Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

What role, if any, do parole officers play in working with the CSC to help determine the security classifications of an offender?

[Patrick Ménard]

At the start of the sentence, it's actually the parole officer's role to gather the relevant information, use the information at his disposal, ensure that the file is complete, use the custody rating scale and make a final recommendation to institution management regarding the inmate's security level. The security classification and penitentiary placement are determined at that stage.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

What are the usual reasons for a transfer?

[Patrick Ménard]

There are two types of transfers for inmates during their sentence. Actually, there are three. First of all, there's the voluntary transfer. That's the one that's granted in response to an inmate's request. There's also the involuntary transfer, which is made at the request of the Correctional Service of Canada's case management team against the inmate's will. Lastly, there's the emergency transfer, which can be conducted for many reasons, but you should understand that it's almost always involuntary.

Why would an inmate want to be transferred, or why would the Correctional Service of Canada want to transfer that inmate, as—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Ménard, thank you. We've gone over our time by almost 30 seconds, so I'll move on.

I do want to check with Mr. Sandelli, though.

Can you hear us, Mr. Sandelli? Can you give us a thumbs-up if you can hear us?

[Jeff Sandelli]

Yes, I can hear you. I'm sorry. There was some overlap in the translation, and it wasn't clear to me where the question was going. I'm sorry about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Okay, thank you. That's fine.

We'll go now to Ms. Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What Mr. Ménard was saying was very interesting. I'm going to go back to that, but I want to raise three points just before I do.

First, Mr. Chair, congratulations on your election as committee chair. I wasn't here when it happened, but I understand that everything was properly done. So I congratulate you on your new position.

Second, I would like to give notice of a motion. I am going to read the motion, just to give notice so that we can debate it at another time. The motion reads as follows:.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the security issues arising from the activities of organized criminal groups from Mexico and Central and South America who are engaging in clandestine and illegal activities in Canada, particularly in Quebec and on the border, using false passports and false identities, and who are trafficking migrants, weapons and stolen valuables from the United States; That the committee direct this study toward developing effective, practical solutions to put an end to this situation that threatens the lives, integrity, safety and security of vulnerable people and poses public safety issues for Quebec and Canada; That the committee spend a minimum of three meetings on this study; That the committee invite to appear, for at least one hour per witness, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Marc Miller; the Minister of Public Safety, Dominic LeBlanc; Canada Border Services Agency officials; RCMP officials; and any other witnesses that the committee deems appropriate; and That the committee report its observations and recommendations to the House.

So notice of motion is given. I imagine we'll be able to debate it at another time.

Lastly, I wanted to extend my sincerest sympathies to the friends and families of the victims. I know we're undertaking a study that may be very difficult for certain individuals and may bring back painful memories. I want to assure them that the Bloc Québécois will proceed in as appropriate a manner as possible, by which I mean that the manner in which the questions are asked will be as nonpartisan as possible. I think this file and this subject call for all the compassion we have to offer. Partisanship will have no place here. I just wanted to send that message to the people who may be watching us as we begin this study.

I will now ask my questions.

First, I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us. I believe your opinion is very important. I don't know to what extent you can give us your opinion, or if you can only give us factual information to explain how things work. Whatever the case may be, it would be good to understand these aspects so we can forge ahead with this study.

Mr. Ménard, what you were saying was very interesting. I'm going to allow you the time to go back over the three types of transfers that you discussed, particularly the second type, which is requested by the case management team.

I don't know whether we're aware of the details of that type of transfer in the case before us.

If not, I'll let you continue what you are saying and explain to us what may lead to one type of transfer or another.

[Patrick Ménard]

Here we're talking about a standard voluntary transfer, which requires a recommendation from the case management team.

In one of the most common situations, an inmate may wish to have access to services in the language of his choice. For example, an anglophone may want to leave Quebec because there aren't enough English-language services, or vice versa for a francophone. That's a situation that may arise.

In the most common situation, inmates want access to programs corresponding to what's prescribed in their correctional plan. They want access to programs related to their risk factors. In this case, offenders might request a voluntary transfer to a particular institution that offers those programs. Preparing the request is one thing, but they also have to ensure that the security classification of the institution corresponds to the offender's security level.

We therefore have to ensure that the program is offered, that it's given in the right language and that it relates to the inmate's dynamic and crimogenic factors. If that's the case, the case management team must review the inmate's request in order to determine, first, whether the security reclassification scale proposes a corresponding security level. We may have an individual who is in a maximum-security institution and wants to take a program offered at a medium-security institution. We have to verify whether the application of the security reclassification scale supports a transfer to a medium-security institution. We also have to assess the three factors that must be considered in order to allow a downward reclassification of the security level, which are the level of institutional adjustment, the risk to the public and the risk of escape. For each of those three factors, we have to determine whether the risk is low, moderate or high. Obviously, if we determine that the risk is high for at least one of those three factors, the individual will remain at a maximum-security institution.

