CONTENTS
Tuesday 14 January 1992
Agency review
Ontario Board of Parole, eastern region
Sheila Henrikson, chair
Ken Sandhu, executive vice-chair
Jenny Blais, vice-chair, eastern region
Denise Bellamy, director, legal services, Ministry of Correctional Services
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président(e): Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président(e): McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitution(s)/Membre(s) remplaçant(s):
Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr Mcguinty
Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Elston
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in committee room 2.
AGENCY REVIEW
Consideration of the operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions.
ONTARIO BOARD OF PAROLE
The Chair: Before we begin, I want to mention that we have a couple of documents before members provided by our researcher, the result of some questions posed yesterday. Also, we have some materials that the parole board has provided. Would you like to have those circulated to members now?
Mrs Henriksen: Yes, we do have some copies.
The Chair: The clerk has them, so we will circulate them now. Welcome to the committee. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the record?
Mrs Henriksen: Thank you. My name is Sheila Henriksen. I am the chair of the board. With me is Jenny Blais, the vice-chair of the eastern region; I understand this committee would like to ask some questions about the eastern region. Also here is Denise Bellamy. Denise is the director of legal services for the Ministry of Correctional Services and the legal adviser to the board. Ken Sandhu is the executive vice-chairman of the board.
The Chair: Thank you. Once again, welcome all. Do you have an opening statement before we get into questions?
Mrs Henriksen: I have, and I will try to be as brief as I possibly can. It is not often that an agency head gets the honour of appearing before this committee twice in less than two years. I know there are some faces that were here approximately two years ago and others that were not. At my last appearance here in February 1990, I was able to share with the committee a very comprehensive description of the board and its role in the criminal justice system. However, as those comments were captured in the previous Hansard, what I plan to present today is a brief overview, a brief report on the initiatives under way two years ago, as well as to highlight some of our plans for the future.
Since February 1990, it is no secret that times have changed. Today, we live and work in a climate of severe economic hardship and financial restraint. Let me say at the outset that the board is acutely aware of the need to exercise restraint and is doing its share to the extent possible without, by virtue of the nature of its business, jeopardizing public safety.
The Ontario Board of Parole is one of three provincial parole boards in Canada, the other two being the British Columbia Board of Parole and the Quebec Parole Commission. The Ontario board takes its authority from the provincial Ministry of Correctional Services Act and its regulations, as well as the federal Parole Act, which specifies the three criteria used for granting parole. Because of the split jurisdiction of criminal justice in Canada, the board is responsible only for adult offenders in Ontario serving sentences of less than two years.
On the whole, the board deals with the less serious type of offender population, in comparison to its federal counterpart, the National Parole Board, but it is not without its share of difficult cases. Most cases appearing before the board are serving sentences for property-related offences. Although the board does not deal with young offenders, persons under the age of 18, some offenders who appear before the board are graduates of the young offender system or are serving young offender sentences in addition to an adult sentence.
The board is a decentralized organization with five geographic regions which cover the province and its 46 correctional institutions. Regions in close proximity to the Metropolitan Toronto area deal with high case loads, while the sparsely populated northern region, which conducts fewer than 10% of all board hearings, must contend with great physical distances in getting members to parole hearings.
The chair's office is located in Toronto and the board membership consists of five regional vice-chairs in charge of each of the regional offices -- Jenny Blais is one of those five -- 12 full-time members and 99 community part-time members. A profile of the overall staff and membership supports the board's efforts at compliance with employment equity programs. Among a total complement of 150, there are 82 females, 17 visible minorities, seven natives, three persons with disabilities and 27 persons with bilingual capabilities.
The Ontario board is unique in that members of the community participate in every parole hearing. Community part-time members lend strong community representation to the board, and they bring a vested interest in the safety of the community to the parole decision-making process. In the eastern region, there are currently 16 community part-time members. Seven of them provide services for hearings in the French language.
Parole decisions in Ontario are made by a quorum of board members, usually consisting of two community part-time and one full-time member who chairs the hearings. Under the existing legislation, provincially sentenced inmates are eligible for consideration for parole after serving one third of their sentence. While every inmate has the right to be considered for parole, she or he does not have the right to be granted parole. Parole is a privilege.
Inmates who were sentenced to six months or more are automatically scheduled for an in-person hearing before the board. Those serving sentences of less than six months are required by legislation to apply to the board in writing. Of the cases considered by the board in a given year, about 80% are sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment or more and one fifth to less than six months.
Our expenditures for the last fiscal year amounted to $4.4 million. During the year the board held around 7,000 hearings in institutions and approximately 1,000 case review meetings in the regional offices.
On the whole, the board grants parole about as often as it denies parole. In 1990-91 the board granted parole slightly more often, with 2,995 grants and 2,748 denials. In the eastern region in 1990-91 almost 1,500 institutional hearings and 200 case review meetings were held. As a result of these, 624 parole granted decisions were made and 471 denials. The board releases about 4,000 parolees every year and actively monitors the ministry's supervision of these parolees. About 85% of those released on parole complete their terms of parole without violations.
The board is empowered to suspend and revoke parole where it believes there are reasonable and probable grounds to do so. Approximately 15% of those released are revoked prior to completion of their terms of parole. Of this 15%, about 13% are revoked as a result of violations of parole conditions or at the request of the inmate, and the remaining 2% as a result of further convictions or charges.
Offenders can voice their dissatisfaction with a board decision or process by appealing to the chair, to the Ombudsman or to the human rights commissioner. In the five cases investigated by the Ombudsman since 1986, all have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman and the offenders. Four appeals were withdrawn by the appellants and one was ruled in favour of the board. On average, two appeals per week are made to the chair by aggrieved offenders.
The hearing process itself is not adversarial. It is an informal process by judicial standards. It has been designed and legislated this way largely because of the brief term of incarceration of the offender population. Given the fact that the average aggregate sentence in 1990-91 was 79 days for men and 56 days for women, it is essential that the board provide an expeditious hearing, appeal and decision-making process.
Let me now turn to a very brief progress report. Since we were here in 1990 the board has introduced procedural safeguards to try to balance its interest in natural justice and fair process and pressures for an expeditious system.
The offender is given a minimum of 48 hours' notice of the scheduled hearing. Most are aware of the process from having reviewed the board's pamphlet entitled Preparing Yourself for Parole -- which is like preparing yourself for the standing committee -- and that is available in French and English. Many have also viewed the board's video by the same title. That video is available in English, French, Ojibway and Cree.
1020
All the offenders appearing before the board would have been interviewed and briefed by a probation and parole officer, who provides institutional liaison services. Offenders have always been permitted to have an assistant at their hearing. However, increasingly, more are choosing to bring their lawyers as assistants and the board's recently revised policies are accommodating this practice.
During 1990-91, the board enhanced its policy on decision-making by breaking down the three legislated criteria into discrete factors for parole consideration. We find that this policy has promoted more consistent and standardized decision-making.
Those of you who were here when we last appeared before this committee would remember that we were in the process of developing a policy and making plans to audiotape all hearings. All parole hearings are now taped as standard practice. This has greatly facilitated our process of reviewing decisions in response to inmate complaints and has assisted in our member evaluation process.
The board also has issued a new and revised policy and procedures manual. This was done shortly after our appearance here. The manual is the culmination of several years' work. It is the definitive statement of the board's standards, policies and procedures, which are expected to promote consistency in practices and to aid in member and staff training and development.
We recently published a facts book to provide the public with accurate information about the board and about parole in general. This was distributed to you as we began the meeting this morning.
We have also followed up our initiative with respect to victims. Members of the community, especially victims, have at times voiced considerable frustration with the criminal justice system, including the board, in what they experience as a fragmented and unresponsive system. So the board stepped up its campaign to inform the public, especially victims, about the parole process and about ways in which individuals can express their concerns and views to the board and provide input to the decision-making process. In 1990-91, we implemented a new policy and produced a public information pamphlet which describes how victims may participate in the parole decision-making process.
Another initiative undertaken recently was in the field of staff training and development. Aside from our very comprehensive basic orientation program for new members, we now offer requisite courses on interviewing, chairing hearings, case preparation, writing and making decisions, and human rights awareness.
