Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2021

[Michel Lafrenière]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

With that, we're going to turn to the six-minute rounds of questions. We have Madam Stubbs for six minutes, Mr. Lightbound for six minutes, Madame Michaud for six minutes and Mr. Harris for six minutes.

Madam Stubbs, please go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Lafrenière, I would invite you to continue to expand on the point you were making about the importance of having experienced parole board members making decisions. In this case, do you want to comment about the impacts, which I think you were beginning to expand on, and whether you think the people making those decisions knew all the options available to them at the time?

[Michel Lafrenière]

When they decided not to revoke the inmate's day parole, the board members could have extended it, but not for six months. They could have extended it for one or two months, scheduled a new hearing and requested a new release plan and a new, updated psychological evaluation. The evaluation that the board members had was done in 2017, although our policy dictates that these evaluations are valid for two years. They could have requested a new evaluation for a new hearing and, in the meantime, kept the offender on day parole and taken away certain release privileges or certain types of access in the community, so that he could only be released to go to work.

Moreover, in the first decision, I noted that the board members had imposed a special condition for psychological monitoring on Mr. Gallese. However, six months after the decision, the monitoring had not yet begun. So I feel a new risk assessment was necessary, especially since they had learned at the hearing that Mr. Gallese had been authorized to frequent massage parlours.

I also feel that the board members should have imposed a special condition specifically prohibiting Mr. Gallese from going to massage parlours. I know that this point was raised at the hearing, but on the parole officer's recommendation, the board members preferred to give him only a verbal prohibition. The disadvantage of a verbal prohibition, as opposed to strict imposition of a special condition, is that, should the inmate fail to comply, the parole officer has no other choice but to suspend the inmate and inform the Parole Board. A simple verbal instruction gives a great deal of leeway to the parole officer, who can take various types of action and decide not to suspend the inmate. In such cases, they have no obligation to inform the board.

Another benefit of imposing a special condition is that it appears on the certificate of release that the inmate must carry at all times. In addition, if police officers stop the inmate, they have access to the system, which allows them to know which prohibitions have been imposed. They can therefore proceed with the suspension and notify the Correctional Service of Canada.

Also, if a special condition had been imposed, the Correctional Service would have automatically been informed, and it would have been aware of Mr. Gallese's situation. However, none of that information was included in the written decision, which meant the service was not aware of the actual situation. It also kept the information from any future board members called upon to make decisions, as well as future parole officers, since multiple officers are known to take turns on a single case.

I also noted a significant disparity between the decision expressed verbally to the inmate and the written version. As a result, much was lost. In my opinion, experienced board members would be unlikely to have proceeded in this manner. Instead, they would have imposed a special condition prohibiting Mr. Gallese from frequenting massage parlours. The board members probably could have requested a new psychological evaluation, since the one on file was out of date.

Does that answer your question?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about 10 seconds, Madam Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I would just say that it is extremely insightful and indeed answers a number of questions. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Lightbound, you have six minutes, please.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, what happened to Marylène Levesque in Sainte-Foy is certainly incredibly sad. I feel it's vitally important that we learn from it. However, it's important to know that cases involving repeat violent offenders are extremely rare in Canada. So the fact remains that the system works most of the time, even if it failed in this particular case.

Mr. Myette, in your experience, what are the best practices for reintegrating a repeat offender? What is most effective?

[George Myette]

Thank you, Mr. Lightbound.

I think preparation in the institution is one of the most important parts of reintegration.

I just want to say one thing as well, in case it doesn't get picked up somewhere else. As in this particular case, I think any case in which there is intimate partner violence has to be looked at even more closely than in other forms of murder.

As I mentioned in my statement, I've worked with people who have committed murder and who are doing life sentences. The 7th Step Society tends to work with recidivists, people who have been in and out of the system in the past and haven't responded well to other treatment or forms of reintegration. The most important part—it's our first step, in fact—is trying to get that individual to really face the truth about themselves and the world around and decide that they need to change. Realistically, in any case, preparation during the person's sentence, before the person ever leaves the institution, is probably the foundation, because we're talking about corrections, rehabilitation and reintegration.

Quite frankly, I have to agree with a lot of what Mr. Lafrenière said in his assessment of the situation, although not necessarily all of it.

To answer your question about preparing people, in terms of developing positive and healthy relationships with individuals who come in to the institution, especially the community members who are able to come in to the institution.... Don't forget that people in an institution, especially if they're serving a life sentence, do become institutionalized. Their reference points are within the institution. It doesn't matter what kind of programming they're getting if they have no contact with the outside world. It doesn't mean that their initial problems were fixed just because they spent 10, 15 or even 20 years, in some cases, in an institution. The real preparation comes as the person is cascaded from maximum—which most life sentences start as—down to minimum security. The last period, especially in minimum security, is exposure to the community and to people who come in as volunteers and help that individual to be able to start to develop. That is a primary issue, especially if the person's had issues in the past with interpersonal relationships. Then of course, if you have addiction issues, the person has to deal with that, so the process has to start well before the person is ever released.