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

I believe my time is up.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We are going to Mr. Julian, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

On behalf of the NDP, I want to express my condolences to the victims of Mr. Bernardo and their families. We seek to get an understanding of what transpired last spring, and I think all members of the committee are united in trying to get answers.

I want to start with you, Mr. Wilkins.

Mr. Shipley quoted the news article citing Mike Bolduc's comments about the fact that the transfer, according to Mr. Bolduc, “was hidden”. He had no idea and didn't know why Mr. Bernardo was transferred. Mr. Bernardo had two parole hearings, in 2018 and 2021, and was denied parole both times.

Mr. Wilkins, in your experience, is that something that plays a determining role in transfers, or is that not considered?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I wouldn't say it's not considered, but I don't think it plays a leading role in the transfer of an inmate. Again, it is the custody rating scale that determines the assessment for a decision to transfer to a lower-security institution.

With regard to the comment that the union didn't know, as the national president of the organization, I didn't know either, until it hit the media.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you for your answer.

You referenced the custody rating scale, but you also said in your introductory remarks that many inmates do not meet the custody rating scale for minimum security.

Did I understand that correctly? Were you saying that there has been an overriding of the scale, and in Mr. Bernardo's case it was overridden to maintain him in maximum security, but in many other cases it's overridden to bring the inmate to a level of security that is lower than their custody rating scale would actually justify?

Am I correct in that? Could you estimate how many inmates would be impacted by that?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I think it would be a little premature to give an estimate, but at a minimum-security institution, for example, there would be five to a dozen inmates who might be overridden from medium security. Likewise, from maximum into medium, we have inmates who are placed in our medium-security facilities who, according to the custody rating scale, would come out as a maximum-security offender.

The decisions for this, the words that have always been spoken to me, are that they're a “manageable risk”—the risk is manageable. We've argued on many occasions with the Correctional Service that we don't see in policy anywhere that there's another level of risk under the custody rating scale about being “manageable”. This is where we have issues.

As for the exact number, I certainly could not tell you the exact number.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

You are suggesting five to a dozen in each facility. We know how many facilities there are, so we can estimate, with the number of facilities across the country, a rough number of where this has happened,

Could you tell us how that overriding process takes place? How is it overridden when there is a custody rating scale in place?

[Jeff Wilkins]

Once again, my colleagues might be in a better position to answer that question.

It's my understanding that there are different authorities when it comes to different kinds of transfers. If it's a transfer within a region from a medium-security institution to a minimum-security institution, for example, it's the warden's delegated authority to make the decision on that. If they're going outside of the region, it's a different delegated authority. If it's somebody who has a dangerous offender label, it would be a different authority, then, as well.

What we've seen is that after the case management team, which would include the parole officer, comes up with the decision to transfer to a lower security, even though that might not fall within the custody rating scale, it would be the warden's authority to do so. They do that.

As I said, the words that are floated around are “manageable risk”.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ménard, do you agree with what Mr. Wilkins just said about the number of offenders at an institution with a security level lower than that prescribed by the security reclassification scale in their case?

[Patrick Ménard]

I quite honestly don't have that information. All I can give you are the observations I've been able to make during my career.

Parole officers handle a certain number of cases. In my career, that has varied between 25 and 30 files. A deviation from what's prescribed by the custody rating scale may occur in two or three cases. So you could say that it happens in roughly 10% of cases. However, that's an estimate based strictly on my personal experience.

I'll stop there and give the floor back to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Julian will have another chance for additional questions.

We're going to move to the second round, which will be a five-minute round. We'll have Mr. Lloyd first, please.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Wilkins. Correctional statistics before the implementation of Bill C-83 showed that the number of inmates in a maximum-security facility dropped by as low as eight or as high as 89 on an annual basis.

In 2021, the first full year after Bill C-83 was implemented, that number almost doubled, to 158. I've received an ATIP response that states that 505 inmates were transferred out of maximum security to medium security last year alone, ending March 2023. There are anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 inmates in maximum security in Canada. In your experience, are 505 transfers out of maximum security a high number in any given year?

[Jeff Wilkins]

It seems like a very high number. Now, I'm not exactly sure if this would have been relevant during COVID, because we didn't have a lot of transfers happening, if you recall, during the pandemic. I assume that this is after the pandemic.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

This is the 2022-2023 fiscal year. There were 505 prisoners moved out of maximum security into medium security. Now, prior to Bill C-83's coming into effect in June 2019, would you consider this a high number compared to the numbers in previous years?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I would.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

In your experience, has the number of prisoner transfers, COVID notwithstanding, from maximum to medium security increased since Bill C-83 was brought into effect in June 2019?