Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

1995 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
ONTARIO BOARD OF PAROLE

MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
ONTARIO BOARD OF PAROLE

CONTENTS

Thursday 9 May 1996

1995 annual report, Provincial Auditor: Ontario Board of Parole

Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services

Paul Fleury, director, operational support and coordination branch

Frances McKeague, manager, adult community services, operational support and coordination branch

Ontario Board of Parole

Ken Sandhu, chair

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Chair / Président: McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South / -Sud L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Colle, Mike (Oakwood L)

*Agostino, Dominic (Hamilton East / -Est L)

*Beaubien, Marcel (Lambton PC)

*Boushy, Dave (Sarnia PC)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South / -Sud PC)

*Colle, Mike (Oakwood L)

*Crozier, Bruce (Essex South / -Sud L)

*Fox, Gary (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)

Gilchrist, Steve (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Hastings, John (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

*Martel, Shelley (Sudbury East / -Est ND)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South / -Sud L)

Pouliot, Gilles (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)

Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)

Vankoughnet, Bill (Frontenac-Addington PC)

*In attendance / présents

Clerk / Greffier: Todd Decker

Staff / Personnel: Steve Poelking, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1007 in room 228.

1995 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
ONTARIO BOARD OF PAROLE

The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Colle): We're still waiting for a member of the third party, but they're on their way. I think we'll begin since we have our witnesses here. I wonder if you could identify yourselves first.

MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
ONTARIO BOARD OF PAROLE

Mr Paul Fleury: I'm Paul Fleury, the director of the operational support and coordination branch of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

Ms Frances McKeague: I'm Frances McKeague, the manager of adult community services with the operational support and coordination branch.

Mr Ken Sandhu: I'm Ken Sandhu, the chair of the Ontario Board of Parole.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for coming here. I think Mr Sandhu's been here before. Paul, I'm not sure if you've been.

Mr Fleury: No, I haven't.

The Vice-Chair: Thanks for coming, and we appreciate the time on this.

Essentially, members of the committee, what we have before us is the report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor, the action plan and status. Perhaps we could have some comments from our witnesses on that and see if we, as members of the committee, want to pose some questions on it and see if there are any implications of what is before us. We'll proceed in that fashion. I'll leave it open to the witnesses.

Mr Sandhu: We were given a few questions by Mr Decker, the clerk. Presumably those questions had come up at your last meeting. We have prepared answers to those questions and we could respond, or if you wish for us to speak in some general terms about the issue at hand, we could do that. I could speak about the parole board, to how long it's been around and what its function is and things such as that. We didn't come prepared to read out a statement as such, but there is not a problem in trying to answer any questions you might have.

The Vice-Chair: The last time the committee met, we were addressing the process of electronic monitoring and accountability in terms of the release of someone, ensuring that all the records pertinent to that person's release are before the parole board and that there's a process in place whereby these records are mandated to be before the parole board; in other words, that there isn't a gap between what the parole board has before it to make a decision and what, let's say, the prison authorities might have in terms of records, or what the medical practitioner may have, or any other intervenors. Our main interest was ensuring that the documentation from all interested stakeholders was before the parole board and we could ensure a process was put in place where these were mandated as benchmarks and that the parole board had to sign off on these, let's say, commentaries or evaluations by the stakeholders. If I'm correct, I think that's what we were trying to get at, what we felt was a critical component of our attempt to put some more accountability in the process, and a bit more comfort with the process. If you can address that, that's the thrust we ended up with last time.

Mr Sandhu: What we have done in preparation to respond to that question is bring with us some files. If the members are interested, they could actually have a look at the kind of information that exists in our files. It's just that we would not want to read any identifying information into the record because of the freedom of information act. But the members are quite welcome to look through to see what sort of information the board members review before making a decision.

In terms of the concerns around whether or not the information is now coming to the board, I will respond to that. That clearly was the very first recommendation of the auditor. That was the very first recommendation of Bonnie Wein, who did a review of a case back in 1993. Historically, that has been probably one of the biggest problems that the provincial parole board has faced and that, my knowledge is, to some extent the national board also has faced.

It stemmed from the fact that the front end of the system -- that is, the police and the courts -- either felt that the information that was generated at their levels was not required at the back end of the system -- that is, the corrections and parole decision-making -- or that there were never enough resources to pass that information on.

This problem has existed for a long while, and attempts to try and resolve these issues in the past were not very successful simply because if we were to approach the crowns, for example, at the court level, the crowns would say: "We have no problem. Here are our filing cabinets. You come and get what you want." They didn't have the resources to photocopy everything and send it on.

Perhaps there was also a sense in the past that the correctional and parole decision-making system really didn't need all that. After all, these are people who are going into the system for a short while and what's the big deal? Their job is to hold them in custody and that's about it. But the difficulty with that thinking is that some very key, crucial decisions have to be made after a person is sentenced to incarceration.

That's a background as to why we were not receiving information in the past. Let me go on and say that over the past two and a half years or so, and it started with the investigation that was carried out by Bonnie Wein, we have been working hard to try and get that information. It became obvious to us that there was a need to make sure that both the information from the front end of the system and the information from within the correctional system was collected in a way in which it would be useful to the parole board members. In that regard, several changes have been made. I can list the kind of information that we look at at this point, if you like, and that'll give you some idea.

Let me start off by saying that at the time of a hearing the way the process unfolds for us is that the parole board members will usually meet in the morning. If there are, let's say, four cases scheduled for the day -- and that's about the average for us across the province -- they will meet in the morning. We'll start fairly early and our operation is that we will review all of the information. By noon, we will have made notes. We have a fairly structured system of making notes. I've also brought copies of the parole consideration form with me which, if the members like, I can leave here and you can look at.

