Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I call the meeting to order.

Greetings to all colleagues and to our witnesses.

This is the 23rd meeting of the public safety committee. Pursuant to an order dated October 8, 2020, we are doing a study on the Parole Board of Canada and the circumstances that led to a young woman's death.

I am sure that colleagues know by now the protocol with respect to hybrid meetings, so I won't repeat that.

We have two sets of witnesses today. In the first hour we're dealing with Michel Lafrenière and George Myette. Each has seven minutes to present.

I don't see any particular order here, so we'll just go with Mr. Lafrenière for seven minutes, please.

[Michel Lafrenière, Retired Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.

The point of my appearance is clearly not to blame anyone concerning Mr. Gallese's case, but rather to suggest potential solutions to try to improve the system in order to better protect society—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Lafrenière, we seem to be having audio difficulties.

[Michel Lafrenière]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I need guidance from the interpreters.

[Michel Lafrenière]

I cannot hear the interpreter.

Are you having trouble hearing me?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's warbly to the extent that we can't proceed with Mr. Lafrenière.

Should we maybe go to Mr. Myette, the next witness, and see whether in the meanwhile the technicians can help Mr. Lafrenière?

[Michel Lafrenière]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is that all right with you, Mr. Lafrenière?

[Michel Lafrenière]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Mr. Myette. You have seven minutes, please.

[George Myette, Executive Director, 7th Step Society of Canada]

I'm going to read a prepared statement. Hopefully, I can keep it within the seven minutes.

I appear here today as a proponent of parole and its use as part of the reintegration process for incarcerated persons. I wish to acknowledge that the death of Marylène Levesque was an unfortunate and terrible tragedy. I wish to express my sincere condolences to her family and the community.

I have been a professional and a volunteer in the criminal justice system since 1973. I have personally counselled inmates in their parole preparations many times through my involvement with the 7th Step Society's self-help groups, which are designed to teach accountability and self-awareness as offenders work their way through the system.

Our institutional self-help groups use confrontation and support to assist inmates to develop realistic release plans. Once released, we provide community support groups composed of successful ex-inmates and community volunteers. These are groups to which parolees can return on a regular basis to discuss challenges and successes in their lives.

I am myself a former offender, having been convicted of several offences as a young man. Having successfully completed a parole, I continued my education, graduating in 1975 from Mount Royal College in Calgary with a diploma in criminal justice. I was subsequently involved with the development of community residential centres and contract parole supervision through the auspices of the Alberta 7th Step Society in conjunction with Alberta Correctional Services and the then national parole service. I received a pardon in 1980 after the appropriate eligibility period and considered this a positive milestone in my life.

I chose to leave employment in the criminal justice system in 1982 to pursue a career in the oil and gas business, but I continued as a volunteer board member and self-help group member thereafter. I assumed the role of volunteer executive director of the 7th Step Society of Canada in 2002 and continue in that role today. As well as sitting on the executive committee of the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, I was fortunate to have a successful career in the oil and gas business and was able to dedicate my time and expertise within the criminal justice system with no need for compensation.

During the past five years, I've been an active volunteer at William Head Institution on Vancouver Island. Our 7th Step institutional self-help group there primarily consisted of inmates serving life sentences for murder. All of our members were actively working on release plans as they neared their parole eligibility dates. They were not always successful in their first or even second attempts. However, with perseverance and co-operation with their case management teams as well as their own personal development and accountability, our members were able to gain their releases to the community and are contributing members of society today. Of our eight original group members, our last active member was released on day parole to a community residential facility in Victoria this past September. We are planning for a new group to start once COVID restrictions allow. This tells me that a system of supervised release is an important and necessary part of the reintegration process.

I fully support the mandate of the Parole Board of Canada, and I do have some knowledge of their selection of board members, having acted as a reference for two people who had applied for part-time parole positions in the past. I understand the selection process to be quite rigorous, with extensive training once a person is selected. I know that the Parole Board members are charged with an onerous responsibility in administering decisions regarding release on passes, day parole and full parole. I do not interact directly with sitting parole board members, but I do have feedback from the inmates who appear before them and know that the hearings are intense, in depth and thorough.

As a citizen and a member of the community, it gives me a sense of comfort to know that in addition to the professionals and volunteers working with offenders in the system, there's an oversight body that makes the final decision on an inmate's suitability for release into the community. Once the decision to release an inmate has been made, the responsibility for supervision in the community then rests with the Parole Board or the Correctional Service of Canada. Although the final responsibility still rests with the Parole Board, the direct supervision is handled at a community level.

I have read the board of investigation's report regarding the release of Eustachio Gallese and his supervision in the community. I believe that the tragic death of Marylène Levesque was an anomaly but cannot judge if it could have been predicted since I'm not a psychiatric expert and know nothing of the offender's personality. If warning signs were overlooked or ignored, this is obviously very concerning and needs to be addressed.

I can only say that in my previous experience as a contract parole supervisor, albeit many years ago, there was very good communication and accountability between our agency and the parole service with regard to each case that we supervised, as they had the ultimate responsibility for the offender in the community.

