Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[Jeff Sandelli]

With reference to my introduction as well, I think our members work exceedingly hard at the interventions, and we work within a system that's been designed and is predicated on a scenario whereby, when an offender enters into the system, they're going to be offered opportunities to rehabilitate or learn different ways of being and thinking, in order that they might make that transition.

In an ideal circumstance, whether they started in a medium institution or in a maximum, it is hoped that they can transition down and cascade through medium and into minimum, while having these interventions and making changes all along the way, and being assessed by a parole officer in a global manner. They're taking into consideration the program reports that are being written by the program officers, anything that might come out of the psychological department and out of the educational department, in addition to the empirical measures that are put in place. If they are successful in moving through that into the community, we have seen that they generally are more successful, because they are preparing to re-enter society after being institutionalized.

It's a real thing, and it takes time to work through. We know that their foray into the community during the first 30 days is extremely stressful. We see the best results for those who achieve a day parole, typically through cascading through the system.

Based on the way our system is designed, that's the manner in which our members work through the policies and the commissioner's directives that are in place. If there are any changes to those or how those work, however those changes come, it is our hope that the resources follow so that we can appropriately intervene and provide the guidance and support they need to continue working through that model.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

You mentioned day parole. Let's say an individual is not meeting those conditions. That can then actually put them back into the system and keep Canadians safe, by not having them released without any sort of assessment.

[Jeff Sandelli]

Again, the purpose is this: There are going to be ongoing assessments and recommendations to decision-makers. If that is not supported, the parole officer can recommend whether or not they are granted. It's up to a decision-maker to then do that with conditions, or, as it works through the institutional security levels—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Sandelli, thank you for your answer.

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

We're moving into the fourth round. I was obviously being a little generous in the first three. In the next round, I'm going to give you a hard stop on your time. That's just to give you a forewarning.

Mr. Shipley, you're up for five minutes.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to lead off by talking about this: There's been a lot of talk around here about trying to make this a non-partisan issue. I haven't heard once, from this side of the table, the word “Liberal” get put out. I haven't heard the words “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau” get put out. I haven't heard a lot of talk like that. However, from the other side of the table, I'm hearing about prime ministers from around 20, 30 or 40 years ago. We're talking about partisanship. I think what I'm hearing here today is absolutely disgusting. We're here to solve problems that are going on today. We're not here to talk.... I hear, “Hm, mm,” on the other side. It's glibness.

You know, I brought up a concrete example of a horrific crime that happened when two people escaped from a minimum-security institution, only to hear someone on the other side—the Liberal side; I'll say it, because we've been called “Conservatives” all day—talk about how they're doing such a great job with fewer escapes. How about phoning the family and telling them how great a job you're doing with fewer escapes, since they lost a loved one?

I don't think you're listening too much, right now, Ms. O'Connell, but I'm still talking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Please speak through the chair.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I'm a little disgusted with this. We're here today to talk about victims' rights and carry on—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if Mr. Shipley wants to take personal shots at me while I'm coordinating who is speaking next, that's his prerogative. If he has a real question for the witnesses who are here, I suggest he ask it. Otherwise, it seems he has nothing to say, other than making attacks, because all their facts are incorrect.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order. I'm sorry, but Ms. O'Connell is out of line.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that you bring that in line, please, out of respect for this entire committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Can we get back to Mr. Shipley and his question to the witnesses?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Yes, my question is coming through here, loud and clear. I just have a few more things left to say. We've sat here and taken a lot of partisan shots coming from that way. It's interesting that we're now getting points of order when one is going back their way. It's been an hour and a half of hearing nothing but partisanship coming this way. Enough is enough.

As I said, if escapes are going down, and that one is not important.... I think it is. I think our whole topic here today is the rights of victims of crime. I don't think we've talked enough about that.

What I would like to know, too.... There's been alluding, on the other side, to inmates getting cascaded down through the system. I really hope there are no thoughts about Bernardo cascading through and being let go. If that's what you're alluding to, that's horrific. I hope he never sees the light of day.

I'd like to ask our witnesses.... At the very beginning of this, I talked about the secrecy of this event and how no one knew about it. There were only three people at Millhaven who knew about his transfer.