This form captures the tombstone information at the top, then has a list of documents reviewed, and then we go on and make notes under the two criteria that are spelled out in the federal legislation. The same two criteria are used by all parole boards across Canada, including the federal parole board. The first criterion is, "Will society be placed at undue risk if the offender reoffends while on parole?" That part is broken out in terms of the current offences, previous offences, and under each criterion there are a number of very specific factors that we will check off. Those factors are usually yes, no or unclear answers.

The process for us then becomes one where, after reviewing the information, we make notes on what kind of questions and issues we need to have resolved at the time of the hearing. The hearings will take place usually in the afternoon, and they last about an hour each, on average. We audiotape all our proceedings.

The last time the Provincial Auditor reviewed us, in 1989, their finding was that in looking at our files it wasn't very clear to them how we had reached a certain decision. At that time, our process was a little more vague and general. The form you are going to see, which is a little more structured now, in the past was not so structured. It simply had wide-open spaces where people would sit down and make notes. As a result of those recommendations, we introduced this more structured form along with audiotaping all our hearings. That provides a fairly good record in terms of what went on, what was said and why the decision was reached as it was. Once you get to see the form, you will see more clearly how the process unfolds for us at that level. In the meantime, let me very quickly point out to you what kind of information does come before us.

For all cases, we must have the information on current charges, dispositions and sentence. This information generally is contained in a ministry's offender management system client profile, which is a computer form -- again, there are copies of that in the file, if you wish to actually see it -- and information on previous criminal history, and this may be in the form of an RCMP criminal record or it may be included in one of the pre-parole reports. There is an institutional report, and that speaks to the behaviour of the offender while the person is in prison.

Then there is a most significant document for us, which is the pre-parole report, which is prepared by a probation and parole officer in the community after doing a home visit and checking out to see where this person's going to live and what he's going to do -- Is he going to attend school? Is he going to be employed? -- and checking with the employer to see if everything is as the person has stated in his or her pre-release plan.

That pre-parole report must be there, and in that report a number of other issues or other areas are also checked out; as I mentioned, residential confirmation. Often there's also a CPIC -- Canadian Police Information Centre -- check done to determine whether there are any outstanding warrants or any other criminal charges.

1020

There's also an area where the police comments about the suitability of parole are captured. In other words, in every case, the parole officer will contact the local police department and ask for their views on what they think about the release. Comments on the offender's prior response to community are captured in there. In a number of cases, people have been on probation --

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. I missed that.

Mr Sandhu: The prior response on community supervision -- in other words, if the person's been on probation or parole before, then how did he or she fare while they were on community supervision? A notation regarding alcohol or drug dependencies, emotional or psychiatric disabilities is also made there. Then, of course, the statement about the probation and parole officer's support or non-support for the offender's release in the form of a recommendation is often captured in it.

Then there are recommendations for any special conditions. If the parole officer feels that in this particular instance there is such-and-such program that this person will benefit from in the community, that is mentioned. Or if in the process of investigation, the parole officer finds there is a need to have a curfew, and to say, "You shall not leave your residence after 11 o'clock," those kinds of special conditions are mentioned in this report, which the parole board members would take into consideration at the time of making a decision.

The Vice-Chair: If I could just interrupt, if there's a case that -- was it the Suzack case? Has the system been changed after that, or were these checks and balances in place before that?

Mr Sandhu: There's been considerable change since then. Let me say that the system has been tightened and a number of safeguards have been built in which were not there before. One of the very key safeguards, a key change that we have brought about, is that we used to have a policy that if some of this information was not present and the hearing chair of that particular panel determined that it wasn't going to be coming, then we would proceed. The right to proceed was there and was discretionary in all cases. That right has now been removed, and that perhaps is the most significant, from our point of view.

In addition to that, a number of other changes have been brought about. The system now has a 24-hour on-call system for police to contact someone from the correctional services, from probation and parole area, to discuss a case where there might be some reoffending going on. We didn't have that before. That was put in place, and on a 24-hour basis people from correctional services have access to the offender management system. They can pull up the background of the case and then work with the police to either issue a warrant or discuss the case particulars.

There is a whole list of changes that we have made. But let me say that, from our point of view, there were a number of things going on that the system had taken for granted and started to think that things couldn't go wrong, because we were basically looking at not very high-risk cases. That particular case sent a very clear message to us that we were not looking at boy scouts, as you would, through the system at all times, that there are some fairly serious cases.

We no longer release people to certain kinds of residences where we know that the security level is not very good or the supervision level is not good. We make sure that the travel plans from point A to point B, every bit of movement, is captured and approved and monitored while the person is on parole. All those types of changes have come about since then.

The Vice-Chair: I guess the other concern we have as a committee is about people who have a past history of violence or habitual histories of paedophilia. Do any alarm bells go off? I think the community is very concerned about those two main areas. Are there any kind of added checks we could put into the system to ensure that people with that kind of documented past history are given this extra look before they're released, or is that already in place?

Mr Sandhu: We noticed in your questions that there was a question pertaining to police information and information to the community. Let me answer it by saying, please understand that in the provincial system what you're looking at are people who are sentenced to two years less a day, the maximum sentence. The way the system works for us is that if there is what's known as a "dangerous offender" who comes before the parole board, there is no way that person is going to get paroled in our system, simply because we have determined the risk to be too high. In that instance, the parole board is not involved in putting up any warning signals of any kind.

However, any person released by the parole board, we pass on a picture which the correctional services provides to us, an up-to-date picture, we give notice of release information to the police and, in fact, in our legislation there is a requirement that this person will report to the police on a regular basis.

I think society's or the community's concerns around your more serious offenders are coming from the federal system in which there are some fairly serious offenders, and some of them get to the point of their mandatory release, or what have you, and at that point all kinds of concerns do come up.

