Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2021

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

Thank you. I think that is a source of some of the confusion.

I want to refer you to the same article that Ms. Michaud did, but to a different point. You talked about parole being not so much for the offender but for you and me. You said that when used properly, paroling eligible inmates helps smoothen their transition back into society, which reduces their likelihood to reoffend. Fair enough.

The article continues:

The main test for paroling an inmate should be whether they are a risk to the public, Campbell said. Other factors are weighed as well, but ultimately if a candidate poses little risk to the community they should be let out under supervision.

My assessment of what you said in your opening remarks and in response to questions is that in your opinion, the decision to parole Mr. Gallese in this case was correct, that he was properly assessed and that he was therefore of little risk. You've defined that, I suppose, by saying a 20% risk is enough to be considered little risk.

Do you stand by that?

[Mary E. Campbell]

That's not my assessment.

The risk assessments say that a low-risk offender is defined against at least one of the risk assessment tools as four out of five will not reoffend in this manner. However, it's not directed toward the individual; it's saying that out of people with this profile, four out of five are unlikely to reoffend.

Public safety is always number one. There are perhaps different pathways to public safety. One of the advantages of getting people out in the community while serving their sentence is that there's a possibility then that they can actually do something to give back to the community while they're out on parole, as opposed to sitting in a prison cell thumbing through the TV channels. You can impose conditions that would be far more useful in terms of volunteer work, or indeed education or training.

I'm not just making this up. We did a big study of the inmate population at one point, because I was concerned. There are high-risk offenders that get a lot of attention. I wondered how many low-risk offenders there are and at what stage they are being paroled, and if we are spending or wasting a lot of money keeping them inside. That study was very revealing. It did not get a lot of attention, but it showed that about half the inmate population is actually considered low risk and that there are other alternatives. In some cases you have to create those alternatives. You can't just say, “Okay, you're out.”

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

I'm obviously not in favour of that. The situation in prisons, as a recent study shows, is that many of the inmates are over-assessed for risk at the beginning in a biased manner. Black individuals and indigenous people are over-assessed, don't get access to programs and don't get access to parole as a result of being put in maximum institutions. There are a lot of problems that need to be solved.

In this case, I'm a little concerned that if the public sees that a four out of five chance or a 20% chance of reoffending is considered a criterion, then that certainly means.... I don't think we should keep the other four in because one might offend, but surely a better system than that type of risk assessment is needed. Don't you agree?

[Mary E. Campbell]

It's important to remember that this not the only test for releasing someone. The risk assessment scores are one factor. However, a whole lot more goes into making that decision, including such simple things as whether they have a home to go to, whether they have the support of family, who their associates are, and whether they are still hanging out with other offenders.

I don't want to leave the impression that if you're in the category in which four out of five won't reoffend, you're good to go and carry on. It's simply that the risk assessment is one tool that is used and weighed by the Parole Board.

The Parole Board—in this case, the inquiry team—listed all the things that the Parole Board looked at. Police reports, the judge's sentencing comments, letters from the community, victim impact statements and a ton of different kinds of information went into that mix. I don't want to leave the impression that it's risk assessment scores alone that'll get you out. That would be a mistake. That would be almost like the United States sentencing commission, which uses sentencing grids, and you sort of add it up. Well, if you've got two here, five there and six here, that's 18, and you're good to go. I don't think that's a great system.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

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

Colleagues, again we have 25 minutes of questioning in the next round, and we only have about 15 minutes left, so I'll adopt what we did in the first hour which is three, three, one and a half, one and a half, three and three.

You have three minutes, Mr. Kurek.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and let me thank both witnesses for being here.

Ms. Roy, I appreciate a lot of what you shared, and thank you for your advocacy for victims.

Do you feel the Parole Board lacks sensitivity toward victims, specifically female victims of violence, but also, by extension, their families and those affected?

[Nancy Roy]

You must never lose sight of the fact that Mr. Gallese had already killed one person. He had been convicted of homicide for murdering Chantale Deschenes, a fact that is often overlooked.

When I accompany families to Parole Board hearings—some families I've been accompanying for decades—I am reminded that the only right they have is to read a statement to the board members. The statement is often given to the inmate. Families do not have the right to ask the board members questions, they do not have the right to give their opinions, and they feel as though their being there is not taken into account. It must be, but I don't think parole board members have adequate training on issues related to violence and the effects these crimes have on victims' families.

Mr. Gallese had already been deemed a risk, so why take the chance that he would claim another life?

The tragedy was predictable, but unfortunately, yet another family had to lose a loved one, like so many other families [Technical difficulty—Editor]. It's almost shameful that a dangerous man with the potential to reoffend was allowed out on parole.

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

Hopefully I have enough time for one more question that I think is very relevant.

What is needed to give victims the proper voice at parole hearings, so that unreformed and violent offenders are not repeating these crimes once more, as we saw in this tragic case?

[Nancy Roy]

Their voices need to be heard better than they are now.

