Public Safety Committee on Feb. 1st, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, just take note that we have five votes on Wednesday, which on the present extraordinarily efficient system will probably take us somewhere into seven o'clock, so unless something changes, I don't propose calling a meeting on Wednesday. That's not final, and certainly if people have other ideas, I'm open to them. I would be open to any suggestions or alternatives, but at this point, Wednesday does not look like it's going to work.

Thank you to the witnesses for their co-operation. As you can see, we've run the clock a bit hard here. I'm proposing that we finish by 5:45 p.m., because other members have meetings immediately beyond this.

To the clerk and members, I don't have the list of questioners. If that could be texted to me before the questions start, that would be helpful.

I want to welcome the witnesses and we will start with Mr. Henry.

I apologize, Mr. Henry. I'm going to cut you back from seven minutes to six, and it will be the same for Mr. Stapleton or Mr. Neufeld, whoever is going to occupy their six minutes. We'll cut back questioners by a minute each as well.

The other thing I would say to the witnesses is that if you would take a look at the screen at around the four-minute mark, I'll try to give you an indication of how much time you have left.

With that, Mr. Henry, you have six minutes, please.

[David Henry, Director General, Criminologist, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec]

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is David Henry. I'm the director general of the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec. This association brings together 68 non-profit community organizations that work towards the social and community reintegration of adult offenders and towards crime prevention. The ASRSQ promotes community action in criminal justice and supports the work of its members.

Each year, the ASRSQ's member organizations provide services to over 35,000 offenders in Quebec. The association's member organizations provide services in various areas—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Henry, excuse me. I'm sorry.

I appreciate that I've cut back your time, and I don't know whether you speak this quickly, but we have an interpreter on the other end of the line interpreting into English. I'm afraid that at around three minutes she'll fall over in a dead faint because she can't keep up with you.

If you would slow down a bit, the interpreter could keep up with you. Thank you.

[David Henry]

Of course.

The association's member organizations provide services in various areas. Almost all halfway houses, or about 30, in Quebec are members of the association. We also bring together organizations that specialize in employability; organizations that manage community work programs; organizations that provide specialized services for mental health, addiction, women offenders and restorative justice; organizations that provide services for the families of incarcerated people; organizations that provide advocacy services; and so on.

The foundation of the ASRSQ's work is based on empowering citizens, including offenders, to take charge of the crime issue in partnership with the government and other social groups in the community. The ASRSQ believes that the community's active role in resolving crime-related issues contributes to social development and, as a result, to the well-being of our community. The solutions must be fair and satisfactory for the victim, society and the offender.

Halfway houses are organizations that serve as a base in a community for offenders who are going through a social reintegration process and who are participating in a gradual release process. Halfway houses give individuals the opportunity to meet their basic needs. The individuals can then continue their social reintegration process, including their job searches and personal development. Halfway houses provide programs that vary from one organization to the next. These programs may focus on addiction, anger management, domestic violence, sexual offending, social skills, or other areas. For example, Maison Painchaud provides a dozen programs to its residents.

There are three types of halfway houses in Quebec: community correctional centres, or CCCs, which are managed by the Correctional Service of Canada; community residential facilities, or CRFs; and community shelters.

The ASRSQ brings together only CRFs and community shelters.

CRFs are community-based non-profit organizations. These organizations are managed by a board of directors made up of volunteers who are from the community that they serve. The halfway houses select their residents. An assessment process is put in place to determine whether the CRF is willing to support and guide the individual in the community.

I want to make it clear that the ASRSQ has no authority over its members. Member organizations are independent community organizations managed by their own boards of directors. The ASRSQ isn't involved in the day-to-day activities of its members. The ASRSQ also shouldn't be seen as a union. We're a group of organizations. As a consensus-building body, the ASRSQ is involved in various working groups with the different correctional services.