Our feeling is that if there was someone who was convicted of those kinds of offences, and even if somehow we missed it -- I heard the last time I was here a concern of that nature -- I wanted to say it would be very simple, if there was anyone out there who had any concern, to simply get in touch with the parole officer in this case and say: "Here's the situation. Is this person not convicted of some crime against children? He seemingly is living very close to the school and what kind of safeguards are there?" It wouldn't be very difficult for the system to respond to that. The police would be informed the same way.

There isn't a need for somebody to sit there and monitor his activities all the time, no. But the difficulty comes in at the level where people have met their legal obligation and, you see, the justice system has very little control. That's the problem that I think, by and large, causes concern for the community. In that regard, what is needed are safeguards in legislation and perhaps the desire and the need to look at what kind of controls can be put on those beyond their mandatory supervision period.

The Vice-Chair: I know you've got essentially persons on two years less a day, minor offences, but let's say that person's already served a number of sentences for more serious crimes, maybe federal institutions or whatever. If he or she then commits a more minor crime, is there any connection between the past history of serious crimes and then coming before the parole board on this minor offence? Are they taken into account, or do you just look at the minor provincial record?

Mr Sandhu: No, sir. That's exactly what I wanted to show you, if you all have the form. If you would turn to the parole consideration form, front page, you will see that under A where the criteria speaks to, "Will society be placed at undue risk if the offender reoffends while on parole?" The first area there that we fill out is the current offences. The second is the previous offences. So from our point of view those are taken together. They are just as important to us. It's just as important to us to know what this person's been doing in the past, what kind of offences there have been.

1030

Yes, as you say, there are some cases where someone might have served a federal time and may have a very lengthy previous criminal record and comes back into the provincial system for a minor offence. For us to assess risk -- and perhaps I'll ask my colleagues from correctional services to speak about the new instrument that places a numerical weight to those past offences and how that translates into an assessment of risk.

The Vice-Chair: But you do get those federal records, their history and their behaviour in federal correctional institutions and the comments from those officials there? Are they before the provincial board?

Mr Sandhu: Let me say that we get summarized information from the federal system in the event where we're looking at an offender who might have been in the federal system. The flow of information from the federal to the provincial correctional system is not a problem because they, in fact, want more from us than we want from them. There are not that many who come into our system who've been in there. Usually the way it works is that there is a progressive nature to it and that's the way they usually flow. But, yes, there isn't a problem and it's just that in those cases we do have to ask for it and we get it.

Ms McKeague: The risk assessment instrument that Mr Sandhu was referring to was recently reintroduced in Ontario in the first part of January of this year. It was based on an extensive review of the literature, but also we went back and reviewed and revised our previous risk assessment instrument called the level of supervision inventory. The new instrument, called the level of service inventory (Ontario revision), is now being used in all institutions and all probation and parole offices as soon as the inmate or the probationer or parolee's foot actually hits the door of the institution or the office itself.

The risk assessment instrument looks at eight major areas in an offender's history, or life really, and these eight areas are all positively correlated with the risk for reoffending. Really, that's what a risk assessment instrument is; it predicts future reoffending. We look at that prediction in developing and devising programs, but also in giving information to conditional release folks like the Ontario Board of Parole or our temporary absence people in institutions as well.

In assessing the offender's risk for reoffending we look at such factors as criminal history, and that includes both current and previous. It is incumbent upon all of our employees doing this assessment to get police occurrence reports not only for the current offence but the entire history, including the young offender history as well. We take a very serious look at what this person has been doing criminality-wise throughout their career.

Other areas we look at include education, employment, family history or family dysfunction, leisure recreation, companions -- and what we mean by "companions" is an over-reliance on the pro-criminal or antisocial sort of associate. We look at issues like their attitude towards criminality, which is one of the big areas we assess around risk: What are they thinking and what are they feeling about themselves in relation to criminality? For example, statements like: "Nobody got hurt. It's just big business. So what?" that sort of thing is an indication of future risk.

We look at substance abuse, of course, a history and current, and last, we look at what we call an antisocial pattern. We look at such indicators as a history or a current diagnosis of mental disorder, for example. Some of our colleagues would call it a diagnosis of psychopathy. We look at what their young offender history has been, whether there has been an extensive or early pattern of what we call anti-social behaviour too. We look at a number of factors when we're assessing risk, and the parole board, when they're making their decision, have that risk assessment instrument with them, which is used in their deliberations as well.

The level-of-service inventory, however, isn't just an indicator of all those risk factors. What we are trying to do in correctional services is use that information in what we call a risk management approach. Part of that is identifying those offenders who are at the highest risk for reoffending and then gearing our resources accordingly. For example, if we're looking at offenders who have a very high risk for reoffending, we will want to look at what is the most appropriate kind of intervention that should be provided for those people.

We introduced that in January. Over 1,000 of our staff were trained last fall. We're doing an extensive research and evaluation on the instrument, not only in Ontario but in other jurisdictions. It was developed by Dr Andrews at Carleton University, but there has also been extensive work done on the instrument at the University of New Brunswick.

I should add that Ontario's history with risk assessment is very impressive because a lot of this work started in the correctional system here in Ontario and is now in such jurisdictions as Colorado, New York state and a number of others in the United States, in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

We're looking at two areas of research that I referred to. One is qualitative, where we're looking at information that's being collected on risk assessment, how practitioners are filling out the forms, whether there is consistent use of it and that sort of thing. We're looking at a quality assurance type of research on that so that there's consistent application across the board. The second area of research is more quantitative or empirical, where each of the scores in each area that I mentioned is registered on our offender management system. We're going to use that information in program development, making policy decisions and that sort of thing.

There's been considerable interest in this instrument at the academic level and, as far as I'm aware, two PhD students out of Ottawa are going to be working on the evaluation as well. The longitudinal research on the instrument is being conducted in the eastern region of the province, where we first pilot-tested the instrument, and we're going to be rolling up the figures on that within the next two months because we have to have a period of time before we've introduced an instrument before we can do that sort of research.

