Evidence of meeting #5 for Public Safety and National Security in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was risk.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Philippe Bensimon  Criminologist, As an Individual
Dave Blackburn  Former Member at Parole Board of Canada, As an Individual
Catherine Latimer  Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

9:35 a.m.

Bloc

Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Thank you.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

I'd just remind all members and witnesses that there are microphones.

Mr. Harris, you have six minutes.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the panellists for their introductory remarks. This is a very serious case, of course.

My first question is for Mr. Bensimon.

We're dealing with two real factors here. One is the assessment of risk. We have a person who was clearly guilty and found guilty of a violent murder of an intimate sexual partner, with a hammer and a knife. He was in jail for 13 years and then was released.

What would you expect the people conducting a risk assessment to know of the level of risk? Knowing that they had this individual in their custody for 13 years, availability of programs, etc., what would you expect to be put forward to a parole board to assess that risk? Would they have information about his rehabilitation or his capacity to be rehabilitated? What would you expect?

Perhaps I would suggest a very high degree of likelihood or positive outcome if he's going to get parole.

9:35 a.m.

Criminologist, As an Individual

Dr. Philippe Bensimon

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I'd like to remind you that crystal balls don't exist. All prisoners, whoever they are, whatever the nature of the offence, are all going to be released conditionally into the community. It's only a matter of time. Now, it is all well and good to set up programs and have any kind of supervision, but neither the service nor the board will commit an offence. It will be the person doing it. You can supervise an inmate, but if the individual wants to assault, steal, traffic or take someone's life, it is not you, the police or the courts that will prevent him from doing so. There is no such thing as zero risk. There are limits.

In Gallese's case, as a professional, I can't comment. I won't, because I don't have the file in my hands.

Having said that, from what I have heard—some colleagues have called me—we must not only review the case of the individual in the community, we must go back up the chain. How long was he in a maximum-security institution, how long was he in a medium-security institution, how long was he in a minimum-security institution before he was released into the community? I think we went too fast with him. We're talking about over 300 outings. Do you realize that? This is something that is completely absurd. For a long time, I was responsible for inmates convicted of one or more murders, very serious cases, and there were never that many outings. We are talking about 10, 15 or 20 outings, but not 300. I think that the individual was in the community much too quickly. This is what is called a gradual downgrading that happened much too fast.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

If I may, I think we have the point here. Thank you.

The second factor, of course, is he's a lifer. He is not entitled to parole at all, ever...only entitled to be considered for parole after 15 years, or that was his sentence. He may never get parole. He has to show that he's not a likely risk.

Then there's the supervision of him. He's still a lifer. He's still subject to a life sentence but he's in the community, and he has supervision of conditions, as a prisoner or offender ought to. That's under the control of the people who are responsible, the community parole officers.

We have some information that they didn't have direct contact with Mr. Gallese in this case, that there were third parties involved at this halfway house, that they had people who did things who weren't employed by Correctional Service Canada. They acted as liaisons.

What do you think of that as a method of actual supervision of an offender such as Mr. Gallese? I'm not saying him particularly, but such as him with that kind of risk and history. He's not being supervised directly by parole officers themselves.

9:40 a.m.

Criminologist, As an Individual

Dr. Philippe Bensimon

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

I said it earlier in my preamble. There's a shortage of staff. Quadruple the federal parole officers in the community and have them meet with inmates in provincial halfway houses. There is a lack of time, a lack of staff. If this inmate had been placed in a CRC, I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened, but the inmate would have been much better supervised.

I invite you to visit provincial halfway houses; they are duplexes, houses. There are virtually no restrictions; you go in, you go out. I have nothing against that, because there are a lot of inmates who deserve to be there, but we don't send individuals with long sentences to a CRC. I insist on that. They need to have structure, with a curfew. You have to adopt a gradual approach. It's called case management. For example, how much time is left in maximum security before the person is sent down to medium security, and before he is sent to minimum security, to prepare him to go out, to the community? In the case of Gallese, I think, without prejudice—I repeat, I don't have the file—that we were much too quick.

If we don't want this kind of situation to happen again, we need to take real action, and not always look for someone to blame. It hurts my heart to see that the officer—because now we know who it was, and there were other people around her—has been singled out. Look upstairs at what is happening. Look at the people responsible. The real culprits are not the parole officers; that is too easy. It's all being put on the parole officers' shoulders. I think it's a shame to attack them because the work of the Correctional Service depends on parole officers.

I'll come back to that because it's important. There's a lot to be said. We could talk about it for three days and I wouldn't be finished.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

It looks like I'm running out of time.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

It's amazing how that happens.

