Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2021

[George Myette]

Well, if he had passed the test and been able to join the group....

First of all, it would have been an assessment by the group if he was sincere and actually had faced his problems. We certainly have had other people with psychological issues, people whom the group has actually encouraged to take psychological counselling, psychiatric counselling, because of trauma.

At lot of people who come through the system have experienced severe trauma earlier in their life. We're not a psychotherapy group. We strictly try to deal with people facing and dealing with their issues, but in some cases—and I can't say specifically in his case—something like that might have been effective, because it does get the person to actually examine what their real issues are and potentially deal with them, as opposed to acting out on their impulses and anger, because in a lot of cases that happens, and in this case, of course, that's exactly what happened.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta. Unfortunately, we're running out of time here. I apologize.

We will go to Mr. Iacono for the final three minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Myette, given your personal experience and your experience with many ex-offenders, what are the long-term benefits of granting a pardon?

[George Myette]

I think the biggest impact is restoring some self-esteem. Some of you may have seen that I appeared in front of a standing committee back in 2010, before the pardons act was dismantled, which was a big disappointment to me. I won't take that platform here today, because we're here about something else, but in my case I would say that it restored a lot of my personal feelings of self-worth and gave me confidence to be able to go out in the community, which I did.

I worked in the system for a number of years. I left the 7th Step organization as a staff person in 1982, stayed as a volunteer, and went to work in the oil and gas business. I had a successful career for many years and was able to give back. I think that's probably one of the biggest benefits for me personally, and I would say to a lot of other people, plus it opens doors for people who don't have to say on an application form “I have a criminal record.” Under the pardons act now, as a record suspension, that has changed somewhat, and hopefully that battle isn't over yet, but in any event, an individual who can regain some of that self-esteem is given that extra boost to continue on with their direction in life.

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

Thank you.

In the tragedy involving Marylène Levesque, it turned out that Mr. Gallese was a repeat violent offender.

Does an organization like the 7th Step Society of Canada have specific measures for this type of profile? Are they already in place?

[George Myette]

Are you asking me that question?

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

Yes.

[George Myette]

Do you mean within the 7th Step organization or generally speaking?

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

It's as you wish—both.

[George Myette]

Okay.

Particularly within our organization, because we've dealt with a lot of people with violent pasts who have killed other people.... In a lot of cases, though, the circumstances were different, because they didn't involve intimate partner violence. I can't say that we've had one person serving life for murder who has participated in our program who has been in that same situation. Most of the people we've had have had drug-related, gang-related types of violence, or bar fights, etc.

I would say, in the case of Mr. Gallese, that it was more of a psychiatric issue, I think, and something that maybe wasn't addressed. Again, I can't speak to it entirely, but I don't know specifically within the CSC system how they address it. I know they have psychological assessments and try to deal with it that way.

Accountability is the key issue for any individual who is in that situation. If they were to be involved in our group, that's what we primarily focus on.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

That brings this session to a close. I want, on behalf of the committee, to thank both Mr. Myette and Mr. Lafrenière for not only their testimony before the committee but also for their many long years of service to the larger community. What you've done over the years is admirable. Thank you for it.

We are going to suspend, and the clerk will arrange to let our other witnesses in from the green room.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll resume our meeting.

Welcome to our new witnesses. I'm assuming you've been appropriately briefed, so I'm going to turn to Ms. Campbell for the first seven minutes.

I apologize in advance for probably cutting you off at some time during the next hour. This is just the way it works these days. Try to look up at the chair from time to time. If I'm waving my hands frantically, it probably means I would like you to stop.

Ms. Campbell, could we have your opening statement of seven minutes, please?

[Mary E. Campbell, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very briefly, for those of you who don't know me, I'm a lawyer by background. I was at Solicitor General Canada and then Public Safety Canada from 1984 until 2013—you can do the math—under four different prime ministers and three different governments.

I want to make two points, and the first one focuses on the roles of CSC and Parole Board of Canada, because I'm still hearing a lot of cross-talk and confusion about what each one is responsible for.