The Vice-Chair: If any members of the committee have questions, perhaps now is the time.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It would be helpful to tell us what FPS is on this parole consideration form.

Mr Sandhu: It's the fingerprint service of the RCMP. PPR stands for the pre-parole report that I referred to earlier. PSR is a pre-sentence report which is done at the request of a judge at the time of sentencing.

Mr Crozier: That's fine. In this pre-parole report, to what extent is the applicant interviewed? Are the persons applying for parole interviewed extensively with a series of questions even prior to coming before the board so that you have some consideration as to what they might have said?

Ms McKeague: Yes, they are. In all the major institutions and in the smaller ones we have what is called the institution liaison officer, a probation and parole officer appointed to that position who does an in-depth interview with each inmate applying for parole. They ask them a list of questions, including what their plans are for release. That's really the job of the parole officer in the field, to verify those plans.

The other interviews that are done in the institution are what we call professional or clinical assessments. All of what Mr Sandhu referred to as level 1 offenders, those serious offenders applying for parole, have to have this clinical assessment done on them which relates the risk assessment to their plans for release. That takes a look at issues like mental and emotional health and relates that to the risk of reoffending and that sort of thing. There is quite an interview process done with inmates prior to their appearing before the parole board.

1040

Mr Crozier: I take it that we haven't dealt with the question on the per diem costs of incarceration and halfway house residency, the first question in the letter. If it's appropriate, maybe we can get that information now.

Mr Fleury: In addressing that question, one part is what are the per diem costs? I must say adult institution per diem costs vary, but we have a provincial average. That provincial average for adult institutions was $120.97 for the year 1994-95. When community resource centres were open, per diem costs were roughly at $80. We also have contracts with agencies that provide residential placement, and the costs there are $60. Those are the amounts.

When we talk about adult per diems, as we've probably noted in the past, those per diems have some great variance, which usually depends upon the design and age etc of the institutional infrastructure. We have some institutions that were built prior to 1900 that are very costly to run, and it's not based on anything other than poor design. We inherited county jails several years back, and in institutions that are designed where the sight lines etc are extremely poor, staffing costs are a lot higher and therefore the per diems are a lot higher, but on average it's $120.97.

Mr Crozier: Without making any assumptions, what goes into those costs, if you could go over that?

Mr Fleury: Salary and benefit costs, administrative costs, realty costs and program costs, to put it simply, and we'd really be talking about minus any revenue that is derived from things such as inmates paying room and board or federal cost-sharing for the detention of immigration etc.

The Vice-Chair: The other question I have is in terms of crown attorneys. You mentioned that they may not make information available because of the lack of resources or time. Is there anything we could request that might facilitate that in terms of ensuring there is at least a written comment or assessment by the crown who was involved in a case dealing with a person who's subject to a parole where you wouldn't necessarily have to go through all the files but where you would get the crown's quick assessment, his or her input, rather than trying to do a massive search?

Mr Sandhu: Yes, sir. There are two sources of information which I think could be very helpful to us. One is just that, and anything the committee can do to encourage that this take place would be very helpful. We find that in some cases, where the crown attorney is moved to the extent that he feels he must get in touch with us, he does that, but it's almost left as though they are afraid to and don't wish to influence our decisions. I don't know what the nature of the difficulty is, but I think any communication from crown attorneys could be helpful.

Given the nature of their work, it's not always possible; they're looking at so many cases in a day. This is why I think if Mr Skarica were here he probably could speak to it from his personal experience. My thinking is, though, that anything the committee can do to encourage the system to get closer in terms of sharing information, to develop appreciation for each other's work, would be very helpful.

I provided through Mr Decker a status report on each of the recommendations in one part of the auditor's report. The very first one deals with the judge's reasons for sentencing. We are at a stage where we are working out financial arrangements, because receiving the judge's reasons for sentencing costs money, and that money has to be paid to the person who transcribes the reasons. Those reports have been a little slower in coming to us. I believe that in principle there is a complete agreement on getting it to us; it's just that the mechanics of it are slower. It was not done and it has not been done in the past. In fact, we understand that in a very large number of cases the judges' reasons for sentencing are not even transcribed unless somebody asks for them. If the committee could say anything in that regard, that would be very helpful to us.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My curiosity got the best of me. Under case consideration results on the back it says that if you're a franco, they want to know which language you learned at home; if you're a native, they want to know whether that person is a North American Indian or a Metis or Inuit; but when it comes to a visible minority, you leave it up to the chair to decide whether that person's a visible minority and you cannot ask the offender. What is the rationale between those three items? You want to know if a person is of francophone descent or something, but when it's a visible minority you don't seem to be concerned whether the person understands the language; is that correct? What's the rationale between those definitions of franco, native and visible minority? Why is it in there in the first place?

Mr Sandhu: What you have on the form you refer to is the case consideration results form, not the case consideration form, which is actually a four-pager. I had brought some extra forms that we use, and this particular form is used by panel members after the hearing is completed. If you see the front part of that form, you'll see this is basically a data entry form that we use to determine who was paroled and who was not paroled.

1050

In answer to that question, as you know, under the Employment Equity Act we had to have certain kinds of information that we had to record. That's the reason why we would break it out in that fashion. We were monitoring numbers. As you've said, we wouldn't ask that of the person, but sometimes it becomes obvious or the person offers that information, and in that case we would use those categories to make sure we captured the right information.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'd like to go back to the issue of halfway houses and ask some questions on that issue. We already got the per diem rates in the halfway houses in comparison to incarceration, but can you give me a sense of where people might be receiving treatment now in terms of drugs and alcohol? I would assume that when they were in halfway houses, they were getting that treatment in a community-based setting. What's happening to those folks now? If they are receiving that while they are incarcerated, was there an increase in staff to deal with that increase in people back in institutions?

