Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

He's just exchanging pleasantries, Jack.

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

I was about to ask a question. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Lafrenière, perhaps you could clarify this problem for me first. You said that there was a time when there would have been five commissioners making a decision, not two. Do you mean a decision of this type with respect to the continuation of day parole?

The question is.... I won't say it's as simple as that, but it's not the same question as granting or not granting parole in the first place. Was it the case that there was a time when it would require five commissioners to continue day parole for an additional period?

[Michel Lafrenière]

When I joined the board in 1986, all life sentence cases were handled by a panel of five board members. At that time, there were three board members who worked for the board, plus two board members from the community. They did not receive the same training as the other board members and sat as citizens in life sentence cases only.

Subsequently, the number of board members was reduced to four. So there were three members from the board and one from the community. Then only the three members from the board were kept, with that number being eventually reduced to two.

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

My question was, is that for all decisions made in relation to any person who had a life sentence? We understand that they're still serving their sentence while they're in the community. Is it for every decision related to a life sentence or only those about initial parole? Just clarify that point for me, please.

[Michel Lafrenière]

All decisions regarding life sentence cases were made by a team made up of—

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

All right. Thank you. It was a technical question. That will do.

Perhaps I can turn to you for a question, Mr. Myette. I'm very interested in your 7th Step program. It seems to me that it may well be modelled somewhat on the 12-step program for Alcoholics Anonymous. Two questions arise.

One, that seems to be the type of program that requires a high degree of motivation on the part of the participant to be committed to a particular course of action on their own, as opposed to it being imposed upon them by someone saying, “You are directed to go to this.”

Second, is that a program that's considered part of programming, if you know what I mean? Would that be accepted as a legitimate part of a person's rehabilitation within an institution?

[George Myette]

Yes. First of all, it is voluntary. In fact, the groups are self-selecting. Unlike AA, for a person to become a member in a 7th Step group, they actually have to be accepted and voted in unanimously by the members in the group, because it's essentially based on trust and commitment.

What happens is this: If someone is interested, yes, they first of all have to be motivated to change. Second, they can't be mandated to join the group. Third, the process of actually joining the group is that they have to prove to the group that they in fact are motivated to change.

To answer your second question, it's not seen as part of correctional programming, because it is voluntary participation. However, in practice, what we see is a broad acceptance of the program by the institutions where we have operated because of the results of the people who participate in the programs, in that they then commit to their correctional plans. We don't see the group as a panacea; it is really just an opportunity for someone to start their true process of change. Then we will even, in a lot of cases, do what we call mock Parole Board hearings, because when these people are preparing for parole, if they can't convince the members of the group, who have been through the process themselves and understand all of the BS—I'll use that word advisedly—that people can come up with about why they did something, that they're sincere, then how are they going to ever convince the Parole Board that in fact they do understand what caused them to do what they did in the first place?

Yes, I think it's a complementary.... It's not a program because it's a group involvement, but in a sense, in a lot of institutions, and if you were to poll institutions where the groups operate, I think you would find a very broad acceptance of the validity of what the groups do.

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

Is there an assessment in the sense of...? Would, for example, the Parole Board take into consideration that a person had successfully completed the 7th Step program, or if there's such a thing?

[George Myette]

Yes. I think you'd have to pose that question to current Parole Board members, but in the past, yes. We have written letters of support. We've had feedback from Parole Board members. In my experience.... As I mentioned, I've been involved in the criminal justice system on the outside since 1973, and I started my field training in 1969. That's sort of a tongue-in-cheek comment, of course. I've had a lot of follow-up with Parole Board members over the years, and feedback in terms of what they think of the group process, so yes, I think we've seen reference to it for people who do understand it and—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. Unfortunately, that is Mr. Harris' time.

[George Myette]

Oh, sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's all right. I'm unfortunately tasked with running a clock here.

Colleagues, we have 25 minutes of questions in the next round and we have 15 minutes left, so my proposal is that we go three minutes, three minutes, one and a half, one and a half, and then three and three. Hopefully, that will be acceptable.

Mr. Motz, you have three minutes, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thank you to both witnesses for your testimony today. You have both provided an experienced perspective, specifically Mr. Lafrenière on the mistakes made by the Parole Board in this case, a perspective that's shared by many Canadians with regard to this tragedy, and Mr. Myette, among other issues, on the special care that has to be taken with offenders who have a history of domestic violence. Thank you both for that.

Mr. Lafrenière, as we know, the Parole Board has the authority to withhold parole for individuals who are a threat to the public. You indicated in your opening statement that the members in this particular hearing or these particular hearings—this case—could have asked for a new hearing or new evaluation. They could have even asked for a new hearing. Do you believe that the Parole Board members who adjudicated this case assessed the threat to the community accurately?

[Michel Lafrenière]

In my opinion, it wasn't a bad assessment and it was conducted according to the criteria in the act, the decision-making policies and the regulations. Let's not say that the decision was in error, let's say that the case could have been handled differently.

Among other things—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Lafrenière.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lafrenière. I'm just getting communication from the interpreter that the sound is not working.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Chair, I propose that he shut his camera off again, and then I'll go on to the next question, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. That sounds reasonable.

Mr. Lafrenière, did you want to complete the thought, or did you want Mr. Motz to ask you the next question?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I got the answer required.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Mr. Motz, please proceed, and I'll start the clock.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Lafrenière and Mr. Myette, we've seen the fallout of this from an accountability perspective, and it was surprising to many people across the country that the only accountability that really took place here was that frontline individuals would be accountable. There would be no accountability with the Parole Board. That surprised a lot of them. What are your thoughts on that?

Plus, are there any thoughts on the fact that the correctional investigator has a role to play as an independent investigator, rather than having the Parole Board and the Correctional Service investigating themselves in this case? I wouldn't mind your perspective on both of those questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Please be very quick.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Myette, I'll start with you first, please.

[George Myette]

I'm sorry. I got lost in the process. Could you quickly repeat your question, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we are running out of time here. It's been three minutes.