A quick review of our statistics in the package you have will probably tell you a great deal about what the board does in terms of our day-to-day business, but will tell you very little about what our goals and objectives are. I have just given you a snapshot of our recent achievements. The board is striving for improvement on many fronts. We are very sensitive to external forces, and responsibly so.
We have a plan for the next five years. We have just completed an extensive corporate planning exercise, and we are in the middle of finalizing our plan for the coming fiscal five years and onwards. Over the next short while we will be developing a professional standards code for members, undertaking a comprehensive review of parole board legislation, updating our offender parole information and community part-time membership pamphlets, assessing the impact of the Askov decision on board operations, reviewing the board's practice of setting special parole conditions, and investigating the feasibility of and defining what we call open hearings for the board. We will also be discussing with the ministry new approaches in technology to improve and expedite our day-to-day operations.
Admittedly, we have set a challenging pace for ourselves, but I am personally committed to strengthening the services of the board, and, based on the determination and the enthusiasm I have seen in the members during my tenure on the board for the past five and a half years, I am confident these issues will be resolved as we have targeted them.
Before I close, Mr Chairman and members, I would once again like to invite you any time you so wish to observe a parole hearing in any one of the institutions. I would be very happy to make those arrangements for you.
I thank you again for this opportunity today and I would now be pleased to respond to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I am going to look to the official opposition to lead off questioning and then we will go in normal rotation.
Mr Callahan: I have seen instances where a person on parole has been rearrested for perhaps an allegation of another crime and at the bail hearing the court is told that the accused is on parole, but it has not yet reached the stage of a warrant being issued so there is no revocation of the parole.
First, are you aware that these people are sometimes held in custody or detained because they are on parole without there really having been a warrant of suspension issued, or if they are granted bail they are detained pending the suspension taking place? Are you aware of that happening, and, if you are, what steps are being taken by the parole board to perhaps bring to the attention of the authorities that this is actually an unlawful detention?
Mrs Henriksen: I am not aware of any of those situations, because normally if the parolee is arrested we immediately would issue a suspension warrant. I am not aware of situations where the person is being held and the warrant has not yet been issued.
Mr Callahan: That is something I certainly want looked at. It does happen, in fact. What happens is that the defendant is arrested on a further violation or crime that is alleged against him or her, and more often than not you will hear this person is a parolee, but there has been no revocation of the parole either because the parole board does not know about it yet or there have not been steps taken. These persons may very well be either denied bail on that basis, which seems to be inappropriate, as the parole board, if it decides not to suspend the parole -- or it is put over for three days to find out what the parole board is going to do; in the alternative, they get bail but they remain in custody pending something being done by the parole board.
Mrs Henriksen: It is bordering on being a legal technicality, and I may ask Denise Bellamy to improve on my response, but I think that while they are being held the board would be notified immediately. I do not know of any situation where they might be held for days without the suspension warrant being issued. But Denise might want to add some information to that.
1030
Ms Bellamy: It is important to note that there may be a distinction between whether someone is on parole with the Ontario Board of Parole or with the federal parole board. It may be that the person is on parole with the federal parole board, in which case the defendant might need to be kept for them to come and do a suspension hearing.
In so far as whether or not the person is being detained unlawfully is concerned, if the police make the determination that the individual should be kept in custody because he or she is a parolee, it is not something that comes within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Board of Parole, and, as you know, the police and crown would then determine whether to have a bail hearing and whether the person should be kept. In determining whether the person should be released, I think either the justice of the peace or the provincial court judge would take into consideration that he or she is a parolee in deciding whether the person is a risk to committing further offences.
Mr Callahan: You may be right. As I read your fact sheet here, the Ontario parole is not revoked until a warrant is issued for the arrest of the accused. Until that point that parolee is still free. Is the system different in the federal parole system?
Ms Bellamy: I think sometimes it may take a little longer for them to actually proceed with their hearing.
Mr Callahan: What I am getting at is, is the system the same, that the parolee is still on parole until a warrant is issued?
Ms Bellamy: I would be surprised if it were not, but I am not sure.
Mr Callahan: That is my concern. I have a second question, if I might, Mr Chairman, unless others have a burning desire to --
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Callahan: This does not relate directly to parole but it is akin to parole, the question of intermittent sentences and temporary absence passes.
It has come to my attention that the correctional facilities that need be available, from the standpoint of risk, entry and exit, for people who receive a sentence in excess of 90 days is backlogged unbelievably. People are in fact being cleared for temporary absence passes and then are being retained in custody because there are no adequate facilities for them to come and go, from their jobs and back to the facility at night, compared to the 90-days-or-less sentences, which are termed intermittent, which are being served on weekends. Apparently there is no difficulty whatsoever in servicing those inmates on weekends, because presumably they only come in once and exit once. Are you aware of that? I presume you would be, being in the parole business. Are you aware of that, and if so, can you explain to the committee what the difficulty is and what steps are being taken to remedy it?
Mrs Henriksen: There are two parts to your question. I am aware of the temporary absence program. As you rightly said in the beginning, it is really not within our jurisdiction to administer the temporary absence program, but yes, we are aware of it.
Maybe I could approach it from this point of view. The parole board requires a minimum of three weeks to obtain its documentation to conduct a parole hearing. This virtually eliminates most or all of the inmates who are serving 90 days or less, whether in an institution or on an intermittent sentence. That time requirement, given that the eligibility date is at one third, if you are serving 90 days or less and you have to apply for parole, virtually eliminates the group of people that the board can see in any greater numbers. When one adds to that the fact that on average the aggregate sentence is 79 days for males and 56 days for females and that in 1990-91 80% of aggregate sentences served less than 123 days, it is quite unlikely that the board would be able to have a considerable impact in helping out the ministry with this backlog of short-sentence inmates you are talking about.
There is, however, a very active temporary absence program within the ministry itself. I do not know precisely what is being done about that because, as I said, it is not within my mandate, but I do know that we have made it known to the ministry that we will be happy to take a look at paroling more short-sentence inmates, provided we are able to get the documentation on time, early in the sentence of the inmates who are doing short sentences, and we will not vary any of the criteria for parole; we will stick to the legislated criteria when we are considering the cases, even though they are short-sentence cases.
Mr Callahan: So even though it is not within your jurisdiction -- I am getting this on the record -- the fact that you are not able, because of the shortness of an intermittent or 90-day sentence, to parole those people --
Mrs Henriksen: We do parole them. They have to apply for parole.
Mr Callahan: Right, but it may eat into a significant part of their sentence. In fact many of them may refuse it, because if they get paroled they have to serve the whole sentence whereas if they just go out on the one third off they would be out in 60 days, so they might choose to go the 60-day route as opposed to being, colloquially, under the gun for another 30 days.
The thing that concerns me there -- and it is something I brought to the committee's attention yesterday and I brought it to the attention of the Solicitor General -- is that judges are being informed that if they order an immediate temporary absence pass, that inmate will be out lickety-split to his or her job. I understand that this is not the case, that there is a tremendous backlog. People who have been cleared for temporary absence passes are sitting there cooling their heels in correctional facilities, perhaps losing their job, so they therefore equally lose that pre-clearance to a temporary absence pass, because if you do not have a job, that sort of triggers that; you are out of work.
The thing that concerns me is the inmate, yes, but more important, (1) the judge has been given wrong information and has based his sentencing on that, instead of perhaps giving an intermittent sentence where they could serve it on weekends, and (2) the families of those people, which rely on that person for supporting them, have lost their breadwinner and they wind up on some form of social assistance, which impacts on everybody, and most specifically on that family and young children who are relying on their father or their mother -- depending on who the breadwinner is and who the inmate is -- to cover that cost.
I understand what you are saying, that the parole board does not have any jurisdiction over that, but I think that has to be looked at in the overall picture in terms of parole, that if in fact the institutional problem -- I call it systemic, just like our courts. If the backlog is taking place, then that should impact on the question of parole and how fast people are paroled, particularly if they have a job. I suppose if they have a job, that is a big plus for them in terms of getting out on parole. Would that be a fair statement?
Mrs Henriksen: Yes, I think a very broad look will be taken in the near future. You probably are aware of the justice review project that will be entertaining hearings and conducting seminars. In fact, it is going on throughout this month.