Mr Fleury: Certainly I believe every institution has programming that pertains to substance abuse issues, and substance abuse programs. I think there are opportunities for people, for example, to go to AA and go to treatment programs in institutions.

As to your point that there were some who were out in community resource centres or halfway houses, and did they have more accessibility to programming, certainly most of those community resource centres did have programs, but a lot of them were very heavily linked to existing programs in communities. In other words, a lot of people were going from those CRCs to programs in their respective communities.

The other point I'd like to make is that of the total inmate population we have in the system -- we're talking about 7,300 or 7,400 now -- we're really talking a very low percentage who were in community resource centres.

The reason I raise that is that the vast majority of those people who were in those community resource centres were extremely low risk. Had they been released straight on to the street, they had a lot of capability to access services that were already out there in the community, available to every community as they exist today.

Ms Martel: But you had about 400 beds, as I understand it, that were closed as a consequence of closing the halfway houses.

Mr Fleury: Right.

Ms Martel: I'm not sure if those 400 beds actually represent 400 people, and of that how many of those folks would have been receiving some kind of counselling services in an effort to reintegrate them fully into the community. I guess my concern would be, do you have any sense of what those numbers were and what kind of treatment, if any, those folks are receiving now? I don't think there was an increase in staffing in institutions around counsellors to deal with those people coming back into the institution, so are they receiving any service at all, or was there a big portion who were receiving services in the community in the first place who would need it now that they're back in the institution?

Mr Fleury: I don't have specific figures. Again, when we look at the 400 or so folks who were in those places, certainly there were a large number who weren't there for substance abuse issues. Some were there for reasons such as they didn't really have a place to go, and that was the only reason they were being detained, that they couldn't get parole or whatever, or temporary absence. So when we break that down, the numbers that would actually be attending a substance abuse program I believe would be a limited number and they could access those types of services elsewhere.

Ms Martel: If some of those folks, as you said, were in there because they didn't have anywhere else to go, I take it from that answer that the ministry has not seen an increase in either temporary absences or parole in response to people coming back into institutions, in terms of trying to cope with additional numbers coming back into the system.

Mr Fleury: We haven't seen a significant increase as a result of the closure of community resource centres, no.

Ms Martel: You had mentioned earlier as well about some of the costs for institutions being related to just physical plant and the date of that physical plant or how energy-efficient or not energy-efficient it was. I noted in the budget that under the section entitled "Safe Communities" there was a commitment made by the government to have "a major capital investment," it says, "to modernize correctional facilities and courthouses." Do you have any of the details of that? Are we talking about a significant expansion and closure of some of the outdated or older facilities?

Mr Fleury: Certainly that budget announcement has just been made, and the details of that I am not fully apprised of.

Ms Martel: There was a second issue around the same details called Safe Communities that said, "To ensure funding is available for front-line services in the justice system, we are going to integrate administrative support services to achieve maximum efficiency." Do you have any idea what that reference was to?

Mr Fleury: At this point all I can say is that we are a system that recognizes that we need to be more efficient than we are and that there are assessments going on as to how we can be more efficient. We're at a very early phase of that at this point in time.

Ms Martel: Do you think that's going to result in layoffs?

Mr Fleury: I don't know at this point. All I can say is I think we need to identify -- because we have in some situations very high per diems. It really can't be justified. We have some of the highest per diems in North America in institutional programming. So there's no doubt that we as a management team in the ministry, and in conjunction with the minister's office, have to take steps to see what we can do about that. What those actual steps are at this point in time I can't say.

Ms Martel: Mr Chair, I wonder if I can ask Mr Sandhu a question about the review of the parole board. I'm not sure if you were asked this question before I got here, so I apologize if I'm repeating myself.

The minister made an announcement some time ago appointing Mr Drinkwalter to review the operations and the mandate of the Ontario parole board. My understanding was that the review was to be given back sometime at the beginning of March, around March 1, actually. Were you or any members of the board involved in any aspect of that?

Mr Sandhu: Yes. I met with Mr Drinkwalter and answered a series of questions. I provided information that he had requested. Now I understand that there was an extension involved beyond the March 1 date. Other than that, I can't tell you any more because I don't know any more about the report as to whether it's been finalized or not.

Ms Martel: If I might, the nature of the questions that would have been directed to you, was that questions around efficiencies or inefficiencies of how the board worked, any issues around appointments to the board, training, qualifications of appointees etc?

Mr Sandhu: Yes. Mr Drinkwalter asked questions about all of those areas and wanted to get generally a good understanding of how the board worked. His questions were around all of that. We had suggested that he could observe a hearing, but I'm not sure if it happened. I don't think it happened. I think the strike intervened in some ways and delayed some other things that we thought he was going to do at the time. But yes, he asked questions about the whole operation of the board.

1100

Ms Martel: I'm just curious; I know a number of appointments were made before the review was actually announced, which I found to be quite curious. I think 34 people were appointed. Have there been any new appointees since the large number of 34 were appointed by the minister several months ago?

Mr Sandhu: Yes, I believe there were a few others after that announcement, and those were largely in the areas where there had been a delay either in finding the appropriate members or what have you or they were simply not ready to go through the process at that point. I couldn't tell you exactly how many or where they were, but there were a few after that.

Ms Martel: Could you tell me if they were advertised?

Mr Sandhu: To my knowledge, there was not an ad in the paper, but perhaps the public appointments secretariat could respond to the process. Certainly we had some applications that were in our files. As you know, as the chair, I get applications. We had sent those forward, and also the public appointments secretariat gets a very large number of applications. So whether or not a specific ad was placed in the paper, I couldn't tell you. I don't think there was one.

Ms Martel: Can you tell me what your involvement is around the appointments? Are you asked for your opinion? Do you meet with any of the candidates? How does that work?