All the CRFs and community shelters in Quebec are certified by the federal and provincial correctional services in a compliance process. The compliance standards outline all aspects of the administration and operations of halfway houses in Quebec. The standards complement the contractual agreements signed between these organizations and the Correctional Service of Canada. The standards govern the organization of services, the qualifications of community workers, the programs provided by the house, the admission procedures, the accommodation requirements, the clinical supervision standards, and so on.

Halfway houses are undeniably successful when it comes to social reintegration. A study conducted in 2014 by a student from the Université de Montréal's criminology department established the recidivism rate, with or without violence, at 1.25% over the course of a stay.

I'd like to invite the committee members who wish to do so to come and visit a halfway house. There's one in Gatineau, not far from Parliament. If you want to visit the house, I'll make arrangements as soon as health conditions permit.

I'll provide some historical background to help you understand why and how the principles of what's known as direct supervision were put in place in Quebec.

The 1977 Sauvé report is a historical reminder that community organizations established the first structures for supervising people on parole in Canada.

In direct response to some of the recommendations in the 1938 Archambault report and the 1956 Fauteux report, the federal government created the National Parole Service in 1959. The organization reported directly to the National Parole Board.

With the establishment of this organization, the goal was to make these supervision activities available across Canada. Nevertheless, this didn't prevent the system from still relying heavily on the services provided by community organizations, which were then known as post-sentence agencies.

In the years that followed, a number of these community organizations chose to move away from this area of activity. The organizations considered that they had achieved their goal of providing universal access to parole. However, other organizations continue to provide this type of service. On that note, we should recall that, in 1971, Minister Jean-Pierre Goyer spoke of a fifty-fifty arrangement between the NPB and NGOs.

In the 1980s, the arrival of new players—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Henry, could you wind it up, please.

[David Henry]

Sure.

In the 1980s, the arrival of new players in the Quebec region will make it possible to implement direct supervision as we know it today in the region.

I read the investigation report. The association believes that the five recommendations will improve community supervision practices. As far as I know, the community strategy approved by the Correctional Service of Canada, which allowed the offender to visit a massage parlour three times, was unusual and unique. I had never seen this type of strategy implemented or even heard of a similar one.

In closing, I want to say that we're disappointed that the CSC went one step further than the board of investigation's recommendations. The board of investigation proposed a review of all direct supervision. However, the CSC chose to eliminate direct supervision, even though it's a time-honoured practice.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Again, I apologize for having to do this to people. I don't take any great joy in interrupting.

We now have Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Neufeld, or some combination thereof, for the next six minutes.

[Stanley Stapleton, National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees]

Thank you.

USJE represents all parole officers, program officers, teachers and other federal correctional employees who work in non-active security functions in Canada's 43 federal prisons, 92 community parole offices and sub-parole offices, 14 community correctional centres and four healing lodges.

The murder of Marylène Levesque was of course a tragedy, a devastating event not just for the family of the victim but also for those employees in the correctional system who work each and every day to rehabilitate offenders. Respectfully, because of an ongoing disciplinary process, USJE is not in a position to comment on any of the specifics of the case today, but we will speak to the role of parole officers in federal corrections more generally.

At any one time, there are approximately 9,000 offenders under supervision in communities throughout the country who parole officers and case management teams are mandated to supervise. Many people mistakenly believe that parole officers only work in the community, like provincial probation officers, but in fact the process to safely reintegrate offenders back into the community begins at their assessment by an intake parole officer upon their arrival at a federal institution. Once the federal inmate is assessed for criminal history, security risk and their potential for rehabilitation, the wheels are already set in motion for their release into the community.

Very few offenders enter a federal facility with no prospect of leaving it. This is equally true of offenders with a history of violent offences. It is not parole officers who make these rules but the judges who give the sentences. Additionally, it is the Parole Board of Canada, as you know, who is mandated to carefully review an offender's application for parole. It is the Parole Board who imposes the conditions under which offenders are supervised in the community.