I think they also need to be given opportunities to speak. Since the pandemic began, some families have unfortunately had to give their statements by telephone. That's not acceptable. These people's lives have been shattered, and they are only given a few minutes to speak. They actually receive little consideration.

If their statements—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Sorry to interrupt, Ms. Roy. We're going to have to leave it there.

Mr. Iacono, you have three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Campbell, one of the recommendations the board of inquiry issued to the Correctional Service of Canada was to integrate training on domestic violence into the parole officer induction training and to offer the training during the parole officer continuous development training.

Do you think that is a useful recommendation?

Do you think it will improve the supervision of offenders who pose a risk to women?

[Mary E. Campbell]

As I said, I was shocked to read the inquiry report's comment that parole officers did not have specific training in domestic violence. I think the recommendation is a very solid one, and I think the recommendation should be taken up not just by CSC and the parole officers but also by the Parole Board and the board appointees.

The education has to be both initial and ongoing. Parole officers will say to you, “Look, I have a caseload that's far too high already. I don't have time in my day. I have so many reports to fill out,” and so on. Again, I think that's something for parliamentarians to take into account. Are they resourced to properly do their job? We know that the community side of CSC is a minuscule part of the CSC budget. Less than 5% goes to the community side. I think that is tragic. I think more training, especially on domestic violence....

If I were you, frankly, I would call CSC back in a few months and say, “Well, what have you done? What is the training? What have you implemented? What's your plan?” to find out and to hold their feet to the fire on that one.

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

I just want to say one last thing, Ms. Campbell, and then, I will give the floor to someone else.

If you have any other suggestions on how to improve the system, we would appreciate it if you would send them to the committee clerk.

[Mary E. Campbell]

I would be happy to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Madame Michaud, you have a minute and a half.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In Mr. Gallese's case, a dangerous person was allowed out on parole, as you've repeatedly said, Ms. Roy.

As soon as an offender has a potential to reoffend, however low it may be, don't you think they should be denied parole?

[Nancy Roy]

I think the whole justice system needs to turn its focus to the rights of these victims and potential victims, rights that should never be overlooked. Whether it's the correctional system or the parole system, victims have to be given more consideration. We have the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, but unfortunately, victims have no idea where to turn to assert most of those rights, including the right to restitution.

As soon as there is any doubt as to the risk an individual poses, the interests of potential victims should take precedence over the individual's interests.

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

That's a compelling point. You said that victims were given little consideration in the whole process and that victims impact statements were often given to the offender. The fact that the offender will know certain details about the victim's life is a source of concern for victims because the offender could still end up out on parole. I, myself, have spoken to victims who were worried about that. The only tool they have is their statement, and it's not a very useful one because the parole board could decide to allow the person out on parole. That gives victims no reassurance whatsoever.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately Madame Michaud is out of time. You can probably try to work in that answer in some other fashion.

With that, we'll turn to Mr. Harris for a minute and a half, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I reiterate the request for any other information. Perhaps if you find that list from 2015, or if some of them are contained in an article written by you and Professor Doob, that might be helpful.

There is a concern that I share about this whole case. The case is about an offence by a person who had a history of intimate partner violence, which was clearly identified as the major risk for reoffending in the sense of what one might be concerned about.

Dr. Zinger has told our committee as well that there are far too many staff per capita of prisoners in the corrections services institutions as compared to outside.

First, is that something that ought to be addressed by government as soon as possible? Is that a high priority, or are there so many things for correctional officers to do in prisons that they need them there too? Do we need a bigger budget?

Second, given that corrections officers aren't properly trained in intimate partner violence as an issue with the offenders, is there anything equivalent within the prison system itself?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Harris has given you 15 seconds for both of those questions.

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

Yes, yes, and no will do.

[Mary E. Campbell]

I know Dr. Zinger has identified the number of staff per inmate ratio. I would beg you not to give more resources to the institutional side. Give them to the community side, where they are desperately needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you very much.

Before I ask Ms. Stubbs to start, I have Ms. Khera as having the next three minutes for the Liberals. Is that correct? If someone could communicate with me somehow or another as to who the next Liberal questioner will be, it would be helpful.

Meanwhile, I will turn to Ms. Stubbs for three minutes.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I also would agree with our colleagues who invited the witnesses. I would say to both witnesses to provide any additional written submissions you'd like after this meeting in terms of potential options for improving the models, as well as any other input you'd like to give us.

Thank you both for being here.

Ms. Roy, as a loved one of a woman who went missing and then was murdered in 2011, I want to thank you for your heroic and tireless advocacy, for your clarity, your conviction, and your resolve.

You made a comment that I hear frequently from victims' families and know all too well personally. You've said victims are left in the silence and you talked about the lack of transparency. Could you comment on whether you think victims' advocates and organizations should have been heard by the joint committee that did the investigation into what happened that resulted in the murder of Marylène Levesque. Then I invite you to later add whatever other information you want about making sure that victims can be heard.