Mr Callahan: Is that the diversion --
Mrs Henriksen: That is part of it, but it is really going to be looking at the whole criminal justice system within the province, not just parole but I think the whole court system, the police, parole and correctional services as well. There is the kind of overlap, I think, that you are indirectly referring to with parole and temporary absence, and I am pretty sure that those aspects would be looked at when this review is finally undertaken.
Mr Callahan: Finally, I would just --
The Chair: Mr Callahan, you have had about 12 or 13 minutes. I am going to impose an arbitrary guideline, if you will, that the members have 10 or 12 minutes, so as many as want can have an opportunity. Is there any member of the Conservative Party? Mr Jackson.
1040
Mr Jackson: Madam chair, welcome, and thank you for your presentation. I want to move into the area of victims' rights and the degree to which the board is working with this movement.
In the justice field, of course, with its adversarial nature, both rights for victims and rights for the accused and incarcerated are evolving and there is a tension between them. In that context we cannot simply say they both are evolving equally and successfully. There is a tension there.
I want to get some feedback from you about the taping. I was surprised to hear you suggest that the taping was a request from the inmates, and I sensed there was some degree of satisfaction from them that you are now taping all of them. I can understand the context in which legal counsel would be more pleased with a completely transcripted version of a parole hearing. On the other hand, that acts as a form of intimidation to the victim who wishes to speak freely about its impact.
Having said that, I want to get some feedback from you about how we are being more proactive with victims' rights and access. If you could speak to me in statistical terms, it would be helpful about growing numbers of submitted cases, the nature of how a victim's impact statement is derived, how it is handled -- I am sorry, we know how it is handled; it was very clear in your documentation. I am trying to get a sense of how it is generated. Are the crown attorneys routinely advising victims? Are they finding out about it because of their protracted anguish?
These are the kinds of things I would like to get some feedback on, a better sense of this. When I reviewed your previous presentation before the committee, this area was not dealt with at length, so this represents a new area the committee would like to spend perhaps a few minutes on.
Mrs Henriksen: If I may correct something you said with respect to the taping of the hearings, the taping is really not requested by the inmate. If the inmate does not want to be taped, the inmate can refuse to be taped.
Mr Jackson: Excuse me, but you did say you were now routinely doing them. The information to the committee was that this was an option. The new information today was that you said you are now routinely taping them, and Hansard will confirm that you somehow linked a response by your board to the inmates. We could review your comments in Hansard.
Mrs Henriksen: We can, and you are correct that we are now routinely taping them. However, if an inmate does not want to be taped, there is no pressure on that inmate to have the hearing taped. We will do it the way we used to do it before, by taking notes by hand. That is all I wanted to correct.
With respect to the victims, you are correct, that is a new policy area for us as well. It was something we gave considerable thought to before we developed the policy. Basically, when we tried to find the reality in terms of developing a policy for us as a board, it was not possible for us to contact every victim of every case we heard.
We had some consultations with some victims' groups. What we ended up agreeing to was that we will entertain representations from victims if they so wish. We wanted to stay away from the idea of forcing victims to make presentations before the hearings. So if a request is made to us, then we will entertain that request, and it could take various forms. It could be in the form of a written submission that the victim may make to the board or it could be in the form of an oral presentation, or by telephone, with various safeguards to ensure that it is the right person we are speaking to.
We feel that the victim has some sort of role to play and that this document is taken in balance with the other documents we have before us when a hearing is being conducted.
In terms of numbers, it is a very timely question because we are right now in the process of conducting a survey just to determine for ourselves to what extent the victim policy program is really being used by victims out there. We have the assistance of the research department in the ministry to help us conduct a survey that would give us much more solid information with respect to victim participation in the parole decision-making process.
Mr Jackson: Very briefly, because my colleague has a couple of questions: On the hearing process, if you have not completed the draft of the survey, could you assure us that you would want to get a handle on how they found out about access to an impact statement and their ability to submit it to the parole board?
The reason I say that is that I am familiar with the arguments about enforcing a victim's right to apply. The other end of the spectrum is their not knowing they could apply because one proceeds so cautiously. My concern is there is a balance there, and if the crowns are not routinely advising, then who is? Simply leaving a pamphlet in a courtroom when a victim is traumatized at the outcome or process of the court proceedings -- if they fail to pick it up, then how do they know?
Your statistics would enlighten you as to how effective any program is in terms of access. That is my concern. There are some jurisdictions in this country which are very proactive in this regard. I do not wish to suggest you are not proactive, but you do not have the statistics to tell you that you are, nor do you have a policy which indicates it is proactive. You are not denying the existence of a victim, but if they do not come forward in any meaningful numbers then it is hard to call that an effective victims' impact program.
Mrs Henriksen: The point is well taken. I think until we get some idea of the usage of it out there, I probably will not be able to say much more. In our case, we had to think of that because we had to try to devise a way to get the message out to as many victims or even non-victims as possible. We have a fairly wide distribution of that pamphlet, including your offices. I believe we did send copies to the offices of the members of the current Legislature. All those went out.
We also distributed to as many victims' groups as we could know about within the province. We had copies in libraries and certainly within the criminal justice system itself.
It is one thing to have a policy but if somebody does not know about it, you are quite right, it probably would not be as effective as it could be; but we will not know until we take a closer look through this study.
Mr Jackson: I want to thank you for your responses.
The Chair: I want to jump in here. We had an agreement yesterday -- I have had some confusion expressed already -- that we are going to do a normal rotation. If you are yielding the floor, I am going to move on to the NDP and Mr McLean will get an opportunity as we go through the normal rotation. If you do not want to yield it, I will allow you another four or five minutes.
Mr Jackson: I simply wanted to close by saying my interest in this area is no secret. I have been promoting a victims' bill of rights for the second-last province in Canada not to have one. It would be the sort of guiding force to encourage the parole board to restructure its thinking and policies with respect to victims in this province. So far, the governments of the day have not seen fit to move in that direction, but recently the committee has been given information about this issue and how other provinces are reacting.
Not to suggest you are not moving in this area, but we are aware that other provinces are moving perhaps further in this area than we are here in Ontario. Certainly you are not mandated in any legislative framework to proceed in this area. It is a voluntary guideline as suggested by the Attorney General that you look into this area, but you are under no obligation legislatively to respond to victims' needs to any great extent in this province. I disagree with those who do not believe we should proceed. I do not necessary indict the parole board for its views because that is not the issue here.
1050
Mr Frankford: There is a quotation here in the research document we had from your corporate plan. It is on page 14 of our document. It says:
"More offenders appearing before the board for parole consideration are burdened with a variety of psychiatric, psychological and behavioural disorders. This changing offender profile means more information is required by the board to assess parole suitability (that is, professional assessment reports and offence details). It also means more support must be extended to parolees to assist them in completing their parole successfully, through special terms and conditions of release."
There are quite a number of questions this raises with me. Would you, for a start, confirm it is the case that a greater number of people are there with psychiatric or psychological problems?
Mrs Henriksen: You are quoting certain issues the board will try to address in the future?
Mr Frankford: Yes.
Mrs Henriksen: What was the question? I am sorry.
Mr Frankford: For a start, is it the case that a greater number of offenders are there with psychological or psychiatric problems?
Mrs Henriksen: I think what is being said here is that in regard to offenders appearing before the board for parole consideration, there has been an observation that there are increasing numbers of offenders appearing with psychological or behavioural disorders. That means to us that there is a change in the profile of the offenders appearing before the board.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any thoughts about why that is? Is it society that is changing, or is it because of psychiatric policies that there are people there who in other circumstances would be in psychiatric care rather than in penal institutions?
Mrs Henriksen: I am certainly not an expert in that field. If you are just seeking my opinion, not anything factual on the topic, it is probably the result of a large number of other factors taking place within our society. Perhaps closing some of the psychiatric institutions might be one factor. Stresses of living in today's society might be another. I do not know. There are any number of socioeconomic factors that might result in this observation, but I am certainly no expert and do not know precisely what the cause or what the reason would be.
Mr Callahan: Lack of psychiatric facilities in our correctional systems might be one reason.
Mr Frankford: Whatever the causes are, if we accept that there are a greater number of people with what we will call psychiatric problems, this would suggest to me that parole on condition of psychiatric treatment would be the approach that should be taken.