There is no doubt that federal parole officers who work directly with the offenders while they are incarcerated play a crucial role in making recommendations about the conditions for the offender's release. Ultimately, however, these are just recommendations. That being said, parole officers play a pivotal role in preparing offenders and advancing public safety. Sadly, however, they are not always treated that way. In the case of a violent offender, such as someone who has murdered his or her spouse, you might think that parole officers are given more time to carefully assess the background and circumstances of an offender with a history of committing a homicide. This is not the case. Caseloads are extremely heavy in federal corrections, and no distinctions are made based on complexity or the violent past of the offender.

You may also think that a parole officer would have clerical support to support the acquisition of crucial court documents that are often hundreds if not thousands of pages in length. This is not the case either. Many clerical positions were cut by Correctional Services of Canada in 2016 and have not been reinstated. In fact, parole officers sometimes wait months if not years for these documents, in certain cases. Privacy considerations prevent the release of material from police agencies and such other relevant bodies as victim services, children's aid, etc. Consequently, many parole officers are left to navigate complex administrative processes to receive relevant information. The requests from parole officers do not receive special consideration. They must get in the queue like other players in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, they don't always get what they need when they need it.

You might also assume that parole officers receive leading-edge training on an annual basis that equips them with the best assessment tools and provides a meaningful opportunity to talk with their peers about best practices. This is also not true. In fact, due to cuts, almost all training has been virtual for a number of years and does not always align with what parole officers need. This is something that federal parole officers believe has been of significant detriment to their profession.

It is for these and so many other reasons that in 2019 USJE released the groundbreaking report entitled “Protecting Public Safety: The challenges facing federal parole officers in Canada's highly stressed criminal justice system”. For this study, USJE invited parole officers from across the country to share their perspective on the status of the correctional system and their role in it. Hundreds responded. Most had never been involved in our union. Overwhelmingly, they said that Canada's correctional system is stressed and nearing a breaking point, with the majority of parole officers asserting that their working conditions often prevent them from properly assessing, supervising and preparing offenders for their safe return to society.

High offender caseloads, chronic understaffing and significant changes to correctional programs and services are cited as presenting insurmountable challenges to the managing of offenders' risk. More than two-thirds, 69%, of parole officers surveyed worried that they are not able to sufficiently protect the public given their current workloads. Ninety-two per cent agree that an increase in staffing would improve their capacity to keep Canadians safe and 85% agree that a decrease in the number of offenders assigned to them would improve public safety.

We submit this report as part of our testimony today and ask that it be considered for making recommendations.

You would think that this report would have been the catalyst for an important dialogue within CSC on how to improve the system. Instead, it fell on deaf ears. USJE has had no formal response to the report since it was released in June 2019.

In conclusion, it is appropriate for the parliamentary committee and the joint board of investigation, which has now released the report, to look at what got missed in the case management around the homicide of Marylène Levesque. Without a systems-wide analysis on how to better equip and enable parole officers and the correctional employees who are on the front lines doing the work of supporting the reintegration of offenders each and every day, USJE fears another tragedy is just around the corner.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Stapleton.

Before I ask colleagues to start questions, I'll mention that the report has been received by the clerk, but not translated. It will be distributed.

With that, we go to Madam Stubbs for five minutes, please.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

The testimony that we've just heard is alarming for a number of reasons. Obviously, it must be part of what went wrong in the murder of Marylène Levesque, but also it would be concerning to every Canadian everywhere.

Mr. Stapleton, I'd like to invite you to give some more information to this committee. Maybe start where you ended. Are there five or 10 specific recommendations you would make to us that would help better enable and empower the front-line officers who have such important and challenging work to do?

[Stanley Stapleton]

I'll pass this off to David Neufeld, who is a parole officer.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Sure.

[David Neufeld, National Vice-President and Regional Vice-President, Correctional Service of Canada Community - Parole Board of Canada (West), Union of Safety and Justice Employees]

Hi there. Thank you for that.

