 The supervision of parolees obviously fell to the probation and parole officers of the BC Correction Branch, which was again identified in the administrative agreement between the board and the branch. If there was a violation of conditions, it was the responsibility of the supervising parole officer to so notify the board, usually by phone call with a follow-up documentation. And if there was a critical circumstance, they would similarly notify the local police detachment, who on the strength of the the board's suspension documentation would have the authority to apprehend and take the offender into custody, where upon a hearing, a revocation hearing, would be scheduled. That hearing would similarly be conducted by a two-member panel, which might be part of the regular hearing or a special hearing if required. In order to provide a really speedy response to, I'll call it an emergency situation, often those situations developed in the middle of the night and it was the police that were the people who were aware of the violation. They would pick someone up and would check them on CPIC and they would find out that this person was a VC parolee. He was currently out on a parole certificate and he had all the standard conditions plus these special conditions and they could see that they'd caught him in violation of one, two, three, four of the conditions of the parole certificate. Something that probably wasn't well known was that our numbers, our telephone numbers, were listed with CPIC and with the major police detachments in the province of British Columbia and John and I and at the time Roy Dungey occasionally, who was our parole analyst, would receive a phone call in the middle of the night and from a police officer and in John's case, because he was a member, he could immediately act on the information before him and sign a suspension warrant, which would then authorize the police to hold on to the parolee until such time as the board could arrange a hearing, a revocation hearing, we called it. In my case, in Roy's case, we luckily lived very close to some of our community members. There's another benefit of the community membership model and we had their permission to call them at three o'clock in the morning and I could race over and I could get a sign suspension warrant within half an hour of a phone call and then I also knew where the Vancouver Police and the RCMP CPIC units were. I could have that all wrapped up within about two hours of receiving the phone call. They would have a paper warrant in their hands. Sometimes they would accept our, they had the authority to hold the person on our verbal advice that we did have a warrant and sometimes they'd say, don't bother coming over. We'll see you in the morning at a more reasonable time. The National Parole Board identified three criteria for the release of parole. Now, in the case of the National Board, they went to great lengths to interpret those criteria for their members and we had decided from the start that we would simply allow the members to interpret those criteria on their own, although we did provide some guidelines in time that would kind of flush them out. But the first one, as I recall, was that the offender was deemed to have achieved the maximum benefit of imprisonment. Now, you can you can understand that that would take some interpretation, but it would have something to do with the way in which they had responded to their time in prison, whether it was in relation to their attitude, whether it was in relation to their sense of responsibility to the community, whether it was in relation to their participation in prison programs or in particular how they approached their plan for release. And so the second criteria was that they did in fact have a significant, supported, identifiable release plan. And the third criteria, if I can be reminded of that, has something to do with the release of the inmate obviously not being considered to be an undue risk to the community. Now, our understanding, of course, was that the release of an offender always presented some risk, but in the case of a parolee granted parole, the risk would be ameliorated or contained if the plan was solid, if the support was available, the supervision was adequate, and the offender had demonstrated intentions to make reparation to the community where that was appropriate and possible. From 1979 through to the early 1990s, parole supervision was a task performed by probation officers of the BC Corrections Branch, subsequent to this administrative agreement between the board and the branch. And those probation officers, particularly in small areas, did everything. They did all the community supervision and sort of a generic probation officer caseload that included all the adult responsibilities. The formation of the Canadian Association of Paroling Authorities, affectionately known as CAPA, and I was privileged to be a founding member of that with the Pro Boards of Canada and the Pro Boards of Quebec and Ontario, the only four paroling authorities existed at that time. And that association continued throughout my tenure of nine years and continued beyond that and was very successful in promoting the concept of parole, in refining the processes of parole and to seek public support and, of course, government support for the continuation of an early releasing mechanism like parole. I'd like to come back to the community membership model because I think that was one of the real successes of this time in parole in British Columbia. The people that came on the board, many of them were leaders in their own community. Many of them had touched aspects of the justice system, although not necessarily had worked in the justice system. For them, and we had testament after testament to this process, for them the process was a real education and so many of those people went back to their communities to become advocates of the justice system and not specifically for parole, but to provide their communities with a much better and realistic understanding of what happens to people when you send them away to jail and what happens to them when they return to their communities. I think there were so many, but I can think of one person in particular who went on to become a minister of a major ministry in the provincial government. The very last time I saw him, he said, this experience as a member of the BC Parole Board was one of the very best, most exciting and most educational in my entire career. And that was just a huge benefit to, I think, justice and the justice system. This increased level of understanding and compassion for what goes on in the system itself. We need to underscore the fact that the collaboration and cooperation between the board and the corrections branch was critical. And the fact that Michael and I had both come from the branch was probably a significant factor because we had had our careers there and were known by a lot of the people in the branch, particularly the senior administrators, and so the development of the administrative agreement that we made to enable us to work together was not difficult. It was a very collaborative and mutually supportive endeavor. And along with that, of course, the services of the pro-coordinators in the prisons was extremely helpful to the pro-board.