You know, you get your usual comment at the end, with a question mark.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

I could possibly do that, sir. It may be the only way I can get the point across.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

The people of Canada have spoken.

Mr. Morrison.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bensimon, could you finish the conversation you just had? I would like to hear the end of that if I could.

9:40 a.m.

Criminologist, As an Individual

Dr. Philippe Bensimon

It doesn't relate to Mr. Harris' question. What I just wanted to say, and I'll come back to this because it's very important, is that there are people who are killed by supervised inmates in the community.

Earlier I was talking about Celia Ruygrok, a case which led to a commission of inquiry. We were talking about the Ruygrok case; after an individual was ten minutes late for curfew, there was a warning to the police and the suspension process was launched. Shortly after that, Louise Pargeter, another parole officer, was murdered, again in a CRC. The commission of inquiry asked questions, looked for a culprit. The Correctional Service decided that there would no longer be a single parole officer who would meet the inmate at his home, but two.

That's the way it is every time there's an incident. There was the Arbour Commission of Inquiry. Not long ago, there were 11 staff members in Edmonton who were fired. It's like that all the time.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Thank you, Doctor.

9:40 a.m.

Criminologist, As an Individual

Dr. Philippe Bensimon

Fine.

Thank you, sir.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

I have a question for Professor Blackburn.

It's interesting that we have somebody before us who was a parole officer and who was on the Parole Board. We've had some comments about lack of experience on parole boards especially when there is a large change. I suspect the same would be for parole officers.

Can you step us through.... You started as a parole officer, so were young or inexperienced, although you came with experience. Your supervision came, I take it, from the Parole Board, which helped, guided and mentored you. Then, as a Parole Board member, I suspect you also were helping new parole officers gain experience.

Can you step me through that process a bit?

9:45 a.m.

Former Member at Parole Board of Canada, As an Individual

Dave Blackburn

I'll tell you about my personal journey. First of all, I studied in this field. My bachelor's degree is in criminology, my master's degree is in social work, and my doctorate is in the sociology of health.

I worked in halfway houses while I was doing my bachelor's and master's degrees. Then I did a master's internship at the Correctional Service of Canada, at the Hull sector office, here, as a community parole officer.

Afterwards, I continued my career in the Canadian Armed Forces as a health services officer. I was deployed to Afghanistan, and I was in Germany for four years. During that time, I had to do a lot of psychosocial assessments, but no risk assessments.

When I left the Canadian Armed Forces in 2014, I applied through the board's appointment process. I went through all the steps, was put on the appointment list and was selected. Like the others, I took an initial five-week training course: two weeks in Ottawa and three weeks in Montreal.

During my first year, I was always paired with an experienced board member, mainly with Pierre Cadieux, who had some 20 years of experience at the board. He is an excellent board member. He taught me the ins and outs of the job; he taught me how to write quality decisions and how to get quality information when assessing risk during hearings or voting on cases. I was very well coached, especially during my first year.

March 12th, 2020 / 9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

As a Parole Board member, if a parole officer came to you with a decision or a request on a condition for a parolee, and it was inappropriate, for example, as you talked to the parole officer, would there be some accountability? Would you document on a personnel file, for example, to say that the person needs more training, or obviously they're inexperienced, so help them with their training? Would there be documentation of what they were actually presenting?

What I'm trying to get at is that, obviously, there's an accountability issue, I think, so I'm trying to get to the point of asking if there is documentation. You would have reported to a director general who's on a performance pay, I suspect, as a Parole Board member. Is there also the same for the parole officer?

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

You have 30 seconds.

9:45 a.m.

Former Member at Parole Board of Canada, As an Individual

Dave Blackburn

Absolutely.

Let's not forget that each board member makes his decisions independently. There can be divisions when one commissioner says "yes" and the other says "no". At that point, another group of board members is put in place.

Had a parole officer presented something similar during a hearing, I would never have continued the hearing. I would have asked for additional information, hence the immediate revocation or house arrest.

Indeed, I would have spoken to the director general of the parole board in Quebec about this so that he could contact the people at the Correctional Service. Such a strategy makes no sense. Moreover, it increases the risk.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lightbound, you have cinq minutes.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, my questions are for Mr. Blackburn.

I want to congratulate you on your transparency regarding your candidacy for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Are you currently the president of Mr. Peter McKay's campaign in the Outaouais, yes or no?

9:45 a.m.

Former Member at Parole Board of Canada, As an Individual

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

I just love these questions.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

No, Mr.—

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

As a partisan, I love these questions, but it doesn't seem to me to fall within the terms of reference. I can't prevent members from asking the questions that they ask, but I encourage members—