Public Safety Committee on Jan. 25th, 2021

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

You are right that the transparency of the findings, recommendations and results is critical. When the joint board first started its investigation, the public safety minister said, “In the interests of transparency and justice for Ms. Levesque's family we have also committed to making the findings and any recommendations public”. Much of this report is redacted currently, so how does that serve the aim of transparency that both you and the Minister of Public Safety have rightfully cited? Will there be any adjustments made to the amount of information that has been redacted?

[Jennifer Oades]

I had the privilege of reading both the redacted and the non-redacted versions. They are redacted according to ATIP requirements. We can't tell them not to put this or that in. They have to meet access to information and privacy requirements with regard to things like the personal information and personal indicators they include. Unfortunately, that's just the law and the policy.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

The correctional investigator has been critical of both these organizations in a number of reports on a number of situations, and repeatedly raises this issue of transparency and accountability. If there are any last comments from the witnesses about what exactly they propose in terms of making recommendations public and ensuring the confidence of all Canadians in this process, they would be welcome.

[Jennifer Oades]

You're talking about the correctional investigator. The correctional investigator has absolutely nothing in his mandate about looking into the Parole Board of Canada because we are an administrative tribunal. Maybe his comments were directed towards the Correctional Service of Canada. I've certainly never seen anything from him at the board.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it there.

Mr. Iacono, you have five minutes, please.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, I had connection problems earlier.

Hello, Ms. Kelly and Ms. Oades. Thank you for being here today. Before I begin, I would like to once again offer my condolences to the family of Marylène Levesque.

Madam Commissioner, can you summarize in a few words the steps that have already been taken to ensure that the breaches that took place in this case do not recur, as well as what still needs to be improved?

[Anne Kelly]

Thank you for your question. The answer could be long.

I will first talk about the immediate steps that have been taken. Staff members involved in this tragedy have been reassigned and a joint board of inquiry has been established to shed light on all the circumstances surrounding this case. As for the strategy, I repeat that it was inappropriate. That is why we conducted a nationwide review to ensure that all strategies were sound, appropriate and consistent with policy. This review did not reveal any similar cases elsewhere. I have also directed the regional deputy commissioners to speak to their teams to reinforce appropriate community strategies and reiterate the importance of quality control.

We have also clarified the responsibilities and tasks assigned to clinical staff in community residential centres and to Correctional Service of Canada liaison officers. This answers a question that was asked earlier. In addition, we have added parole officer management positions in the area offices, again to ensure better quality control of community strategies. In addition, we have directed area directors to audit a number of community strategies on a monthly basis. These changes were made immediately after the event.

Naturally, we also adopted an action plan for information gathering, third-party contacts, case conferencing, training, and changing the community monitoring model. These are all steps that we will take to improve community-based monitoring.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Fine.

The Correctional Service of Canada has announced that it is revising its directive on information collection to provide a clear definition of what constitutes a serious offence and to strengthen its monitoring tools and practices.

Are you able to confirm that this new definition has been implemented?

Next, could you share with us the new monitoring practices that have been implemented?

[Anne Kelly]

Thank you for your question.

With respect to information collection, first, following the offender's admission to federal custody in 2006, the committee noted that the service had requested and obtained documents from the judge and Crown attorney, police reports and criminal records, but that information regarding a previous serious offence was missing. We had the police report, but we should also have had the trial transcript.

With respect to the collection of information, we are revising the commissioner's directive to clearly define what constitutes a serious offence for the purpose of collecting information. We will clarify the types of documents that are required with respect to each offender's history that meet the definition, and we will put in place a formal tracking mechanism that will be integrated into our Offender Management System. This mechanism will provide reminders to our parole officers to ensure that we have all relevant documents on file. In fact, we are not waiting. I have already spoken to the regional deputy commissioners to ensure that they are putting interim measures in place.

In terms of supervision, this includes third party contacts and case conferences. This is going to be strengthened, and again, we are not waiting. I've asked all of the regional deputy commissioners to talk to their teams to immediately strengthen the case conferences between parole officers and their supervisors, where parole officers and supervisors have to discuss third-party contact and how offenders are progressing in the community and then decide whether or not to reassess the risk that offenders pose.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono. We're going to have to leave it there.

