Reviewing the parole system

Opinion

Crime and bail finally emerged as issues in the federal election and, after spending eight years with the Parole Board of Canada (and almost three decades as a cop), I think some of that discussion should focus on parole.

The parole board took a sharp left turn when the Liberals took over in 2015, and by 2018, a lot of experienced people had been shown the door as thoughts on assessing risk evolved.

As one example, the new regime held a think tank over two days with their chosen experts, academics and senior public servants to talk about all things parole. They were encouraged to provide “forward thinking” and “bold” ideas. Those ideas were then summarized for board members, including new ones.

The seven-page summary challenged board members to see themselves as a channel to release, not a barrier. It read that the board was risk-averse and there was a moral obligation for the board to help the offender reintegrate into society. It was suggested if an offender violated their release conditions that the board provide a reprimand rather than “interrupt their healing” by returning them to prison. It went on to read there should be a paradigm shift away from focusing solely on risk while finding ways to incorporate offender needs, and that the board should meet with offenders before their hearing to elevate their chances for release. It was acknowledged that the public mood did not support progressive corrections but still encouraged the board to make and effort to effect substantial change.

It wasn’t policy, but a tone was set and a cultural shift was underway.

Fast forward from there to just three of the cases that have gone horribly wrong.

Eustachio Gallese, with a history of abusing women, was convicted of murdering a woman in the early 2000s. In 2019, having been granted a six-month period of day parole, he was assessed by the board for continued release. The board was told that while on parole he had become involved with the sex trade. Reports received later said he had been violent with some of the workers. Independent of that, the sex trade has a host of red-hot risk factors including violence, drugs, alcohol, control, manipulation, vulnerable women, abuse, underage workers and human trafficking, to name a few. But instead of revoking his release due to his risk-laden behaviour, he was simply reprimanded and had his parole continued. Shortly after that he beat, stabbed and slashed a young sex trade worker to death in a hotel room.

Michel Vautour has a lengthy history of sexual violence toward women and girls, and was assessed as high risk when he received statutory release. Once out, he violated conditions that restricted his contact with young girls, which led to a suspension of his release. Instead of keeping him in prison the board cancelled that suspension with a reprimand. Two months later he kidnapped, handcuffed and blindfolded a terrified 16-year-old girl who was able to bail out of his moving car, still wearing handcuffs.

Then there was the decision that saw the board re-release Myles Sanderson in 2022 after he was suspended for violating his release conditions. Sanderson had a ridiculously extensive history of violence, including domestic violence and non-compliance. Despite the vast criminal background and amid issues of a domestic violence cycle, the board assessed no undue risk, issued another reprimand and released him. He returned to all kinds of criminal activity before committing the worst mass slaughter in Saskatchewan’s history. An investigation released last year found little fault with the board’s decision, though there has been minimal public scrutiny of that investigation.

With such hell being rained on so many families, the new government must ensure such outcomes do not become normalized. It should conduct a collective investigation into these and other tragic files to address this cultural shift and any adverse effects it may have on risk assessment.

In 2023, at her assailant’s dangerous offender sentencing, the 16-year-old kidnap victim told the Montreal Gazette that, “It shouldn’t have taken what I went through for the justice system to have properly acknowledged how dangerous this man is to society. More efforts need to be (made) by the justice system and the Parole Board of Canada to ensure that offenders like him do not strike again.”

And then there’s this: Anyone who thinks these decisions to reprimand and release were in the offenders’ best interests should think again. The ones noted here are either dead or now likely to spend the rest of their days in prison.

Robert Marshall believes the pendulum has swung too far to the left. He writes from Winnipeg.