Mrs Henriksen: That may be one approach, but there are several. I do not want to speak for the ministry treatment programs but I do know there are some programs within the correctional facilities that address the concerns of disturbed and behaviourally disordered kinds of inmates who would be in the population. When these inmates appear before the board, we certainly address whatever treatment modalities they may have been going through while they were in the institution and certainly what they will be going to when they get out of the institution, what sort of counselling they might be availing themselves of or programs they might be going into. We will ask specific questions around that kind of behaviour at the hearing.
Mr Frankford: Yes, that is what I was going to say. It suggests to me that an applicant for parole might well help his case by bringing along a detailed treatment plan.
Mrs Henriksen: There will have to be. First of all, it has to be case-specific and based on the treatment plan or the release plan presented to the board. The determination to grant or deny or to approve parole will be made based on the nature of that specific case.
Mr Frankford: What access would the inmate have to his psychological or psychiatric reports and independent professional advice to formulate a treatment plan?
Mrs Henriksen: We are really far out of the mandate of the board, because that is right into the clear jurisdiction of the ministry. I do not have any detailed information about what is available, except to say in a very general way there are psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers within the institution and there are treatment programs across the province that address some of those issues.
Mr Frankford: I could ask more, but I will be brief. Do you feel something should be done to make available independent professional counsel, particularly medical and psychiatric, for inmates so that they can formulate some sort of treatment plan?
Mrs Henriksen: I think that in any great area where there could be improvement, yes, improvements can be made.
Mr Grandmaître: I know no agency, board or commission can be perfect. I was listening to your opening remarks and looking at my briefing notes. It looks like you have been a very successful agency, but at the same time there is a public criticism of parole boards, Ontario and the federal system. In the last two or three years we have read or heard that the parole boards are being more lenient. What are your comments on this type of remark or criticism, if I can call it a criticism? Do you think you are more lenient than in previous years?
1100
Mrs Henriksen: That is a very good question. Parole is much more difficult in many ways for inmates than is staying in the institution. On parole the inmate really forfeits his or her right to remission that was earned. Parole is sort of a tradeoff. For the opportunity to be in the community earned remission is lost. On parole all inmates are classified as maximum security. Therefore, they are required to have the maximum of supervision by probation and parole officers.
I believe that means reporting to a probation and parole officer at least twice a month for at least the first three months on parole. On parole there is the requirement to report to the police. A parolee cannot leave his or her residence or place of employment without prior permission from the parole supervisor or associate with known criminals. He or she must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In many ways there are burdens on inmates in the community when they are placed on parole. In addition, as someone mentioned earlier, the full length of the sentence is served.
The perception, however, I agree with you in many ways, is that it is the real easy thing because the person is out in the community, walking around, not being guarded within the walls of the institution. But as consumers we also pay a price to keep inmates in institutions. It is much more expensive; it is less expensive to be out on parole.
I am trying to make a case for parole because I believe it is, on the economic or the human side, much more beneficial to our society in the long run, and it is very difficult at times to dispel the perception that the board is too lenient and easy on the offenders. The board does not parole every inmate who appears before it. We parole about as many as we deny of those who apply for parole or those we have to see on parole.
In each case we have to stick to the legislated criteria and be very careful to ensure that we look at all the factors I mentioned earlier on our parole consideration form. I do not think we are too lenient because we do not parole every person who appears before us. When conditions of parole are violated we revoke or suspend and bring people back into prison.
Mr Callahan: And they lose their remission.
Mrs Henriksen: They lose their remission.
Mr Grandmaître: You spoke about the economic side of things. As you know, we are going through a very difficult recession and this government, and any other government, is talking about cutbacks. The recession is also often blamed for the increase in crime. How would a decrease in budget affect the Ontario Parole Board? I will give you an example. If you were to receive 2% in 1992-93, how would this affect your budget or your effectiveness? Would this mean a cutback on the number of hearings? How would you handle a cutback in your ministry?
Mrs Henriksen: We have plans to do that. We will be subject to cutbacks and we have various areas in which we will be applying our strategies for cutbacks. Mr Sandhu is going to speak to those.
Mr Sandhu: We have made tentative plans at this point. We are looking at reductions in our expenditures in the transportation-communications area and some supplies and equipment. In a more specific way, we are looking at using more full-time members to chair our hearings because every time we use a community part-time member it costs a little bit --
Mr Grandmaître: Did you say more full-time?
Mr Sandhu: More full-time members in chairing hearings. We are looking at efficient scheduling of cases and members. Sometimes we have to go out and not put in a full day, simply because there are some restrictions around parole eligibility dates, so we will be looking at ways in which we can reduce part-days or half-days. We will be looking at maximizing use and minimizing costs of case review meetings. Case review meetings are the meetings that are held to look at a parolee's request for changes in employment or conditions of parole, and these case review meetings are held in our regional offices. There too we are looking at ways in which we can do it more efficiently and, generally speaking, reduce regional board meetings.
We do need to have some board meetings. These are the meetings where we are able to discuss policy issues concerning operations. This is our main channel of communicating with our community part-time members, who are essentially people who come in to do the hearings and are not employees in the sense that they are not employed under the Public Service Act. So we will be looking at reducing, but not eliminating, by any means.
We have a program on public speaking where we try to educate the public in terms of the parole program, and we are looking at perhaps reducing that. We would not like to, but that is another area that might have to take some cuts.
These are just a few of the strategies we have looked at. These are not yet finalized, because we are waiting for allocations. Once we know what kind of constraints we are looking at, then we can decide on the specifics.
Mr Grandmaître: One last question: Will your reduction plan -- let's call it your constraint plan -- mean you will have to cut back on the number of hearings while the number of offenders is increasing?
Mrs Henriksen: No, sir. It does not mean that. You did ask the question whether we are looking to increase the complement of full-time members. That is not what that is intended to mean. What that is intended to mean is that, of the full-time members we currently have, some of the other things they do, which include a number of administrative functions, will have to be reduced so that we can use more full-time members' time to conduct hearings.
We have no choice but to conduct hearings for inmates who are serving between six months and two years less a day. They are automatically scheduled; we have to do those. If there are going to be any cutbacks, it would have to be in the area where the inmates would have to apply for parole. That is six months and under. But we do not foresee cutting back hearing the number of cases we currently hear.
Mr McLean: My first question is to Mr Sandhu. Did you get a directive from the ministry indicating a percentage cutback it is looking at in your budget?
Mr Sandhu: What we were asked to do some months ago was a possible cut up to, say, about 10% in the non-salary area, but there has been no finalization. We have looked at plans on how we would try to meet up to a 10% cut in our non-salary areas up to this point.
Mr McLean: Did that 10% figure come from the ministry?
Mr Sandhu: Yes.
Mr McLean: Preparing for a hearing: My question has to do with an inmate who is in a certain facility and has to be transferred to another one for the hearing. How many transfers take place in the course of a year that are not held within the facility the inmate is already in?
Mrs Henriksen: I would not have a clue, but we could try to find out.
Mr McLean: Who pays for the cost of the transfer of that inmate to go from the facility he is in to a larger institution for his hearing? Does Correctional Services pay for that? Who pays for just that?
Ms Blais: Are you specifically asking concerning a parole board hearing?
Mr McLean: Yes, to go to that hearing.
1110
Ms Blais: The ministry pays for it. They provide the transportation if the inmate has to be transported. It is usually from a smaller jail to a larger facility because we do not go into all the smaller jails.
Mr McLean: That was my question. How many would be transferred in a year from a small jail to a larger institution to hold the hearing?
Mrs Henriksen: We will undertake to find that out for you. We do not know, but we will try to find out.
Mr McLean: Okay. In the hearings you have, how many of the inmates would request a lawyer or somebody to support them? Most of them?
Mrs Henriksen: No. We did a survey across the province for the past year, and inmates who requested lawyers as assistants totalled 2% of hearings.
Mr McLean: Anybody who has six months or less has to have a third of his or her sentence served before he can apply for parole?
Mrs Henriksen: No, they can apply at any time, but they are eligible at one third. So they can apply from the first day they enter the institution.
Mr McLean: From the time they apply, how long is the normal average before the hearing is held?