In our report that was released in May 2019—again, that's almost two years ago—there were a number of recommendations that were made. We went back to the Correctional Service of Canada and tried to have very serious discussions about them. However, to date, very little has changed, and it still remains a very large concern for our union and particularly our members.

One of the first things we talked about is how our workloads are not divided or given out amongst the staff based on the complexity of the cases. Rather it's simply based on the number of cases that you have. For example, if you have a very high-risk, high-needs offender who comes into the institution at the front end of the sentence, you don't get additional time to work with potentially more complex, high-needs offenders. In fact, it would be the same amount of time that you would get for everybody else. One of the things that we're really saying is that workload needs to be more than the numbers; it also needs to be the amount of actual time it takes to do proper risk assessment and proper interventions with the offenders.

The other thing that we have been calling for is in relation to the mental health needs of our offenders. Institutional parole officers repeatedly told us that the mental health of the offender should be a determining factor for a caseload size. As you can imagine, those individuals who come into our system and who require more assistance with their mental health needs require more time. Ultimately, what a lot of parole officers have been telling us is that more time means that we need to have more parole officers available to do the work. In fact, that has not changed, and I know that the Correctional Service has been under a lot of pressure for many years to reduce its budgets. That goes back to the deficit reduction action plan and then also in recent years to making sure that we're trimming everywhere we can to make sure that the budgets are not exceeded. It's very difficult to do that.

Other policy changes as well, such as working with indigenous offenders, have been extremely challenging. There have been some additional positions created over the years, but as it relates to parole officer work and even in terms of programs, we need to make sure that we're giving the time to those offenders and meeting with them to understand who they are, their backgrounds, what brought them into their criminal activities and what it's going to take to ensure that they stay out of crime. It's very crucial.

Quickly, I want to summarize and say that for parole officers to do their work properly, they need to be able to have the time to have meaningful interactions with everybody on their caseload. When we're talking about highly complex cases, that means we need to have the time for those meaningful conversations to understand their worlds and to understand, if they are to be released back into the community, what those conditions are that they're going to be released back into. What are those relationships that are going to be important to them and their reintegration back into society? What supports are they going to have?

I'll leave my comments there, and maybe there will be more questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I would throw it back to the witnesses for any more that they would say.

I find it a bit alarming that there have been increases in the budget overall in the last five years, but it seems that either it hasn't gone to increasing much-needed staff members in order to be able to have the kinds of interactions that you're talking about or somehow that has been insufficient, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

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

Thank you, Madam Stubbs.

Madam Damoff, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here.

I'm going to start with the USJE.

In 2016, you very graciously took me on my first prison tour. I visited the parole office in Winnipeg. I can remember very distinctly the manager talking about the deficit reduction action plan and the cuts that had been made. I said to her, “You're far too good at your job because you're managing to still do the good work that you do in spite of the cuts that have been made.”

Stan and David, you and I have talked about this. How critical is it for us to be making investments in the community? I think it's about 6% or 7% of the Correctional Service budget that goes to communities to support offenders when they're released. How important is that community support, both for increasing the number of parole officers as well as supports in the community for people once they're released?

I think, probably, David Neufeld, you would take that one.

[David Neufeld]

In terms of community resources and managing risk in the community, it's absolutely crucial that we have organizations we can link with to provide referrals for our offenders in managing cognitive deficiencies or those things that trigger their criminal behaviour—that they are able to get the help they need.

One of the major cuts we saw a number of years ago was in relation to that of psychological counselling for offenders in the community. Again, as you can imagine, with highly complex cases needing access to psychological intervention, on top of a meaningful contact that should be taking place with not only parole officers but also with correctional program officers we have in the community who are delivering programs to these offenders, we also have other needs, such as access to residential substance programs.

These are things that were cut as a result of the need to reduce the budget, and these are absolutely crucial pieces to our overall intervention plans and making sure that when these offenders are being released to the community, they have the supports they need.