The Parole Board of Canada is responsible for decision-making, period. Once they make a decision about a case, it is handed over to CSC to supervise and manage, and they are to come back to the Parole Board if something is starting to go off the rails or needs to be changed. The board has no role to play while the person is in the community under that supervision. The board relies on the information that CSC brings to them. That's fundamental to understanding this case.

The second point I want to make relates to the facts, because I'm hearing, if I may be so bold, an absence of certain facts.

When we look at the March decision, we can see he was already two years past day parole eligibility. It wasn't a rushed case. He had over 300 escorted temporary absences into the community—300. He had 11 unescorted temporary absences. He had completed treatment programs: AA, NA. He had family support, halfway house support, parole officer support.

For that decision, if you can point out where the mistakes were made—the page and the paragraph number—I would really be grateful, because that decision appears completely solid. It's one of the best decisions I've ever read, and I've read quite a few.

Regarding the September decision, there were nine days left in the day parole—nine days. They were there to consider a new day parole. The board was essentially blindsided, I would say, by what they heard. They were not aware about the contact with the sex workers.

They immediately suspended the hearing. The two board members talked between themselves, and they talked about revocation. Revoking the release was on the table for consideration. They came back into the hearing with the PO and Mr. Gallese and made it abundantly clear they were so concerned about this that revocation was on the table. The parole officer opposed that, saying that they could manage the case. Mr. Gallese obviously said he would behave himself, that he'd follow the conditions that were set by the board. The board, on a balance, decided it was worth continuing the day parole.

Two years later and 500 miles away, I guess that sure, you might have made a different decision. However, again, the law and the facts really supported the decision that they made that day, and they did not ignore the seriousness of it.

Everything really went off the rails after that, when the board had no involvement in the case whatsoever. On September 24, Mr. Gallese met with the PO to talk about the decision. Unfortunately, on October 9, he was assigned a new parole officer. Barely three weeks after this hearing, he got a new parole officer. That parole officer acknowledged that they did not read the entire file, did not read all the documents, did not talk to Mr. Gallese about the original offence.

In terms of doing collateral checks as to what Mr. Gallese was up to in the community, if he said he was working somewhere, normally you'd go to the place of employment to make sure he's met with someone. You talk to that person. No. This PO, I'm sorry to say—and I'm quoting here—“took it for granted” that Mr. Gallese was complying with the board decision, took it for granted that he was complying. Tragically, as we now know, he was not complying at all. As a result, the parole officer failed to recognize that the case was going off the rails and therefore failed to contact the Parole Board.

Normally what we do in that situation is set up a parole hearing and say, “Look, either we need to change the conditions”—he had six special conditions—“or, Parole Board, you need to look at revocation; it's not salvageable.” That was not done.

When we talk about how things could have been different or who could have done something differently or better, those two decisions, in my mind, are not the problem here; it was the supervision that Mr. Gallese was under.

We can also talk a bit about statistics, if you wish, at some point. Stats are irrelevant to a grieving family; forget it. They are irrelevant to a grieving family. However, stats are very important to you, because you are the legislators. If you want a different system, a system in which the supervision and the Parole Board decision-making are closer, that is absolutely your entitlement.

I was one of the creators of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There are other models, and at one time supervision was under the Parole Board of Canada, so there is no particular magic to the system we have now. You could have a system of release in which there is no Parole Board involved. Those are all on the table,

In terms of what would address, or what would have changed what happened here, there is one person to blame here, and that is Mr. Gallese. Let's be very clear about that. It is very evident that there were flaws in the community supervision; had they been rectified, tragedy might have been avoided.

As I said, if you can show me in the Parole Board decisions where an error was made, I'd love to have that discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you very much, Ms. Campbell.

Mrs. Roy, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Nancy Roy, Senior Counsel and Board Director, As an Individual]

Good evening, distinguished committee members.

Thank you for inviting me to share my point of view. I hope that I will be able to provide you with a vision that unfortunately is often forgotten. The vision is of those close to the victims, or of the victims themselves, when they survive, of course.

My university training is in criminology and law. I have worked in a number of community organizations dealing with upholding rights. I have spent these last eight years helping families and loved ones of persons who have been murdered. We have more than 800 members, just in Quebec. I have worked with the Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues, or AFPAD, as its general manager. There, I have met with courageous and resilient families, but there is unfortunately much to be criticized.

