into line with those of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

What are your thoughts on that, given the debate and notably the tragedy around Mr. Snowshoe?

[Don Head]

I think there are a couple of things to note here.

First, this is an area we've been looking at very closely for the last several years in terms of how “administrative segregation”—the term that's used in the legislation—is used. People call it “solitary confinement” or use other terms. We use the term that's defined in the law for separating offenders from the general population.

That said, we've looked at our practices. We've examined the oversight processes in place. We're continuing finding ways to try to ensure that we live up to the spirit of the law and live up to the letter of the law as it relates to anybody who is placed in segregation.

In terms of some of the work we've done just in the last year, we were running on average, for decades, between 700 and 800 individuals in segregation on any given day across the country. That's out of an incarcerated population of about 15,000. We now are running between 410 and 440, and the length of stay for people in segregation is much reduced.

We've put in place a couple of things. We have more engagement with mental health professionals for individuals who are in segregation, and more direct oversight by the wardens of those institutions. The wardens are required now to go down there daily and to see every offender in every cell in segregation.

We also have a more significant national oversight body that looks at finding alternatives. If an individual cannot be released back into the general population in the institution they're currently residing in, can they be moved to a general population in another institution in one of our regions, or can they be moved to another general population across the country?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Fair enough. I appreciate all of that.

You did touch on the mental health issue. The John Howard Society, for example, argues that it sometimes seems that solitary confinement—we can argue over the term—tends to target people with mental health issues or aboriginal people. Is that an assessment you agree with? Do you see that problem? Is that something you're seeking to rectify?

[Don Head]

Yes, on both fronts. This is a challenge for us, and this is something we're working to rectify.

The problem we encounter at times with some individuals with mental health problems is that when they act up as a result of a mental health problem, their behaviour is such that we have to move them somewhere for their protection or for the protection of others, so that they're not assaulting people or getting assaulted by other offenders.

In cases where offenders are willing to agree to be placed in one of our psychiatric facilities—i.e., they have the ability to give consent to receive psychiatric treatment—we would move them to one of the psychiatric facilities. However, if an offender has the ability to deny treatment, we're left with very few options in the interim until we can find some other viable solution.

The staff work very hard at trying to find solutions whereby the individuals can be placed back into general population.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

I guess, hearing all this, that this area is definitely something worthy of further study, especially given the changes that would be coming under the justice minister's mandate. Is that fair to say?

[Don Head]

Yes. I think you'll see as we go forward that we've made a lot of changes and also have a lot of things under consideration right now, and there are things feeding into the review by the justice minister.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

All right. I appreciate that. Thanks.

Now I'd like to talk about something that is going to take up a lot of our time in the coming months, and that is budgets.

There have been a lot of budget cuts. Some prisons have been closed in the past four years. The question is whether you have enough resources. We know there are problems, such as double-bunking. Contrary to what the previous government said, the NDP does not take a hug-a-thug attitude toward criminals. This is a problem that the correctional officers' union has raised. It is important because it affects correctional officers' safety, among other things.

Do you feel that you have adequate resources, or should this be reviewed in light of the cuts that were made over the past four years?

[Don Head]

I'll never turn down an offer of money in my organization.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I've heard that more than once today.