I do not believe that contracted parole supervision presents an undue risk to the community, if proper protocols are followed and there is clear communication in all directions.

In this specific case and gauging from the board of inquiry report, there is some ambiguity as to how the direct supervision of Mr. Gallese was administered. Hopefully, if there were gaps, they will be closed in the future.

It is not for me to assign blame in this case, since I have only a peripheral understanding of it. I can only state that predicting human behaviour is not an exact science in many respects, but with adequate assessment and preparation, proper supervision, and follow-up with clear communication, the chance of this happening again is unlikely.

My recommendation—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have one minute, Mr. Myette.

[George Myette]

Thank you.

My recommendation is that this one tragedy not become an event that unduly affects a highly effective parole release system but instead serves as an opportunity for improvement and increased security for the community.

Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Lafrenière, I understand your Internet connection has been restored.

Go ahead for seven minutes.

[Michel Lafrenière]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee today.

The point of my appearance is not to blame anyone, but rather to suggest potential solutions to improve the system in order to better protect society.

I am testifying today as an individual. I am a retired lawyer and a former board member of the Parole Board of Canada. I began my career in 1979 as a private practice lawyer, in Drummondville. In 1986, I was appointed as a part-time board member, and I continued to practice law part time. In 1991, I was appointed as a full–time board member—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Lafrenière, apparently we have more difficulties. I'm not quite sure what to do here, given that this is an unstable connection.

Mr. Kurek, did you have a point of order?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Yes, it's a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Maybe the witness could turn off his video for the statement. We have secured his identity. That might allow for sufficient bandwidth so that we can make sure we hear his statement in both of Canada's official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's worth trying, certainly.

[Michel Lafrenière]

I will try to turn off the video.

It's done. Does it work better now?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes. Proceed. Thank you.

[Michel Lafrenière]

I am testifying today as an individual, not only as a retired lawyer, but also as a former board member of the Parole Board of Canada. I started my private practice in 1979, in Drummondville. While continuing with my practice, I was a part–time board member starting in 1986. Five years later, in 1991, I was appointed as a full–time board member for a five–year term, which ended in 1996.

During the first part of my career, I spent 10 years with the Parole Board of Canada, from 1986 to 1996. My term was unfortunately not renewed in 1996, despite evaluations indicating superior performance. I then continued my career at Correctional Service Canada, including at the national correctional staff college as the person in charge of legal training for correctional officers, parole officers, correctional supervisors, emergency teams and new employees. I remained there for 11 years, until 2008. I once again applied for the position of board member at the Parole Board of Canada. My term was renewed in 2013 for five years, and it came to an end in 2018.

So I have 20 years of experience at the Parole Board of Canada and 11 years at Correctional Service Canada, in addition to my years in private practice. At the end of my term in 2018, I asked that the term be renewed on a part-time basis. I was then 66 years old and felt that I could, as a board member, share my knowledge with new board members and act as a mentor. I applied and passed a written test, but I have unfortunately never heard back. I then understood that my term would not be renewed. The Parole Board of Canada is a formidable organization, which has very worthwhile results. Yet it is almost the only organization that is incapable of keeping its most experienced members and is constantly being imposed new board members, as if it had a revolving door or positions with ejection seats.

I will now talk to you about what happened a bit more recently. From 2015 to 2017, no board member's term was renewed, which led to a shortage of board members and a significant workload overload, to the point where public safety was sometimes jeopardized. After that, 2017–2018 saw an influx of new board members. The Parole Board of Canada has, of course, a good training plan for new board members: two weeks in Ottawa and three weeks in the regions. However, that is still basic training, with the rest being acquired through ongoing training over the years and through daily experience. I know from experience that it takes from 18 to 24 months for a board member to feel comfortable with the system and become independent. During that period, new board members are usually provided with support, paired with board members with five, 10, 15 and even 20 years of experience.

When the tragic event that brings us here today occurred, there were not enough experienced board members at the Parole Board of Canada, forcing it to have board members with little experience hear complicated cases, like that of Mr. Gallese. I noted that, in the first ruling, the board members had eight months of experience and, in the second ruling, 14 months. That is little experience for such complex cases.

When I arrived at the Parole Board of Canada, in 1986, we had five board members handling cases similar to that of Mr. Gallese. Over the years, that number dropped to four, then three, and they are now two. I think the work can be done by two board members, as long as—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Lafrenière, you have one minute left.

[Michel Lafrenière]

The work can be done by two board members, as long as they have the experience.

I am not saying today that the decisions made in Mr. Gallese's case are not good. They are decisions that, overall, comply with the board's legislation and policies. However, I think that somewhat different decisions could have been made and that the members did not really have all the experience needed to see the entire range of decisions available to them, as decision-makers, at that time.

I saw that revocation was considered, but that Mr. Gallese's progress was used as a justification not to proceed in that way. I think this is a decision that—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Lafrenière, your time is unfortunately up.