Public Safety Committee on Feb. 27th, 2014

[Daryl Churney]

It is up to the board's discretion to decide. Sometimes it may be a matter of a particular technology that may not be available at a particular institution. If the institution is remote, for example, they may not have particular access to video conference there. In that case, it just wouldn't be permissible. Wherever possible, the board does try to make accommodations to suit the victim's preference.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

If I may, Mr. Chair, perhaps we could add words to the proposed subsection to the effect that “or should a victim or member of their family choose not to attend in person, the Board shall provide for the victim or family member”, and then go into this amended language that they observe the hearing by any means appropriate.

If I'm correct that we can add that here, to me that would change from the discretionary to giving victims the right to choose not to attend and be able to observe through another means. That's what I heard victims asking for at the table; it's that broader right to be able to observe. This would take away the travel problems for them, potentially, and it would take away some of the fear problems that some people have. To me, that would be an important expansion of victims' rights.

What I'm trying to accomplish here is what I think we heard from those witnesses. I'm hoping we can do that through an appropriate amendment here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Garrison, you have the option of presenting a subamendment, should you wish. It would have to be in writing.

But first of all, we have Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

The witnesses could perhaps comment, but the way I read this is that it is currently a choice. If the victim does not...for whatever reason—perhaps they feel intimidated—they can use an alternate means. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the amendment would be somewhat superfluous. It's not needed because the section already addresses the victims' choice in the manner of participation at the hearing. To my understanding, there is no prohibition for witnesses. In other words, the board doesn't prohibit witnesses from partaking in the hearing.

Am I correct?

[A voice]

Yes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

So it would be superfluous to put in an amendment, as this section covers that.

[Daryl Churney]

It does.

The board can take the statements from the victims right now, in whatever form that is. The victim does not physically have to be at the parole hearing.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

It's superfluous.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I understand Mr. Garrison was involved in trying in to draft this thing, but Mr. Norlock had a very, very valid point.

Based on your explanation, I think Mr. Garrison should be more cognizant of that reality in order to evaluate his decision as to whether to move forward.

Briefly, could you maybe repeat that, Mr. Norlock?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Randall, I suggested that your amendment would be superfluous, in that the current regulatory policy surrounding the attendance of victims at hearings already encompasses what you've just said. In other words, what you're suggesting is superfluous. There is no prohibition by the Parole Board, and there is a choice on the part of the victim to attend the hearing in whatever way they feel most comfortable. That's provided there is an ability to provide that, as mentioned by the witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you.

We'll have the response, please, first.

[Daryl Churney]

I will quote very briefly from the existing CCRA subsection 140(11), which states:

If a victim... is not attending a hearing, their statement may be presented at the hearing in a format that the Board considers appropriate.

That is a general sort of chapeau piece, which permits victims to submit their statements in writing or through video conference or audiotape.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

It appears to be a catch-all.

Mr. Garrison, then

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

With respect, I believe that is not a proper interpretation of what the officials just said. The difference is that by including it in this section, it specifically mandates the choice: should the victim choose, they must be allowed to do it. It's discretionary at the present time for the board. I think there is a difference between the two, from what I heard from the official.

Second, the piece he's talking about is their statement, and what we're talking about is that we heard from the victims that they wish to observe the whole process. It makes it both mandatory and also broadens their ability to participate in that hearing. I believe that's what we heard.

I don't believe it contradicts in any way the intentions of Mr. Sweet and this bill. I think it adds an important element that we had from the testimony of witnesses.

I stand to be corrected, if I'm wrong in that.

[Michel Laprade]

I don't think you are wrong. When we're talking about the sections we're dealing with under proposed subsection 140(5.2) of the bill itself and the amendments that are being put forward, the objective of the amendments at this point is to deal with allowing the board to determine the means by which someone may participate or may assist, not necessarily by which they make a statement.

The statement is covered under proposed subsection 140(11), whereby a person either, under proposed subsection 140(10), can attend a hearing and present a statement, or, under proposed subsection 140(11), if they are not attending, can present a statement that will be read during the hearing itself. Does it mean that the victim can only present a statement through proposed subsection 140(11) and not be allowed to follow the hearing by means of video conference or whatever? I think that's the point you're making.

You're making the point that under proposed subsection 140(5.2), where we're saying that if a victim is not allowed or permitted to attend, they may attend by way of other means, and the board will decide that.... But if the decision is not a decision of the board not to allow them to attend, but simply a decision of the victim that they just can't, is there a way to address that in proposed subsection 140(5.2)? That's what you're trying to do here. These are two different things. They—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That's fine. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay. We will go to a vote on the amendment.

Yes, Ms. James?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I actually haven't finished. There was a third part to that, under point (c). I know that we're all excited to get through this....

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Oh, excuse me.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It's a very small one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Oh yes, it's at the bottom of the page. It's point (c) on the same amendment.

Please carry on.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Basically, we're replacing line 8 on page 4 with a different phrase. Instead of having “provided for by regulation”, it will be “prescribed by the regulations”. This is just a simple change to adhere to modern drafting conventions, but I'm glad I got to read it out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Garrison, do you have a comment?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I'm not sure that's what this is, but I'll....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!