Mr Sandhu: All full-time appointments -- of which there were not that many; there were a couple of new full-time appointments made -- there were actual interviews conducted on those. I was involved in each of the interviews. We reached this agreement very early on in the process. That was extremely important, that I be involved in those, because as you know, full-time member positions are sort of the workhorses of the organization.

Part-time members, again, we had a number of applications that were, as I said, already in the process, in the system, either at the public appointments secretariat level or in our office. Wherever I knew of the candidates or wherever I'd had a chance to talk to the candidates, I provided my comments and put forward the applications. There was a brief discussion around those candidates and then the final decisions were made at the public appointments secretariat level. There was, generally speaking, an agreement and understanding about who and what kind of persons we were looking at or were going to be interested in looking at. That's how the process unfolded.

Ms Martel: You said there's a general understanding of who you wanted. I'm assuming that also means what kind of qualifications people will have?

Mr Sandhu: Yes.

Ms Martel: Who made those determinations about those criteria about who you were looking for and what their qualifications might be?

Mr Sandhu: We made those jointly between the minister's office and my office.

Ms Martel: Did that include the 34 appointments that were made en masse by the minister?

Mr Sandhu: Yes, there was general discussion on qualifications and background of people we were interested in.

Ms Martel: What, if any, is a ranking that would be given to people, for example, around a qualification that they have some knowledge of the legal system, the justice system, some involvement at the community level, the John Howard Society, E. Fry etc?

Mr Sandhu: Clearly, our criteria or our requirement was that we needed to have a very good and strong representation of people with a criminal justice background, because I believe that the conditional release system works very much as a part of the justice system. In fact, it has to be understood that it is an arm of the justice system, and so we needed representatives of the justice system, especially people who may have handled and worked with criminals, with offenders, people with knowledge of offenders. So with that in mind, we wanted to increase the representation of those types of people at the board. As a result of the appointments that have been made, roughly half of the members are from the criminal justice background.

Ms Martel: Half of the members of those who have been appointed since the new government? Is that what you're making your reference to?

Mr Sandhu: No, I'm saying that at the present time, of all the members we have.

Ms Martel: Can I ask how many members that is? I don't know.

Mr Sandhu: We now have about 70 part-time and about 13 full-time, including myself.

Ms Martel: Do you have vacancies at this point?

Mr Sandhu: We have vacancies but we're also at the stage where we are reviewing. As you know, our quorum size has been reduced, which we wanted to do. So we're in the process of reviewing and determining whether or not we need to fill them. I know that strategically, looking at certain areas, we need to fill perhaps in one or two areas, but not in all the other areas. So let me say that yes, there are vacancies but they are not all of the ones that are vacant because we might not need that many once we have completed our review under the reduction to a two-person quorum.

Ms Martel: Just on that, in terms of the reduction, was it the board then that made a recommendation to the minister to have that change reflected in Bill 26?

Mr Sandhu: Yes.

Ms Martel: With that change, are you going to be able to guarantee, for example, that you continue to have some appropriate balance around regional representation? Is that also a consideration?

Mr Sandhu: Very much so. In fact, as I've said, out of the 83 or so, half of them are from a justice background. In fact, the challenge for us is to make sure that we keep that balance.

We also consider this a strength of this organization. As you all well know, within the justice system there are very few places where the community members, the citizens, can have input or have an actual role. The parole area is one of those where they can. It is certainly our recommendation that we wouldn't want to give that up because we feel that what makes the difference is essentially people, let's say from your community, making decisions about people who are going to come to your community to live. It's not someone from Toronto making decisions about someone in Kenora to be paroled.

That's very much the way we're still approaching it. It's just that with the two-person quorum, the size of the board has already shrunk and probably will shrink a little more.

Ms Martel: I want to raise this question in the context of the appointments again, because it is well known I think to all members that a particular appointment was made where we felt the individual had no criminal justice background whatsoever; had a political affiliation to the government. But certainly, if you're talking about the board having some criteria that are pretty important to board members around people's understanding, knowledge of and working within the justice system at whatever range, some of these folks wouldn't have had that at all.

I'm curious as to whether there were any appointments made that you felt were inappropriate because the folks involved really didn't have that kind of qualification, didn't meet any of the criteria that had been set out between yourself, your board and the minister's office around who you were looking for, what kind of candidates and what qualifications they should have.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): If I may, if he could answer also the question whether the same answer applies to the appointments of previous governments as well.

1110

Ms Martel: Absolutely.

Mr Boushy: That would be very helpful. In answering her question about political backgrounds and involvements, I wonder if there's much difference between appointments of this government and appointments of the last government. Is there any difference?

Mr Sandhu: Let me answer it this way: I've been at the parole board since 1988, and I've had the honour of serving under Liberals, NDP and now Conservatives. I don't believe there is any government that ever wants to appoint anybody who is not a suitable, good-calibre candidate. If someone slips through, then we have performance assessment and appraisal processes that hopefully we can invoke to catch that and suggest that those people not go on. That happens at times. In fact, those people might be fine candidates or fine members, but changes take place.

My answer to the question you raised is that I don't have to tell you that this is a political process; it's not a civil service process. As the chair, I was consulted. It was discussed with me. I was able to put forward names and applications and résumés that I had received, and the minister's office did the same. In fact, it's been difficult, because I know that some people who were hoping to be reappointed and were not reappointed ended up thinking their performance was somehow not up to par. But that was not the reason why they were not reappointed.

Really what happened was the desire to bring about this balance, so to speak, under the criteria that there shall be people with criminal justice backgrounds as well as the so-called community representatives. Those kinds of decisions were made. Those of us who had worked with some of those members who were not reappointed, we felt quite bad. We thought they were fine people. But at the same time, you see, these other overriding concerns were very much present. So that's why those kinds of appointments were made. I'm not sure I can say any more about it.