Mrs Henriksen: It normally takes three weeks for us to get the documentation, so we would try to set the hearing close to the parole eligibility date or before it.
Mr McLean: In your summary of reports with regard to the victims, you indicate that they are notified, if they wish, about parole taking place. Is that not a normal case? I guess it is not, but what would be your answer to a request for a victim to be notified when that inmate was paroled?
Mrs Henriksen: We would say sure. In fact, we have a policy which clearly states what we will tell them if they want to know, what specific kinds of information we will give to them if they request it.
Mr McLean: But not all the victims know when this parole hearing is going to be held. They have not got a clue. In that instance, nobody would be notified unless, after the inmate was incarcerated, they requested from you to be notified when his parole hearing was coming up.
Mrs Henriksen: That is right. I see the problem you are alluding to, but it would require a tremendous amount of resources to notify every victim of every parole hearing conducted within the board. We conduct 7,000 to 10,000 cases per year.
The Chair: Could I ask a supplementary, Mr McLean? In respect to saying that victims have an opportunity, are they, during the court process or at some point, through the crown or through your agency, made aware of that opportunity?
Mr Jackson: As a matter of policy.
Mr Sandhu: Yes.
Mr Jackson: Are you sure?
Mr Sandhu: Our policy pamphlet has been placed in courts. With the victim coordinators that the Ministry of the Attorney General has in most courts now, we are gradually getting out the word. You make a good point. This is something that has also come to our attention, that perhaps it is not well known. But this is only about a year and a half old for us, and it is getting out. In most courts there are pamphlets we have placed. In fact, we are looking to publish and print a few thousand more copies at this stage. We have also informed police forces or sent copies to them so they can let the victims know.
Mr McLean: I would like to know if you are working on this, because if you have an offender with a second offence, should it not then be mandatory that the victim know? This guy has already committed an offence once and has been out, and now he is back in again, having committed another offence. Does the victim not have a right -- I feel he does -- to know the offender is being paroled before his two years or whatever? If he has had the second offence, even, are you not considering starting to let the victim know? The concern I have is that he will get out, the victim does not know about it, and he will victimize the same person again.
Mrs Henriksen: This is very topical subject, victims and victimization. I would really love to strive for the ideal world where every victim is notified every time an offender is released, whether it is a first offender or a second or a third or a repeat offender. I feel we are moving in the right direction. We may not be moving fast enough for everyone, but I think we are moving in the right direction.
There are other players in this game. There is the court system; there is the police. I know there are victim programs that are run out of the Attorney General's office. In fact there is a victims' unit, I think, in the Attorney General's office, and a victim impact statement coordinator or something like that. People are trying to address the problem, which is, as you pointed out, a quite serious one, but at the moment, we started this policy about a year and a half ago and we had no choice at that point but to respond to requests, rather than to have taken on the responsibility of notifying every single victim, knowing full well we will not be able to do it.
Mr McLean: Yes, but my previous question was, would it not be right to start -- it would not be feasible to do all of those less than six months, because that is a very large number, is it not, of your parolees?
Mrs Henriksen: Yes.
Mr McLean: But perhaps you could start in the area of from six months to two years. It is a suggestion.
Mr Jackson: Or by crime: sexual assault with a weapon.
Ms Blais: One of the things you should be aware of is that the board is not always aware or informed of who the victims are. We do not have that information. We advise the victims we do have information about quite routinely, but the source of that information must come from another part of the criminal justice system. It must filter down. It has to start with the police, with the crown, with the courts and then eventually through us for those people we do see. The whole process of making that information system work must be a combined effort, and we cannot implement that on our own.
Mr McLean: But when you sit down to listen at that hearing, the facts and circumstances of the crime, criminal record and previous lifestyle are all of that individual, but there is no individual known in the facts and circumstances of the crime?
Ms Blais: Often, no.
Mr McLean: Okay. The parole officer is responsible to make sure he fulfils the commitment as laid out by the parole board.
Mrs Henriksen: The conditions of parole, yes.
Mr McLean: Right, and it is up to him to see they are fulfilled to the period that is laid out on the order from the parole board.
Mrs Henriksen: Yes, the parole supervisor is responsible for supervision of the inmate.
Mr McLean: What numbers do you have of failures to fulfil parole? What percentage of your --
Mrs Henriksen: In a very consistent way over the past maybe five to eight years, the success rate is between 82% and 85%. Parole failures, as you would call it, are roughly 15%, and about 13% of those are failure to abide by the parole conditions, what we call technical violations. The other 2% would be for further charges.
Mr McLean: My final question is, do you feel a bill of victims' rights would be an appropriate step in the right direction to make people aware?
Mrs Henriksen: What a question. You are seeking my opinion?
Mr McLean: Yes. Do you feel it would be to an advantage to the whole system to have a bill laid out where victims' rights would be taken into consideration when you are dealing with the very issues you are talking about?
1120
Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, I think that is an unfair question to the chair of the parole board.
The Chair: The chair is quite capable of responding or not responding in any situation like this. That is her decision.
Mr McLean: I think it is a fair question.
Mrs Henriksen: It is so easy to say yes without thinking of all the ramifications, including, right off the top of my head, cost, and all the other implications that would go with a yes response. It is mind-boggling.
Mr Wiseman: I have a number of areas I would like to pursue with you, and please forgive me if I am going down a road, because I was a little late and I had to go to another committee.
One of the areas of great concern to me is the native justice system and how that is affected. We have information here that says "11% of the population of federal institutions and 15% of the provincial prison population" is of the native community. It also says: "Aboriginal offenders are also less likely to be paroled early in their sentences. "Incarceration rates are even higher for aboriginal women." Can you shed some light on why it is that aboriginal offenders would be less likely to receive parole?
Mrs Henriksen: I can only talk for the provincial system, and even within our system I really wish I had more statistics to shed some light on that topic for myself.
I do not know if, within the provincial system, aboriginal inmates are paroled less frequently than non-aboriginal inmates. From that premise, it is really difficult to approach your question in a very direct manner.
I know aboriginals are over-represented in the offender population. About four years ago a study was done at the national level on aboriginals within the criminal justice system. In that study there was reference to the paroling rate for federal offenders. It is along the lines of what you have just mentioned. If that is true for provincial offenders, that is the only way I can project what is happening within the provincial board itself.
Most of our aboriginal inmates are in the northern part of the province. That is also where we try to concentrate aboriginal members, whether they are full or part time, to conduct the hearings. We really do not have any statistics that would tell us unequivocally what our paroling rate is for aboriginals or non-aboriginals.
Mr Wiseman: If you do not have those statistics, do you have any indication whether or not the movement towards allowing native people to administer their own justice systems and their own healing process is having an effect?
Mrs Henriksen: I imagine that is a process that is going to evolve over the next few years, certainly to my mind, a sort of self-justice native system. Again, I am not really familiar with all the programs there are within the ministry that would address the needs of native offenders. The whole question of parole and aboriginals really has to be founded on the stats and we just do not have them. For anything outside of that, I am just guessing.
Mr Wiseman: The reason I am pursuing this line of questioning is that under the criteria in the act it says that "the inmate has derived the maximum benefit from imprisonment." How is that determined? If all the programs in the correctional facility are optional and the inmate does not take advantage of them, how do you make that determination?
Mrs Henriksen: Do you want to take a crack at it?
Mr Sandhu: I think you have answered the question in a way. There are options. What we as a board like to look at is, has the inmate made use of those programs? In some cases, as you know, the inmates feel they do not have a problem. If we have a long record before us where we see the person has been involved in drug abuse or alcohol abuse and yet he sits there and says he does not have a problem and has not made use of those programs, in that instance naturally our assessment of that particular candidate is not going to be very positive. That is how we assess the "maximum benefit" aspect of our criteria.
Ms Blais: There are other aspects as well. Often, getting a person off the street serves as a time to have him consolidate some of his resources, some of his own personal directions. Programs do help, but confinement, an opportunity to be away from some of the difficulties they are facing, also helps. There is also the old suggestion that a short shock in terms of incarceration, which judges often use, impacts on some offenders. Maximum benefit derived from a period of incarceration is something that has a lot broader perspective to it than just simply programs.