Before I call on Mr. Paul-Hus for the beginning of the third round, I take it that the third round will end roughly around 5:15. The clerk advises me that for us to go in camera it is going to take 10 or 15 minutes all by itself, which makes the process a little silly. I still propose that we have an informal meeting amongst ourselves for the last five or 10 minutes so that we can figure out, as a committee, where we're going with this and other things.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Oades, in response to a question from Ms. Michaud, you said that there was no high risk of recidivism. How can you say that? Why do you deny that?

On page 38 of the investigation report, it states that “many of these pre-incident indicators were similar to those demonstrated by Gallese in the months leading up to his index offence—the murder of his then-spouse on October 21, 2004—and were directly related to his offence cycle.”

Why didn't commissioners Lainé and Fortin see these signs? Why were they exonerated from blame in the investigation?

[Jennifer Oades]

Thank you.

The emotional dysregulation that occurred after the September hearing.... Let me be clear on that. He did not come into that parole hearing showing any kind of emotional deterioration. As a matter of fact, all points were that he was doing extremely well.

What I have read is that the overall assessment from the actuarial was that he was a low to moderate risk, but I have never seen anything that said he was high risk, at least not at the point of that September decision.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I know that, Ms. Oades. I think you are misleading the committee. In your own guidelines, it is clear that when someone is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, as in the case of Mr. Gallese, it is imperative that a psychiatric and psychological assessment be repeated when more than two years have passed.

How can you say that this offender, who is also a murderer, was doing well when he was assessed more than two years previous?

When the commissioners, who had little or no experience, made this decision, what level of management was informed? Was anyone higher up in the hierarchy informed of Mr. Gallese's case?

[Jennifer Oades]

To my knowledge—and I will get back to this committee if it's not right—at the March decision, his original parole decision, there was all of that information, and it was up to date. Six months later, it would have still been up to date.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Let's talk about information. We know that Mr. Gallese was intoxicated on the night of the murder. One of his parole conditions prohibited him from consuming alcohol. The board allowed him to work in a restaurant. Do you think that's normal?

[Jennifer Oades]

If you're asking me, we don't supervise him. It would be up to the Correctional Service of Canada, which is supervising, to ensure those conditions are managed.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

In view of the conditions set by the commissioners, in particular the one forbidding him to consume alcohol, do you find it normal that they agreed to let him work in a restaurant?

[Jennifer Oades]

I'm not sure if I'm losing something in the translation, but the conditions that are imposed by Parole Board members must obviously be related to his criminological risk profile. If they have a drug issue contributing to their original indexed crime, then one would normally have “do not consume drugs or alcohol” if that were the case, but in terms of working in a restaurant—

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I'm fine. Thank you, Ms. Oades.

I don't have a lot of time left and I have one last question for Ms. Kelly.

You say that the co-chairs of the internal inquiry were independent. Can you, then, explain to me how it is that Ms. Dianne Valcourt, one of the two co-chairs, has been working for the Correctional Service of Canada since 2008?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Be very quick, please.

[Anne Kelly]

Both co-chairs were independent of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

What is Ms. Valcourt's role?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to, unfortunately, leave it there.

Madame Damoff, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This was a horrible tragedy that occurred, and I'm glad, Ms. Kelly and Ms. Oades, that you are sharing with us the recommendations.

I've listened throughout this whole meeting while the Conservative members have called this an internal review—it was not an internal review; it was external—and while they've questioned the independence of the review. These were two independent investigators who wrote the report. All of their questions seemed to be directed at the Parole Board. Because they didn't get the recommendations they were hoping for, they're now questioning the report. I have a real problem with that, about transparency and about independence.

I'm just going to read from the report:

The [board of investigation] did not find any factors that are relevant to understanding the incident related to [the Parole Board of Canada] operations. The [board of investigation] found that the Board members who made the conditional release decisions [in] March...and September...met all of the [Parole Board of Canada] training requirements and had the level of knowledge required to perform their tasks. The [board of investigation] believes that the [Parole Board of Canada] training plan for new Board members was well structured and complete.

I just wanted to get that on the record.

Ms. Oades, I appreciate your patience in defending against allegations that were made and that were simply not true.

My question, which is on training, is actually for Ms. Kelly. One recommendation is that there be intimate partner domestic violence training. I'm wondering if you would consider adding to that training on coercive control. As you know, that's very different from intimate partner violence training. I think it would be very helpful if you would consider including that in the training the parole officers are receiving.

[Anne Kelly]

I'm making note of this.