In Mr. Gallese's case, I have no idea if he was getting escorted or unescorted passes, or if he had come out of a minimum security institution. I didn't see that, necessarily, in the board of inquiry report. I'm not sure of that part and can't really speak to it in this case.

Certainly once someone—and especially in the case of someone with that sort of a violent incident in their background—is released into the community, they've already spent...I think in his case it was 13 years.

I notice, for example, that he was given liberty from the halfway house within one day to be out in the community unsupervised. To me, there are some safeguards that can be built in there, and a more gradual release.

I speak from my own experience, having been in an institution and thinking that the minute I walked out the door, my problems were solved. That's a pretty common misconception that a lot of offenders have, because their problems aren't solved. Life suddenly hits you squarely in the face, and a lot of the issues that you might have dealt with beforehand are still there.

To try to answer your question—I'm not sure I'll give you the total specific answer you're looking for—I think that preparation before release is really important. It's not just from the CSC programs that are delivered in the institution; I think exposure to community influences is really the key factor.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Lightbound, you have 30 seconds.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I believe I won't have time for another question.

Thank you, Mr. Myette. In my opinion, the services you provide make for a solution that must be prioritized.

In the Board of Investigation report, the Parole Board's decision is not faulted, it's the supervision provided by the parole case management team, the officers themselves. That's where the shortcomings were.

Thank you for your very helpful testimony, Mr. Myette.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Lightbound.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us and for your testimony. We are extremely grateful.

Mr. Lafrenière, at the beginning of your speech, you stated that you were not here to blame anyone, but rather to help improve the system. That's what we want to do as well.

As Mr. Lightbound said, repeat violent offender cases like this are very rare, but it's still one too many. We need to try to understand how and why this happened. We need to look for solutions so that it doesn't happen again.

You mentioned that overwork and lack of experience on the part of the board members may have prevented them from properly assessing the risks in this case. Could you elaborate on that? Do you feel those factors had a direct impact on the case?

[Michel Lafrenière]

It's hard to determine whether those factors had a direct impact. After all, the person responsible for these events is the offender himself. Still, experienced board members might have made different decisions.

I am not arguing that it was a bad decision. It is consistent with the act, the regulations and the policies. However, experienced board members can make decisions that go beyond simply acting or not acting on Correctional Service recommendations. They can make intermediate decisions.

After reading the decision, and in light of some of the facts that have come to my attention, I would say that a somewhat different decision could have been made in this case. One thing that comes to mind is the fact that Mr. Gallese was allowed to go to massage parlours. That information was not recorded in the written decision.

There's also the fact that Mr. Gallese was still not being psychologically monitored after six months of day parole. Yet, in the original decision, this special condition was imposed because they felt that Mr. Gallese had emotion control issues that were not yet fully resolved. Had I been involved in the hearing as a board member, I would have thought twice about renewing the conditions that existed in the first month for another six months.

Instead, I would have renewed the conditions for a month or two. In addition, I would have required that the psychological monitoring be initiated. I would have required that a new correctional plan be established in light of the permission granted to Mr. Gallese to frequent massage parlours. Finally, I would have required that a new release plan be developed, which I would have reviewed a month or two later to reassess the situation with respect to the violations.

Again, I don't want to say that the decision wasn't right, but it could have been different.

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

Thank you.

To me, this clearly demonstrates the relevance of risk assessment. If Mr. Gallese was given access to these privileges, it may have been because they felt he was not a danger to the community, when clearly he was.

Given your experience with the board, what factors are these decisions based on? How is it determined that an inmate on day parole is not a risk to the public despite his or her background?

[Michel Lafrenière]

The board always uses information previously processed by the Correctional Service. Case preparation in the Correctional Service is done by experts. A correctional plan established at the beginning of the sentence includes the requirement to meet certain goals, including participation in programs and psychological evaluation and monitoring. A host of factors are taken into consideration.

Our decisions are often made on the basis of a cascading release, which was done in Mr. Gallese's case. He was granted over 300 releases, both escorted and unescorted. Then the board granted day parole, but in a very specific context and with special conditions, the specific purpose of which is to ensure proper management and risk reduction.

I should point out that the special condition relating to psychological monitoring is often a bulwark against emotional disturbances. During psychological monitoring, a bond of trust is established with the officers and, above all, the psychologists. In this case, the monitoring was not done, even though it had been recognized as a contributing factor to the problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Michaud, unfortunately your time is up.

Before I turn to Mr. Harris for the next six minutes, Mr. Lafrenière, I just got a note saying that you can turn your camera back on again. If you wish to do so—and I think the rest of the committee does wish you to do so—perhaps you could do that.

With that, I'll turn to Mr. Harris for six minutes, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lafrenière, it's good to see your face again. Thank you for appearing, and Mr. Myette as well.

[Michel Lafrenière]

Thank you.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm sorry. Are you able to hear? Is there difficulty in hearing?

[Michel Lafrenière]

I can hear you.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Is there a problem, Mr. Chair? I don't understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't think so.

Mr. Lafrenière, can you see and hear Mr. Harris?

[Michel Lafrenière]

Yes, I can hear you and see you.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Okay. It was just a technical difficulty.