Mr Wiseman: The other question I would like to ask is about the Lieutenant Governor's warrants and the fact that they are going to be phased out, if I understand correctly, and are not going to be open-ended; there is going to be a set amount of time. If I remember correctly, the amount of time a person received from the judicial system would be the time he had to serve. Are these people now going to be coming before you as parole officers and are you going to have to make decisions about whether they should be getting out? Is that something your board will have to take over?
Ms Bellamy: People who have a Lieutenant Governor's warrant against them have been found unfit to stand trial or have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. By definition, both those groups are people who do not come within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Correctional Services and would then have to go to some form of psychiatric institution under the Ministry of Health. The Ontario Board of Parole would have nothing to do with those groups. They are not guilty or they are unfit at this point even to advise counsel whether they want to plead guilty or not.
The Chair: The change apparently, as I understand it, is that they are going to be guilty but not responsible, or something along those lines. There would be a change in the wording.
Ms Bellamy: I think the most significant change would be that rather than get sent to an institution at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor, there would be a fixed period of time. There is some concern among people who have looked at this statute, federal legislation in particular, that because those people might get out earlier than they otherwise would have if they were at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor, possibly they would commit other offences, at which point they would then be back into the system and one would again have to determine whether the persons were unfit to advise counsel or were not guilty by reason of insanity.
1130
Mr Wiseman: I have one last area I would like to pursue and that is on victims' rights. It seems to me that in our computer age, with the size of a computer facility, all the important data about the victim and the person who did the crime could be put in the computer at the same time. It could all be held in a file that would be readily accessible. I guess the question here is whether you can do that, whether you could put all that information in one place like that, given the rights of the victim, the rights of the accused and the convicted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Is this part of what may be the problem in terms of the accused needing access to the address, the information? If a convicted felon was planning to do something with response to the victim and the witness and so on, would that be a problem under freedom of information, that they would be able to get this information and then plan something if it was all in one location, or is there some kind of safety net built in here?
Mrs Henriksen: That is some sort of a megatechnological data retrieval information project that you might be referring to, where all information on the victim is in one bank.
Mr Jackson: On a crime, including the victim.
Mrs Henriksen: On a crime itself and anything that is associated with that crime.
Ms Bellamy: The Ministry of the Attorney General not too long ago set up a new system called ICON. I cannot remember exactly what it stands for; inter-core offender network or something like that. They are trying to collect information that would allow even trial dates to be set more effectively. Even with that, they have not been able to get a system that would allow both the defence counsel's and the crown's available dates to be on there. It only allows for two police officers, when in fact in many cases that we are talking about here, there would be a lot more police officers.
The system you are talking about would really need to be one whereby the police input that data, and that data cannot be changed by the court or the crown attorney's office. Then the crown attorney's office would also begin to input data. I know they have a system in Vancouver for setting trial dates where they have some information, but even they do not have the information on the victims, as far as I am aware.
I think we also need not to lose sight of the fact that the provincial system is more likely to get what are referred to as "victimless" -- although there is no real victimless crime -- than the federal system. A lot of the people in custody are there for impaired driving offences where there may not have been a specific accident victim. He may have been just picked up on the Reduce impaired driving everywhere program, various things like that. We would not have any of that kind of data. It is a big project, though, that you are talking about if you were to get victims and accused and keep it updated so that whenever a victim moved, that information would be in the computer.
As well, there are some victims who do not want anything more to do with the case once it is over and would prefer not to be called.
Mr Callahan: Could I have a supplementary?
The Chair: No, we have two requests and I am going to decline both of them, actually, because we are going to have an opportunity here, I think. Mr Wiseman, you have gone over the 12-minute guideline, so you will have another chance when we come around. Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: Thank you. You mentioned the justice review project. Is your group participating in that? What is that justice review project?
Mrs Henriksen: The justice review project is actually being coordinated by the Ministry of Correctional Services. However, the board will be participating in it. Essentially, it is a group of people within the criminal justice system who will be holding a large number of seminars -- they have already started earlier this month -- who really try to focus on the total criminal justice system in the province. It is almost like looking at Ontario justice in the future, what changes might be possible, what might not be possible, to make the whole system much more efficient, much more client- and service-oriented and that sort of thing. It is very broad and very general.
Perhaps one of the things that might be looked at in terms of corrections and the parole board will be, in what ways can these two arms of the criminal justice system work together in a much more efficient way so that there is faster -- certainly, within all the terms of justice, "turnover" sounds like a product -- movement of inmates in and out of the correctional system.
Mr Phillips: Is this initiated by treasury board? Is this the treasury board review?
Ms Bellamy: Let me elaborate on this a little bit. It came about after the infamous Askov decision. At that time there was a decision of Management Board of Cabinet that the affected ministries should get together, so there is a justice review project headed by George Thomson, the Deputy Minister of Labour. It has a steering committee of deputy ministers from the various interested ministries and then a whole bunch of others who work underneath that, with a lot of different projects essentially looking at the delivery of criminal justice service.
Mr Phillips: The reason I asked is that the government will not tell us what reviews are going on from treasury board, so I am just curious if this is one of them. I have asked formally for what reviews treasury board has under way. This may be one of the ones that is going on, and at least I now know perhaps one of them.
One of your messages today is on the various systems that are in place. There is the federal system, there is your system, and then the temporary absence system. Is there any opportunity for us to coordinate those three in a better way? It is one taxpayer paying for it.
Mrs Henriksen: I think that touches on the whole question of split jurisdiction. The way it is now, the jurisdiction is split between federal and provincial. There are temporary absence programs at the federal level as well as at the provincial level, and parole programs at the federal as well as at the provincial. Once we have that dividing line of two years less a day and two years plus -- in parole, for example, there is a lot of room for coordinating. For example, the provincial legislation is guided in very many ways by the federal Parole Act. The criteria for parole are contained in the federal Parole Act, and the criteria for parole right across the country are the same. So we have unanimity and integration with respect to criteria. Every inmate, federal or provincial, gets out or not, based on the same criteria.
Perhaps what might be different is the programs that are developed and geared for the different kinds of inmates. The programs for the provincial inmates are geared for short sentences, whereas for the federal inmates it would be sentences of a much longer term, either in the institution or outside the institution. Then there is sharing of services -- that does happen -- federal and provincial. There are all kinds of interprovincial agreements and federal-provincial agreements that would address transfers and parole interchange and all that sort of stuff.
To have one level of justice is a political issue, obviously. It does touch on the division of powers and the sharing of powers, those sorts of things, over which I would have very little control.
1140
Mr Phillips: I gather from your notes that seven of the provinces do that and three operate the way we do.
Mrs Henriksen: That is right.
Mr Phillips: Can I ask one last small question? I seem to recall that at one stage there was a plan on electronic monitoring of people who were on parole, a test program you may or may not be familiar with. I am just curious whether you are familiar with it, whether you have been involved in it and whether it is working.
Mrs Henriksen: We have not been involved with it, but we do know there was a test done in British Columbia some time ago. I really do not know what the results of that were, but as a board we do not have any parolees who are on the electronic monitoring system and we do not have any plans in the near future.
Mr Phillips: Really? I thought I had read about a test program here in Ontario.
Mrs Henriksen: Ontario did something as well too.
Ms Bellamy: I think there was one in Ontario about two years ago for intermittent sentences, people who were serving sentences on weekends. It was being run out of the Mimico Correctional Centre, which is the one that has most of the intermittent sentences in the greater Toronto area.
British Columbia tends to use it a lot more -- well, a lot more than Ontario, because we do not use it at all. The British Columbia Board of Parole is just now starting to look at using electronic monitoring. Saskatchewan also uses it, but in a completely different way from British Columbia. In British Columbia it is done at the institutional stage. In Saskatchewan the judge can make that part of his or her sentence.
Mr Phillips: So you think there was a test in Mimico but it was used for someone who had to be in his or her home for the weekend. Is that right?
Ms Bellamy: I think it was weekends, yes.
Mrs Henriksen: Intermittent sentences. Not especially weekends, but intermittent.
Interjection: Ninety days or less.
