Evidence of meeting #13 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Don't get ahead of me.
Now we're at NDP-27, which is close, but different.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
If I may speak to our amendment, we wish to amend the provision, which again, as has been pointed out, is similar to Mr. Cotler's amendment, but the wording is changed so that the parole boards make “the least restrictive decisions that are consistent with the protection of society”. That would be our provision. Again, we recognize the paramountcy of the protection of society, but we believe that it's important that those words be there. We see that clause 71, changing subsection 101.(c) changes those words from “the least restrictive decisions” to—and this is the phraseology that has been used in other places as well—“what is necessary and proportionate to the purpose of conditional release”.
That new wording has not been tested by the courts. Our amendment is consistent with the expert legal representations we received from Professor Michael Jackson in terms of the constitutional protection and reading. We want to see parole boards take as a paramount consideration the protection of society, but in so doing they ought to be restrained by the constitutional protection that their decisions are at least restrictive, and consistent with that, that they don't just add conditions to parole because they can or because they think they're “necessary and proportionate”, when they ought to be, in fact, “least restrictive”.
It's up to the courts to decide on the sentence, but once a person is incarcerated, the rule that's been recognized by the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, is that the least restrictive approach is consistent with the role of the courts in sentencing and the role of correctional services in carrying out that sentence. That includes the role of the parole boards.
That's our amendment there, Mr. Chair. That's all I have to add.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
This is to replace lines 34 to 37 on page 40, which are the ones I just spoke about, which deal with the test of what's necessary and proportionate to the purpose of conditional release, to be replaced by the words "limited to the least restrictive determination consistent with the protection of society".
Again, that's the formulation based on the existing constitutional protection for inmates that we believe ought to be retained in our law and not changed by a new provision that is subjective in nature and uncertain in application.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 71 agreed to)
I don't suppose you'd like to combine clauses 72 to 100 and something?
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
No. We'll take them one at a time. We may let some of them go without comment, but we may wish to comment on others.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I don't know whether I'm in favour or not. I'm having a little difficulty with the wording here. I think this is one of those occasions when we're very happy to have our witnesses sitting there patiently waiting to be called upon for explanations.
I wonder if someone could explain what this does and what changes are being brought about as a result of these sections. My understanding, limited though it is, is that it does take into account the current practices in determining full parole ineligibility for a particular offender, but I wonder if our subject-matter people could help us with an explanation.
November 22nd, 2011 / 11:55 a.m.
Daryl Churney Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Chair, all of these measures are technical in nature, although they all go to sentence calculation provisions and dealing with sentences that run consecutive to the sentence being served at the time of the imposition of a new sentence.
As it pertains to the noted sections, it's attempting to cover off where a multiple sentence is imposed. The act needs to be able to calculate the parole eligibility provisions. Oftentimes when an offender receives a new sentence that runs consecutive to the old sentence, the parole eligibility date becomes a mathematical science for the sentence calculators. These provisions are attempting to marry that up and ensure that sentence calculation provisions are clearly laid out in the act, so that when multiple sentences are imposed those provisions are clear for the sentence calculators.
Noon
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
For anybody listening, these provisions go on for several pages in the bill, and as you point out, they're highly technical. However, my understanding from reading through there is that if someone, for example, has a parole eligibility date coming up but then receives another sentence, either because that trial had never taken place.... There's a new way of calculating the parole eligibility date. It's now calculated in a different manner.
What would be the different manner? Can you give us a brief explanation of that?
Noon
Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It wouldn't be necessarily calculated in a different manner, I would say. It would simply be giving greater precision in the act so that sentence calculators are able to ensure that day parole eligibility dates and full parole eligibility dates are clearly laid out in the legislation. The calculation would remain the same, but experience demonstrates that the current provisions of the act were rather unspecific and unclear in some cases when there were multiple sentences at play.
It is trying to give greater specificity and precision to those clauses; the practice would essentially remain the same.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
NDP
Noon
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I want to speak briefly to point out why we are supporting this.
Some of the other ones were technical changes. In this case the Correctional Service of Canada is required, for serious offences, to inform the parole board of its concerns in relation to individuals who may have carried out particular offences while incarcerated. I'm assuming the purpose is to ensure that the parole board is aware of this. I don't know why they wouldn't be. Normally we would expect that the parole board would have a full work-up on an individual seeking parole from a penitentiary.
One would think it would be a requirement of the law to ensure that the Correctional Service of Canada informs the parole board of any concerns it might have. There may be a reason for this that I'm not aware of, but we certainly would want the parole board to be aware of any special circumstances that might have arisen while an individual was in prison so they could be taken into consideration by the parole board.
(Clauses 84 to 88 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 89)
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Once again, some of those were technical, but this one really ensures there is an automatic suspension of parole if another sentence is received, without it being necessary for the parole board to actually cancel the parole. It's important that that takes place, so we support it.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you.
(Clauses 89 to 91 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 92)
On clause 92, Mr. Harris.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Clause 92 allows a peace officer to arrest someone without warrant if they've committed a breach of their parole, statutory release, or unescorted temporary absence, or whom the peace officer finds committing such a breach. Again, it gives the peace officer the kinds of powers that normally reside in a justice of the peace in terms of whether the public interest is satisfied without establishing the identity of the person or arresting the person, or if he believes that the person will fail to report to a parole supervisor.
This is a situation where if somebody is violating a condition of temporary absence or parole, the parole officers are the ones who revoke someone's parole or take action of that nature.
This is giving a peace officer the power to carry out an arrest, effectively arrest someone for violating a parole condition, which may be a minor condition. Conditions of release or parole may have all sorts of conditions attached to them, and it is really in the parole officer's or the parole supervisor's authority to determine why this is necessary. There is no real evidence to support that. We haven't heard of any real examples as to why this is necessary. There is no evidence that the existing framework we have, where if someone is violating parole, if that's a problem and it's a necessity for the parole officer to yank the parole, then it's simply a matter of notifying the parole officer and there are mechanisms there already to address these concerns.
They have ready access to parole officers. They're aware of who they are. They are normally aware of who may be on parole within their community, and there's no real reason why this power needs to be given to peace officers.
There's a little bit of a give and take, if you want to suggest that, in parole. Part of the parole provisions is to seek the rehabilitation of the offender. I don't think it's necessary to be punitive in every respect on every occasion and to essentially engage peace officers in this process without the parole supervisor. It appears to be unnecessary.
We think this is an unnecessary addition and that the work of supervising parole should be left to the parole officers and that the decision should be up to them as to whether parole ought to be revoked and the person picked up.