Ms Martel: Can you tell me, of the members who weren't reappointed, how many had a criminal justice background? How many would have been people who in fact had good, solid experience not only in the community but in working with offenders, young offenders, people in halfway houses, women who were in trouble with the law etc?

Mr Sandhu: I can't tell you offhand, but I think that in some instances you have to understand that downsizing played a role, because we knew we were not going to have as many people on the board. The whole justice system is operating under the premise that it will be smaller and more efficient. So that played a role. In a number of cases, I'm still in contact with a number of those board members. Some of them have now gone on to the National Parole Board and are members there. I was quite pleased to write letters of reference. I think that, like I said, the decisions were based more on that set of criteria rather than anything personal.

Ms Martel: I don't expect you to answer this, but if people were qualified enough to go to the National Parole Board, they shouldn't have been let off our parole board, right? What sense does that make?

The Acting Chair (Mr Bruce Crozier): Ms Martel, just so the Chair knows the way the clock is going, you've had the floor for a considerable length of time. I have a couple of others on the list, and then we can come back to you. You'd like to do that?

Ms Martel: Go around in a rotation, sure.

Mr Boushy: Just a very brief question. I know what the member across is trying to get at. We're not that naïve. I just want an answer from you. Is this process with this government any different from the process of the last government, of the NDP; yes or no?

Mr Sandhu: Well, a slight difference, but I think the difference was that when some of these appointments were being considered we were one of the first ones, you see, to come up for this. I don't think the public appointments secretariat was operating in the same manner as it was when the NDP left. There's a whole office attached to the Premier's office, the public appointments secretariat, and I think they were not even fully operational yet when these set of decisions were made. Since then, since it's come into force, the process is the same.

Mr Boushy: The process is the same. Do these appointments go through the committee? Mr Chairman, maybe you could help me. The names go through the same process as any other appointments, through all-party committees, for screening before they're appointed?

The Acting Chair: If you're asking if they come before the government agencies, the orders in council for appointments do come to the government agencies committee.

Mr Boushy: All party members of that committee look at the names?

The Acting Chair: Yes.

Mr Boushy: So what's all this questioning about?

The Acting Chair: Well, just when you asked about the process. Each of the parties then can select individuals to come before the committee and they then vote on concurrence, but that really has no effect. The appointment can still go ahead even if the committee did not concur on the appointment. But the list does come, to answer your question; yes. Is that all okay?

I had a couple of questions, but since I'm in the Chair I'll go back to Ms Martel.

Ms Martel: Let me say this: The chair has said to us that some of the people who were let go, not reappointed, to the Ontario Parole Board then went on to the National Parole Board. I find that a bizarre circumstance, that people who obviously were pretty well qualified, if they then went on to the National Parole Board and were acceptable there were let go from ours. Why would we, if we're really interested in a system that has some continuity with very capable people, have ever let those folks go?

Mr Sandhu: In each of those cases location was different. They were in an area which was obviously up for downsizing. We were looking at cutting back. The question arose: What can we do? The financial issues played a role. Again, as I've said, in almost every one of those instances I've certainly been in contact and I've explained to them the reasons, as best as I could, that caused it. National Parole Board had the vacancies. They were looking at appointing. We were not.

Ms Martel: You said that financial measures played a role, but the minister appointed 34 people all at once. So I'm missing the financial implications there.

Secondly, what I found even more curious about the appointments was, a number of people were appointed and then suddenly we were told that there was going to be a review of the system. For the life of me, it didn't make much sense at all to me to appoint a whole number of new people, 34, which doesn't seem to me to be a fiscal problem whatsoever, and then after doing that announce we're going to have a review. I suspect the review is going to involve or suggest some downsizing. So there's quite a contradiction there that I don't understand at all.

Mr Sandhu: The 34 that you're referring to, Ms Martel, were all part-time. There were only two full-time. The costs around part-time members are very different from the full-time, and the large amount of savings that we realized came from our full-time positions.

1120

As to the issue of why appoint people and then announce the review, I believe, as best as I can tell, that was simply once again the government trying to determine whether this organization is a viable organization, is one that meets the criteria, that is achieving its purpose. I think those kinds of questions might have been coming at that point when the questions about appointments were being considered. I can't tell you why the timing was such that it happened, other than what I have just said. I think this was simply the government attempting to establish whether this could be done differently. That's why the whole issue of, can the National Parole Board do the same job? That's one of the questions that was asked of us, and certainly we could respond to that. But that's all I can say. Maybe there were some other reasons, but that's how I understood it to be.

Ms Martel: How many full-time positions have either become part time or have been lost? You indicated that you found a large amount of savings from full-time positions being lost. Did I understand you correctly?

Mr Sandhu: Approximately two to three years ago we have now scaled back by about six positions full-time; with part-time, once again the highest numbers we had on the board were around 100, and we're now down to 70.

Ms Martel: And you will leave some of those positions vacant until you have a clearer sense of what the review will entail?

Mr Sandhu: That's right.

Ms Martel: Do you have any sense of what the savings is to the board around the change in number for quorum from three to two people? Maybe I should be better asking the ministry.

Mr Sandhu: No, I can answer that; we manage the budgets. We had projected savings of about $300,000 with that.

Ms Martel: Was that money to be reinvested somewhere else in that parole system? Is that a fair question to ask you, or shall I ask the ministry staff? Have the savings been realized and have they been reinvested?

Mr Sandhu: I don't know if they can answer. All I know is that we have given it up from our budget. It might be a part of the overall savings that the government is realizing.

Ms Martel: I'll ask the ministry staff. If it's already coming out of your budget, has that money been reinvested somewhere else in the system?

Mr Fleury: The specifics of that I would have to get back to you on, but my initial thought would be that the money has been a cost-saving measure.

The Acting Chair: I have a couple of questions, if the committee will indulge me. The Chair who was sitting here an hour ago asked questions.