Mr Jackson: If I could go back to what I think was Mr Grandmaître's question, could you give us a clearer sense of your statistical base? We have looked at some statistics which enlighten us about your activities in 1989-90. What I am trying to do is to get a sense of whether you are dealing with an increased number of parolees and if they are, on average or by reported crime, getting earlier parole. Can I get a clear answer if you have a statistical handle on that? Do you understand the nature of my question?
Mr Sandhu: I am afraid not.
Mr Jackson: All right. We do not have statistics that are year over year. We do not have them in front of us. So in a three-year period have we seen an increased number of people being incarcerated and therefore eligible for parole and therefore applying for parole? I do not know if the gross numbers are going up or down.
Second, we have statistics from our researcher which show us the types of offences. Can you compare the types of offences and the average granting of parole year over year, so that I can get a sense of whether with the crime of sexual assault we are -- forgive me for saying this -- toughening parole or parole is accessed easier? I know there are trends by crime and parole and those are observable in other jurisdictions. I just wondered if you keep the statistics or can share those statistics with us and make it clearer in our minds as legislators what direction we are going in.
Mr Sandhu: The best I can answer is that in the provincial system, admissions have generally speaking remained somewhat static, with the difference that in the metropolitan areas, the larger city areas, the admission rates have gone up considerably, thereby causing this overcapacity problem and severe problems in terms of housing and what have you.
The impact on the board has been one of very little change in that up until now the Askov impact has not been felt. It is only now in this fiscal year that we are starting to see increases in numbers for the board.
Mr Jackson: Increases in numbers of applications for parole?
Mr Sandhu: Yes, and we are only starting to see it in this fiscal year, for which you, in fact, have not got any information because we are still in the middle of the fiscal year. All information given to you up to this point has been up to the end of last fiscal year, which ended in March 1991.
What is happening is, as far as we can see, that there has been somewhat of a static population up to this point in our provincial institutions. We cannot give you any information pertaining to the specific criminal offence type and parole because we do not keep it. What we can tell you is that our numbers have remained static in that we are paroling between 50% and 55% of the people who come before us. Other than that, I think I have answered the question you asked.
We cannot relate it to the specific offence type. In the chart I think you have been provided with on types of offences, certainly there has been an increase in drug-related offences and what have you. That particular chart captures all admissions to provincial institutions. What it does not tell us is how many of those drew only provincial sentence, although there is a number at the bottom that says federal ones.
That is the best I can answer. I am not sure I have covered all the areas you asked.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I know time is at a premium but I have a very, very brief question on the victims' bill of rights if I could get that in.
I accept that there are some difficulties, that a proper victims' rights environment, as some provinces have, takes its lead from the Attorney General and from the court system, where the base communication has to occur and the retention of records. I understand that. However, in your discussions about victims' services, are you not at least able to prioritize? Has it not been suggested to you by the Attorney General's office that you prioritize types of crimes? Because the victim in an auto accident or a private property matter may not require that, whereas a woman who was threatened with a weapon, was sexually assaulted -- parolees in these cases are coming before you. I have had some celebrated cases in my riding. Within hours of being released, a parolee has a gun, is on the doorstep of the lady's employment and has made good on his threat. I have a case of that in my riding in the last two years.
My point is that could we not, instead of dealing with it globally, at least say here are specific cases where women are living in absolute terror in their community, where their victim impact statement would be germane to the case and their safety would be an ultimate outcome, or their ability to prepare themselves for the early release of an offender?
Is it anywhere being suggested that you look at specific crimes in terms of improving victims' services? I am not getting any clear direction from anybody that we are at least looking at those kinds of personal assault injury, sexual assault type crimes, which are quite different from personal property crimes. Can I get a quick response to that? That is an area of concern I have.
Mrs Henriksen: I think your point is well taken and we will make sure that in the review we are undertaking we take a look at that particular issue. Also, we know that in order to do that we have to consult with the other elements of the justice system. We know that in order to do that we have to consult with the police, and particularly with the courts.
Mr Jackson: The crown attorneys?
Mrs Henriksen: And the crowns. As I said, your point is well taken.
Mr Wiseman: I would like to ask a few more questions about how the decision to release somebody on parole is actually made. Is it necessary, for example, for a person who is coming up for parole to admit that he actually did the crime?
1150
Mrs Henriksen: No. We are not a court of law, we are not trying to determine innocence or guilt.
Mr Wiseman: Under the criterion "the inmate has derived maximum benefit from the imprisonment," it would seem to me that if he did the crime and he has been convicted of it, if he is not prepared to admit that he did it to the parole board, then how does he derive maximum benefit from the system if denial is still part of his attitude?
Mrs Henriksen: The board really cannot determine in the sense of guilt; that is clear. However, if an inmate is denying an offence, and this often happens with sexual offenders, then the board will take all of that into consideration. If that inmate is in fact denying, we have victims' statements to the contrary, we have a police report to the contrary, we have maybe a report from a clinician or some other professional to the contrary. Obviously we will have to know where to balance, where to weigh that information, but it is not to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine readiness to go back out into the community.
Mr Wiseman: I asked that in the context of whether or not the person would be ready to go back out if denial was still part of his attitude.
Mrs Henriksen: Yes, that is right.
Mr Wiseman: This comes to the next question about how the decision is made. You have a three-panel hearing board.
Mrs Henriksen: Three persons on a panel.
Mr Wiseman: Yes, three-person hearing board. One full-time?
Mrs Henriksen: One full-time.
Mr Wiseman: And two from the community.
Mrs Henriksen: Yes.
Mr Wiseman: What happens if there is a real difference of agreement between the full-time and the part-time? For example, let's say the full-time person, in his experience across the province in the years that he has done it, really has a strong apprehension about releasing somebody into the community, but the community people who have been appointed do not share that. What is the mechanism? Is there an overriding or does the majority rule?
Mrs Henriksen: The majority carries.
Mr Hayes: Or the other way around.
Mr Wiseman: Yes, or the other way around; it can be either way. So the majority rules.
Have there been any changes at the federal level in the Parole Act that have impacted recently on the way the provincial parole boards do their job?
Mrs Henriksen: No, there have not. There may be, but there have not been, because Bill C-36, I think it is, the new federal bill that deals with corrections, parole and the correctional investigator, is somewhere at the reading stage. I do not know what stage it is at as yet. If that does pass, then there might be some impact on the provincial parole boards, yes, but so far there has been no impact on any of the legislative changes that took place federally.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Callahan, I am sure you would not object if the Chair asked a few questions before it went on to you.
Mr Callahan: No, not at all. Go ahead.
The Chair: I guess I am going to direct this to Ms Blais. There has been the suggestion, in some parts of eastern Ontario anyway, that because of overcrowding in provincial jails there is pressure on the board to move people out rather quickly, if you will. I guess this ties in with something Mr Grandmaître was asking as well. Have you experienced that kind of pressure from the Ministry of Correctional Services?
Ms Blais: No, we have not. There certainly is a consistent flow of inmates from the Metro region to the eastern region in terms of using the accommodation available. The latest statistics indicate that only 87% capacity is utilized in the eastern region, so I personally have not felt any pressure whatsoever.
The Chair: With respect to an issue in my own riding, which you are probably familiar with, I think about a year ago an individual was found guilty of a sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl. I think he was sentenced to two years less a day but he was out in something like 90 days in a halfway house. The victim and mother were not informed. It caused quite an uproar. I raised it in the House, as you may recall. I think the minister of the day pulled the man back in for an assessment. He had not gone through anything, apparently, any psychiatric assessment.
It certainly raises concerns in my mind as to what kind of operation you are running when a guy like that is out on the street in a small community without the victim, the mother or the family being aware of it. I guess it ties in with what you are hearing across this room, when you are dealing with sexual assaults, especially when we are talking about children being the victims, that there is not an apparent concern when those kinds of releases occur.
Ms Blais: The release of that inmate to a halfway house remained the responsibility of the Ministry of Correctional Services and not the board. I believe he was released through the temporary absence program. Therefore, any mechanism to fulfil and meet the criteria of the temporary absence program remained with the ministry and the superintendent of that responsible institution.
The Chair: The board had no role to play in that at all.
Ms Blais: We had nothing to do with that case at all.