Those in these situations must go through shock, grief and the media's coverage of the drama that afflicts them. They are hardly ever prepared for it. A long, often unfamiliar legal process follows. That process often happens months, even years, after the tragedy. It drains them financially because a large majority have to pay the costs of the legal process.

Then comes the sentencing and incarceration of the person who has torn a dear one from a family and loved ones. The notion of justice must be completely redefined. It is difficult for them to understand the legal implications and the rights the offenders are given. A few years ago, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights came into effect. But unfortunately, the rights given to the criminals, no matter how violent they may be, are greater than those given to those close to the victims. This is a constitutional matter that is hard for those broken by the tragedy to understand. Unfortunately, our legal system gives priority to the rights of the offenders. So the extent of some rights set out in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights needs to be better understood.

How does the right to information operate? Families and loved ones receive little information about the dangers. At least, that was the case with Marylène's loved ones or those of the previous victim—we must not forget her. More consideration must be given to the victims' loved ones; they must be consulted and what they have to say about the impact of the crime must be heard.

Now I will talk about the right to protection. How were the loved ones of Mr. Gallese's previous victim protected? What was done to protect Marylène's life? In my opinion, their right to life and their right to live in security, their constitutional rights, were completely disregarded.

Marylène Levesque had the right to be protected. She had a right to her life and a right to the security of her person. We all saw how the tragedy played out in the media. Nevertheless, what I take from the findings of the Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada, is that, on January 22, 2020, Marylène Levesque was murdered in Sainte-Foy, Quebec, by an offender on day parole. The offender, Mr. Gallese, then pleaded guilty to the charge of first degree murder and was convicted. On February 3, 2020, the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada convened a national board of investigation.

These were the conclusions. First, apparently, the decisions made by the members who granted the conditional release on March 26, 2019 and September 19, 2019 met all training requirements and demonstrated the level of knowledge necessary to perform their tasks. Let me tell you that I do not agree. Community resources, such as AFPAD or the shelters for women who are victims of violence, are never invited to the training sessions for board members or Correctional Service Canada on the impacts of crime. Families are therefore resigned to the fact that they have only one right, the right to read a statement that takes all their energy and that plunges them back into the tragedy.

Second, apparently, the Parole Board members correctly applied the criteria set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. They applied the risk assessment framework, as set out in the manual, and they had at their disposal all the relevant and available information for sound decision-making. In my opinion, the board members had neither the knowledge nor the appropriate training to read the signs, the precursors of the violence that was clearly apparent. Training on the cycle of violence and the expertise of our organizations could have been very useful for that decision or in the training of those board members.

It is very easy to avoid responsibility by taking refuge in statistics and telling ourselves that these things rarely happen. In my opinion, this was one stolen life too many. It should have been protected by a system that should prioritize the safety of society over the rights of an individual who had already been found guilty of homicide, the most serious crime in Canada.

Here is what I take from those observations. They are a fine example of the board avoiding responsibility. According to the report, nothing could have been foreseen. That is an insult for the loved ones of the victims and for a society that believes that is protected each time a dangerous criminal is released. It has that belief despite the danger that he represents, despite the heinous crimes he has committed, and despite the improbability of rehabilitation.

I suggest that there should be an acknowledgement of regret in some form that is more transparent and more open to a culture of change, focused on respect and on the protection of loved ones and potential victims. We cannot be opposed to improvements, of course, but we can't just have recommendations based only on greater oversight or enforcement. It's a little fanciful to think that such oversight can be provided to thousands of inmates. You realize that just by looking at the number of women who have been killed in Quebec. How were those women protected? No, this is not about those who reoffend in all cases. But if we are going to talk about protection, increasing staff and more funding for halfway houses, a lot of good work has to have been done in advance. The problem actually comes before the release, during the risk assessment. That requires professional training and skills that are up to the task of detecting the potential dangers. So I am recommending some urgent changes.

First, decisions must be made exclusively with a view to protecting victims or potential victims when there are any doubts or any possibility of harm or reoffending.