How could your staff possibly get prepared for the intake of a horrific criminal like that, if no one at the receiving end of it knew he was coming, Mr. Wilkins?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I think you can understand that the media sensation that went along with this decision, and, of course, nobody being prepared for it, made it extremely difficult not only to receive the inmate but also.... Again, it left our members with questions, I am certain, in the sending institution as to why some reports weren't taken into consideration when making these decisions, and why staff weren't.... His CX-2, for example, who would be in charge of his case at a ground-floor level.... Whether they were informed....

I think it makes it very difficult for everybody, because you're juggling not only the intake of an offender but also the media that comes along with it.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that, Mr. Wilkins.

What we are trying to say here today, and what we're here to try to resolve, is this: There were issues with this transfer. There are issues. There is, and was, public outrage. You agree there were issues around it. We may not solve them all here today, but at least that's our job—to try to resolve them.

Thank you for being here today.

I believe that's it for me, for time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Next, we have Mr. Gaheer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask again my question that I rushed to ask last time.

From looking at the Auditor General's report on systemic racism within Correctional Service Canada, we know that there are disparities present from the moment the offenders enter federal institutions. We know that the process for assigning security classifications, including the use of the custody rating scale—which we've talked about at this committee—and the frequent overrides of the scale by corrections staff, results in a disproportionately high number of Black and indigenous offenders being placed in maximum-security institutions. We know that, while the majority of offenders will receive parole before the ends of their sentences, the data shows that indigenous and Black offenders remain in custody for a longer period of time and at higher levels of security.

I just want to ask the witness panel what their thoughts are on this data, what their thoughts are on a fairer process, and how we can achieve that fairer process.

[Patrick Ménard]

I can answer that question.

Our members, particularly correctional program officers and parole officers, receive training based on ethnic issues. That training is given to them regularly, every year or two years. The statistics are known in the system and our members are informed on these issues. The purpose of that training is to make them more sensitive in this area because they have to consider specific ethnic characteristics, the differences that may exist among various ethnic groups, and weigh those variables when developing their recommendations for decision-makers.

The goal of all that is obviously to try to eliminate every form of discrimination that might be unconscious and to educate our members to ensure they maintain the same level of professionalism.

It's not true that our members work in order to establish statistics. The organization may possibly aim to achieve certain statistics, but our members are trained to be more sensitive to these issues so they are as fair as possible when making recommendations.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you for your answer.

I have a different line of questioning.

With respect to transfers, what happens when there are inter-regional transfers? Does the offender receive a new parole officer, or does the offender keep the existing one? Is some of the institutional knowledge transferred from region to region? What happens in that kind of case?

[Patrick Ménard]

When an inmate is transferred from one institution to another, whether in the same or another region, there's a complete change of team. The inmate winds up with a new parole officer, a new CX‑2 and many other new people who will be working with that inmate.

Inmates thus do not have the same officer or the same staff members around them after a transfer.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Okay.

What's the responsibility, when a transfer occurs, of a parole officer in terms of the introduction of that new person to the population of another prison?

[Patrick Ménard]

If my understanding is correct, you want to know what responsibility the former parole officer has toward the new parole officer when a transfer occurs. Is that correct?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Yes.

[Patrick Ménard]

The best practice is to communicate between the two teams. The files and important information are transferred. That's also the practice that's followed between institutions and the community upon release.

So that's a best practice for transfers, and it's also an excellent practice for releases. It's something that's done every day. Our members do it.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer, and thank you, Mr. Ménard.

We'll now move on to Ms. Michaud, please, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question concerning privacy as opposed to victim rights in the wake of the transfer of inmate Bernardo. Since my question is for both Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Ménard, I'd like both of them to feel comfortable answering it.

In that specific case, the previous Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Mendicino, said that Canadians had a right to know why the Correctional Service of Canada had proceeded with Mr. Bernardo's transfer. The Correctional Service said it had a duty to protect the inmate's privacy. According to a CBC/Radio-Canada article, a CSC spokesperson said that, under the Privacy Act, the independent agency could not disclose the personal information of an inmate without his consent, “except in specific circumstances”.

Would you please tell us in what specific circumstances certain information or notifications could be given to the families of victims, for example? How does that process work in general?