The Chair: I saw a case in the Toronto papers recently where a chap had been found guilty of incest with a variety of stepchildren and one of his own children as well. The crown had asked for a 10-year sentence and the judge in the case gave a sentence of two years less a day. The crown may appeal this but the justification was that there would be easier access to psychiatric and psychological assistance and assessments within the provincial facility versus a federal institution. Is that an accurate assessment?
Ms Blais: Provincially, we have a number of treatment units that provide programs associated with various kinds of offenders. In the eastern region Millbrook Correctional Centre, which is a maximum facility, offers a treatment unit.
The Chair: Yes or no, would you agree with the judge's decision?
Ms Blais: I cannot comment on that because I am not familiar with the federal treatment programs versus --
The Chair: I am sorry if I am directing that to you. Perhaps the chair should answer.
Mrs Henriksen: Denise was just mentioning an article in the Toronto Star on the particular case, but I have not read it. I do know that that person is in the provincial system at the moment.
Ms Bellamy: Here I am quoting the Toronto Star, but in the Toronto Star today there is another case actually from the same court in Scarborough where a Judge Bovard sentenced a sexual offender to two years less a day and a maximum three-year probationary term partially because he felt that there were more facilities available in the provincial system and that he could put the person on probation for three years which he could not do if the person had got more than a two-year system at the federal level. The federal person quoted in the Toronto Star said there were in fact programs available for sexual offenders in the federal environment.
The Chair: I guess all I was looking for was an opinion from you on whether you agreed with the assessment that it is a better judgement to put them in the provincial side of things because of the services available for these kinds of individuals, whether that is an accurate statement or whether the judge is misinformed.
Ms Bellamy: I was listening last night to As It Happens and Tony Doob from the criminology department of the University of Toronto was on and was talking about the case you are referring to. One of the things he said that I certainly agree with is that when the judge is sentencing a person the judge might consider a whole rash of things only one of which is the rehabilitation of that offender. There may be also the need to deter other people, in which case they might not care what happens to that particular offender as long as other people are deterred from the crime.
The Chair: I guess I am not going to get an answer to that question. I will move on. The chair mentioned that if you are in a provincial institution for one day you can apply for parole. I think you said that, did you not, if you are in there one day or two days.
1200
Mrs Henriksen: I may not have said that, but by law that would be applicable, yes.
The Chair: Do you have this sort of thing occurring frequently, where someone is sentenced to two years less a day and after a week or two weeks he is applying for parole? Does that occur on a fairly regular basis?
Mrs Henriksen: For two years less a day they do not have to apply, we will automatically schedule them.
The Chair: That is not what I asked you. My concern is that you suggested that someone on the first day of incarceration can make an application. Do you have a lot of those early applications, if you will, early in the sentencing period?
Mrs Henriksen: Let me say that we get them in usually well before the parole eligibility date. That is the cutoff date for us. We do get them.
The Chair: Are you required to automatically review these when you get that sort of application, before the date?
Ms Blais: Perhaps I might add that we do get letters from inmates serving two years less a day who wish to be considered earlier than the one-third time. Perhaps that is what you are driving at. Those are cases that we consider by way of a case review meeting. We must assess their request for an earlier hearing for perhaps parole by exception. That is the process in which they would be granted parole earlier than their one third. We look at various factors, including humanitarian ones and compassionate ones as well as possibly beds being available in a treatment centre or specific needs to that individual, in looking at whether or not we see them at an earlier date. If we do choose to do that, they would then go to a full hearing, and then the issue of parole by exception would be again assessed as to the merits. We do not grant very many parole-by-exception cases.
Mr Callahan: Mr Wiseman asked about whether your board requires an admission of the offence before parole can be granted. Certainly the federal board does. We have heard of the celebrated BC case where the guy served 11 years, I guess. The only reason he did not get parole was that he refused to admit he committed the crime, and as it turns out, he may very well not have committed the crime. I gather that is not the case in the provincial approach, that they have to make an admission they committed the crime. A finding has been made by the judge that they are guilty, and that should be the end of it.
Mrs Henriksen: The finding is made and we deliberate on the suitability to release or not release.
Mr Callahan: The other thing is the question of victim impact statements. They are now being used much more frequently in the courts, where there is the adversarial system, and you get an opportunity to examine that statement under oath. Would you agree with me that if victim impact statements became more apparent in the parole system, it would cease to be non-adversarial?
Mrs Henriksen: Provided the victim is not in the hearing room when the statements are being made.
Mr Callahan: Yes, but if the victim gave a statement and that statement was provided as part of the material for release or non-release, would you not agree with me that the system would become very much more adversarial, particularly when you are getting the legal profession in there? I think they would want to have an opportunity and they probably should have the right to question the statement in the impact study.
Mrs Henriksen: It could be. That possibly could be one option, but I do not think it would be automatic.
Mr Callahan: No, but I think I am answering my own question that if you are going to look at a statement from a victim, which a judge has probably already looked at -- hopefully he or she has -- in arriving at the sentence, you are obviously going to have a lawyer saying, "I want to have the rights of cross-examination of that victim impact statement," so you are going to get more adversarial. I think I have answered my own question.
Finally, I have very serious concerns about this problem of intermittent and temporary absence passes. I hope the parole board would look at that fact, namely, that if a judge orders a TAP and the person is approved for the TAP but the person does not get out because there are not adequate facilities at Mimico to have him go on a TAP, that would be considered as a feature of either early parole or some other method of ensuring that the justice system's integrity is upheld, If the judge said, "You're going to get out," and the correctional authorities interview the person and say, "Yes, you should be out," and then the correctional authorities who are responsible for the services say, "Sorry, you can't get out because we don't have the facilities," I think that really has an impact on the integrity of the system, it has an impact on those innocent people, the family, who are going to go on welfare dole because the offender does not get out. I think it has a very serious impact on a first offender, too, that he has been told by a judge he will be out and then he or she sits there and does his time.
Mrs Henriksen: Often that does happen. Judges who may not be fully cognizant of what services are available will say something in court, and at times, as you are describing, it just cannot be done.
Mr Callahan: Some of these judges have been advised by making a telephone call to the TAP authorities, "Oh, yeah, no problem," and instead of sentencing the person to an intermittent sentence where they would get out immediately, they put them through the TAP process and then find out later on, "Surprise, you don't get out," and the job is poof, gone. I do not think in the economy today that it is fair, certainly to the family of the accused and perhaps not even to the accused.
The Chair: One final quick question for Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: It is really a clarification, probably for legal counsel. The question Mr Runciman asked with regard to the individual who got out in 90 days, how did that happen?
Ms Bellamy: I do not know. I know it is not an issue for the board of parole. I would expect that a superintendent made a decision on the basis of a request for a temporary absence.
Mr McLean: A superintendent of the facility could do that?
Ms Bellamy: Oh, yes. According to the statute, the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, that is the person in fact who does make the decision as to whether a person gets out on temporary absence.
With respect to Mr Callahan's comments -- I do not want to keep the rest of you --
The Chair: Very briefly.
Ms Bellamy: If you wish, I could speak to Mr Callahan afterwards because some of the comments he has made are actually somewhat incorrect. I could direct it with him, if you like.
The Chair: We would prefer that you do that off the record.
Ms Bellamy: You want the incorrect stuff to stay on the record.
Mr McLean: I would like to hear it if it is short.
The Chair: Can you do it briefly?
Ms Bellamy: I can do it briefly. There is a difference between a judge recommending temporary absence and recommending immediate temporary absence. The immediate temporary absence is to be for offenders who are sentenced to a period of less than 90 days only, and where they have either a job or a school they can go to. The arrangement the ministry makes is that they will be released within 24 hours if it is less than a 90-day sentence.
As I understand it, over half of those people who receive a recommendation for immediate temporary absence in fact get a sentence of over 90 days, and therefore the ministry policy does not apply. As well, some of them who say they have a job at the sentencing in fact do not. When the classification officer telephones to find out about the job, they discover they do not in fact necessarily have the job. So there are a number of complicating factors. But I have asked, in my capacity as legal director, the appropriate people to look into this because I am aware that there does appear to be a problem in certain areas, and they are looking at that now.
Mr Callahan: Thank you.
The Chair: We thank you all for your attendance this morning and the testimony. It is very much appreciated.
Mrs Henriksen: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We will break for lunch. Back at 2 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1208.