Second, board members and those involved in violence against women need more training, especially in terms of the cycles of violence and the effects on community resources. The Barreau du Québec, of which I am a member, along with other professional bodies, requires a minimum number of continuing education hours.

Third, we must use the example of some administrative tribunals—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mrs. Roy, your time is up.

[Nancy Roy]

Can I finish? I have a few seconds left.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You can have 10 seconds. Go for it.

[Nancy Roy]

Third, we must use the example of some administrative tribunals in Quebec that have a doctor as a decision-making member. The requirement could be for a psychiatrist or psychologist. In that way, decisions would be made on the basis of more than simple reports.

I will continue along those lines if there are any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There will be questions, I can assure you.

The first question will come from Mr. Paul-Hus.

Mr. Paul-Hus, welcome back to the committee.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the family and friends of Marylène Levesque, who have suffered greatly since January 22, 2020. I know how much Marylène's murder has changed their lives for ever. I share their grief.

This crime led me to introduce the motion that gave rise to this study. The study is born from the urgent need to shed light on the profound and systemic failures of the correctional and parole systems, failures that led to a preventable murder.

A violent criminal, guilty of the brutal murder of his spouse, is released. He is granted temporary absence and given the right to have sexual relations with vulnerable women. The board members are poorly trained and turn blind eyes. The first failures occurred in a system that is supposed to protect the public. Who could have imagined such a situation?

It was and it remains important and necessary to shed light on the circumstances of this murder to make sure that this kind of senseless killing never happens again.

What have we learned? First, we have learned that no one at the helm of the Parole Board of Canada or the Correctional Service Canada feels responsible. No one at the helm of those organizations knew, before January 22, 2020, that the board had given the green light to conditions of release that put the public in danger.

Second, we have learned that the appointment process and the training of members of the Parole Board has major shortcomings. The board was dealing with a lack of experienced members. Board members worked from a psychological report that was more than two years old. They could have immediately suspended the release and waited for updated data on this individual's profile before making their decision. Another barrier keeping the public safe collapsed. The halfway house could have monitored the comings and goings of this criminal and the course of his behaviour. That was not done. Another safety net fell down.

According to the testimony we have heard, the Parole Board of Canada is not responsible, the halfway house is not responsible, and the government is not responsible. We must therefore conclude that other murders of this kind may well happen again in our streets.

No one at the Parole Board took Marylène's murder seriously. There were even no apologies. Imagine if your child had suffered what Marylène suffered. This is a disgrace. Incompetence cannot be tolerated. My conclusion is that this committee must produce a report that demands concrete steps. The report must state the truth and recommend whatever action is necessary.

Mrs. Roy, I would like to let you continue and tell us about your recommendations, because they seemed to be very good.

[Nancy Roy]

Thank you.

I was saying that, as some administrative tribunals do, one of the decision-makers must absolutely be trained in psychiatry or psychology. We heard Mr. Lafrenière talk about the shortcomings earlier. I would also like mandatory psychological treatment in the long term. I would also like a public registry of criminals who have re-offended or who present a significant risk. Our victims and potential victims must be protected.

I would also certainly like to ask you to ensure that the agreements with loved ones are made public. Examples are Marylène's family, Mr. Bolduc's family and the families of a number of others. The process must be transparent. Otherwise, the impression is that those families' silence is being bought.

Harm has been done and there must be compensation for that. Agreements can be reached because the mistakes that were made can be admitted. I feel we must have more transparency and more accountability.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Roy.

This is our last day on this study, which the committee was instructed to conduct after I put forward a motion in the House of Commons. Every member in the House, including the Prime Minister, voted in favour of the study.

I'm eager to see the committee's report and the recommendations that come out of it. In the meantime, you mentioned another report that was produced following an internal government investigation. The report wasn't made public.

Can you tell us what you think of that? Should it be made public?

[Nancy Roy]

Victims' voices are always silenced. Unfortunately, their rights are not recognized under the Constitution. The investigations, research and work carried out by boards are never made public. There is no transparency. No information is provided to the organizations assisting the victims.

We are focusing on Mr. Gallese and his reintegration, but let's not lose sight of his many victims—not just the two people he killed, but also their families, whose lives have been shattered. Loved ones are doomed to a life without the victim.