Really, when it comes down to what Corrections does, we understand that people have the ability to change and that we have a responsibility and accountability to managing risk. However, we need those resources in place to ensure that no matter how long that particular offender has been in the community that we're fully aware of what they are doing with their time, making sure they are getting the help they need, and making sure that if they are living next to you or to me or your friends or your family, we can be confident that we know what they are doing, how they are using their time, and, of course, that they are not falling back into their old criminal behaviour.

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

I want to commend you and all of the parole officers for the fine work that you do. I have spoken to a number of parole officers and I'm always impressed.

I will start with Mr. Henry, and maybe, Mr. Neufeld, you can respond as well.

How important is parole itself to the successful reintegration of offenders? Is it better to keep them in prison until the last day of their sentence and then send them out in the world, or is parole important?

[David Henry]

I believe that parole is a key social rehabilitation measure. Giving someone parole, guidance and supervision in the community ensures the safety of our communities. We can assess the person when they come out of custody and see how they're progressing in the community. If they become disorganized, if they fail to comply with their intervention plan or if they don't commit to their social reintegration, it's always possible to suspend their parole.

Parole helps protect our communities. The statistics speak for themselves. A person granted parole is less likely to reoffend than a person granted statutory release after serving two-thirds of their sentence. A person granted statutory release is less likely to reoffend than a person incarcerated until the end of their sentence.

As a criminologist, the thing that concerns me most for the community isn't the people granted parole. It's the people who remain incarcerated until the very end of their sentence and who, after 10, 12 or 15 years in prison, return to our communities without any form of supervision or guidance. This is a real issue. About 50 or 100 people a year are kept incarcerated in penitentiaries.

When we try to address this issue in the community, we're faced with a void. No one wants to fund these services. The ex-offenders are no longer under the jurisdiction of correctional services, so the correctional services aren't responsible for paying for the services. Public safety isn't responsible for doing so either. Health and social services don't want to fund these types of programs. After 15 years in prison, the ex-offenders must turn to resources for homeless people. That's what concerns me.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there, Madam Damoff.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I know Mr. Neufeld is keen to respond, but you're going to have to work it in in some other manner.

With that, we have Madam Michaud for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

Mr. Henry, I want to thank you in particular. I'll gladly accept your invitation as soon as the health situation permits. I think that we must venture out into the field in order to carry out our work properly, especially for studies such as this one. Thank you for telling us more about the different centres and the services that they provide. I think that it's very important.

At the end of your presentation, you said that the Correctional Service of Canada announced that the supervision of offenders at Maison Painchaud would be transferred to the CSC effective March 31, 2021, and that the agreement would be terminated rather than reviewed. You didn't seem to agree with this. What are the reasons for this? Why would it be better to review this agreement, rather than eliminate it entirely?

[David Henry]

Direct supervision is part of a long tradition. Community organizations have been involved in the supervision of offenders in the community for a long time. The Correctional Service of Canada must rely on community partners to ensure community safety and social reintegration.

Direct supervision has several advantages. For example, it may prevent certain administrative tasks from being duplicated. It may also prevent certain types of antagonistic behaviour on the part of the offender. Some offenders, particularly those who are antisocial, may feel very resentful towards the CSC staff. When these offenders are supervised by non-CSC staff, they're less adversarial. Certain types of antagonistic behaviour are prevented. Direct supervision also allows for a variety of approaches, which may be necessary to ensure the social reintegration of individuals. There's no uniform approach that works for all individuals. There's a need to adapt.

I find it unfortunate that the CSC decided to go one step further than the board of investigation's recommendations. We had already started to review several components of the board of investigation's report, including the clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. Obviously, we didn't wait for this investigation report to take concrete action in the field. When this type of incident occurs, all stakeholders, clinical counsellors, halfway houses and parole officers reassess their practices. During meetings with the CSC in the spring and summer, we clarified these roles and responsibilities. I find it unfortunate that the CSC's national headquarters didn't take this work into account.