In our discussion last week, if I recall -- and it's helpful that you're here today -- one of the government members raised the point that perhaps there should be some way to rate the decisions of parole board members; in other words, if a parole board committee that's struck paroles a person and that person reoffends, this somehow should be on the parole board's decision record. Do you have any opinion on that?

Mr Sandhu: Yes, sir. We instituted a process from the fiscal year 1994-95 whereby we now do a review every time a parolee reoffends while on parole with one of those level 1 offences; those are your more serious, violent offences. We do a review, just as the correctional services division does a review on that same case, and we try and determine what went wrong.

The information concerning who was on that quorum or that panel that made the decision is with me, but I don't necessarily have a chart where I say, "So many strikes against so-and-so," because the process of reoffending could involve many factors; it might not be related to the original decision.

But what we are doing as a result of that process is that we are looking at each and every case and going back to the members and reviewing the case, just as the correctional services division is doing with its parole supervisors.

For the first year that we kept this process in place, for 1994-95, we had 61 cases. The second year, for 1995-96, we now have 27 cases. In fact, I have been writing to my board members and congratulating them on the fact that that number is dropping. I have reason to believe it will drop further.

That is what we are doing, and I think that probably is a fairly good safeguard in trying to impress on the members that it's important.

My colleagues may wish to speak to how it's being viewed by the probation and parole staff.

Ms McKeague: We have, consistent with the Ontario Board of Parole, three processes for reviewing parolees who violate or who are charged with level 1 offences. Mr Sandhu was referring to what we call our internal review process where there is an in-depth assessment not only of the supervision that parolee received, but also the information that was provided to the parole board at the time the decision was made.

That's a key distinction we've tried to make in this process. It's not just the decision of the parole board. It is the information that the ministry is giving to those folks as well in making their decision. That information has to be high-quality or they can't make a good decision.

When we have a parolee who is charged with a level 1 offence -- those are those serious ones involving sex, arson, violence or weapons -- our ministry staff do a thorough review of what went right and what went wrong and that sort of thing in the case.

The other processes we're going to have in place: One is called a systemic review of parole, and that is going to be a random selection of parolees throughout the fiscal year. We haven't started that process yet, by the way, but we're wanting to get that in place by about June of this year. We will again be doing a little bit more broad-based area, and again the quality of the supervision -- does it meet ministry standards? -- the information that was provided to the parole board and that sort of thing.

The third process we have in place is what is called a special investigation. Thankfully, we haven't had to put this process in place, but that is where a very serious offence is alleged to have been committed while the person is on parole, for example, the Suzack incidents. We now have a process where we have identified ministry staff who will be very quickly put into place, at a moment's notice, really, and we will be collecting files and doing a process of review at that point as well.

This has all occurred subsequent to the Wein report as well, as part of the recommendations, and is addressing those recommendations.

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I'd just like to make one comment. The comment was made by Ms Martel about we lost people from our parole board to the national board, but it also went the other way. There were people who served their six-year term on the National Parole Board who came to the Ontario parole board.

Mr Sandhu: That's correct.

Ms Martel: Mr Chair, would it be possible then to get a listing of all the qualifications, background information, whatever you want, on the people who have been appointed since the new government has been in place so we can have a good look at their experience or expertise.

For the benefit of the government members, part of the reason I raise this is that it was your government, certainly your minister when he was part of the opposition, who in A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety, a document he campaigned on, said, "In order to increase public confidence in the actions of parole boards and to prevent the appointment of unqualified persons for political reasons, we support the concept of minimum standards of experience or expertise for board members."

That's why I'm raising this issue. We all know, because the case was very well advertised in the Legislature, that the Solicitor General's campaign manager became a member of this board. We asked in the Legislature for some idea of what her experience was, either at the community level or in the criminal justice system, and there appeared to be none.

We also know that Mr Gary McNaughton was an intended appointee to the board of parole. He withdrew his application a week before he was due to appear before the government agencies committee to be reviewed by that committee as per the review process. I suspect if we were to take a look at his qualifications, we'd see that there really wasn't any experience either in the criminal justice system or with community-based agencies and that in fact it was a political appointment.

The point I'm making is that it was you folks in opposition who put a blueprint together that said we should take the politics out of this, and so far, with some of the appointments that have been made, it has been clearly demonstrated that the politics aren't out of it. That's why I've been trying to get at the issue of what criteria are in place. If we've got a list of criteria that have been developed between the board and the ministry, I would certainly like you to give it to the committee so we can see it.

Because you said you did participate in some of the interviews, I'd be interested to know if there is a select set of questions that all interviewees are asked to run through. If you can produce that and provide that to the committee, I would appreciate that as well.

I'd like to be really clear about what kind of process was put in place when people's appointments were revoked or where they weren't appointed. Upon what grounds was that done? Were you involved as chair at all in the revocation of some of those appointments? Clearly we had some people who were very capable whose appointments were revoked but who continue to serve, albeit another government, but continue to serve, so they couldn't have been let go on the grounds of their capabilities.

I'd be interested in finding out from you, if you can submit that to the committee, what kind of review process was in place that you might have been involved in when people actually weren't reappointed, what the reasons were around the fact that those people weren't reappointed.

The Acting Chair: Mr Decker will follow up on that and hopefully we'll get that information to the committee. Any other questions or comments?

Mr Boushy: I have a comment. Just because someone doesn't have a background in the justice system doesn't mean he's not qualified. If anything, different backgrounds on any board, on any committee, might be helpful. What a member of the other side thinks that could be qualified, who is very well qualified to sit on any board or committee -- I think if you look back at your government, they did the same thing. It's a political process they have to go through; he did indicate the process is almost the same. But I have no objection to the questions.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for coming to us this morning. You've been very helpful, and we appreciate your time.

If there's no other business, the committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1134.