Evidence of meeting #13 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
It applies to the first review and subsequent reviews for full parole.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Yes. That's what it's stating, actually, in the text that's before you.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Okay. I think I now understand what we're doing there.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On the second part of this, in your paragraph (b), which talks about “family member to observe the hearing by any means the Board considers appropriate”, is it the intention here that the victim or family member would have the choice of the video in person, or is it...? It says that it's the board that decides.
What's confusing about this is that when it says “by any means that the Board considers appropriate”, it could mean that there are certain means that are acceptable to the board, but then the person gets to decide. It's not clear. It doesn't say that it's at the choice of the victim or family member. That's what I find confusing about this.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Perhaps in the next government amendment, I'll go through all three or multiple changes to the same clause. We haven't actually discussed the second point here, which is replacing lines 33 to 35 on page 3 with what you're discussing right now. Basically, the purpose of this is to ensure that the means by which victims may be accommodated in order to follow a parole hearing are not limited to a teleconference or by means of a one-way closed circuit feed. It's basically expanding what would be available in that particular situation.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
That's an explanation for the second part of this, which we had not discussed but we're clear now, then.
Are you comfortable with that, Mr. Regan?
Okay. Thank you very much. We are—
Oh, Madam Doré-Lefebvre, my apologies.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Chair, I am really sorry, but once again, I have to ask for some clarification.
Like my colleague, Mr. Garrison—and I think the feeling is mutual on the Liberals' side—I am really having a tough time understanding the first part of the amendment. I am trying to figure out how it fits into the bill. Forgive me if I seem confused about what we are doing now.
Would it be possible to have the witnesses clarify a few things? Parts (b) and (c) of the amendment are relatively straightforward, but I want to know what the impact of part (a) would be. It is mostly a technical question.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Chair, may I make a suggestion? So they don't play musical chairs, why don't they just sit at the table?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
That's fine.
Let's welcome the witnesses back, please.
Madam Doré-Lefebvre, would you ask the same question? Our witnesses have heard it, of course, but would you please ask our witnesses your question?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
My question has to do with part (a) of the amendment. I'd like to know what it would change in real terms, because it is just technical jargon to me. I'd like an overview in order to understand what it will change.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
This is utterly technical, even for officials, so I might actually defer to legal counsel on this one. There is no substantive change here; it really is just a drafting convention.
Perhaps Mr. Laprade has more information.
February 27th, 2014 / 4:50 p.m.
Michel Laprade Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Correctional Service of Canada, Department of Justice
It is fairly simple.
Section 140 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act pertains to situations in which the board has to hold a parole hearing. The board makes some decisions without a hearing and others with a hearing.
The purpose of this provision, which concerns the amendments in the bill, is to include the elements related to the new subsections added to section 123, which pertain to a hearing after five years, so subsections 123(5.01) and 123(5.1).
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
—yes—we've heard some I think compelling testimony from both victims and others about the difficulties that families of victims, or the victims themselves in some cases, would have in attending parole hearings. Sometimes the person is incarcerated in another province, so it's sometimes very difficult to attend.
Now, what I see here but I don't see anywhere else—I may, therefore, be proposing an amendment—is that they can observe the hearing by any means “appropriate”. I accept that. I think that's an improvement. I think we all know the sense of that, and it won't be misunderstood.
However, it's part of a proposed subsection that says, “If the Board or its designate decides under subsection (5.1) to not permit a victim or a member of his or her family to attend a hearing”. So we're only really expanding this, if we amend this section, for those who have been denied permission to attend. We're not really giving an option to those who would have trouble travelling or who would perhaps not wish to face the offender in that parole hearing. This amendment doesn't really provide the option of these other means other than to those who have been denied the right to appear at the hearing.
I guess I'm really asking the officials if I'm correct in my interpretation, and if I am, I'd like to propose an amendment to this section.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, I believe your interpretation is correct in that this section really is dealing with those who have indicated a desire to present a statement at the board. The intention of the government's amendment here is really one of consistency with the existing CCRA language.
The government amended the CCRA in 2012 and enshrined the entitlement of victims to participate in parole hearings and make statements. The language that exists right now says it's by means deemed appropriate by the board. A victim may make a statement, they can read their statement, or they can participate through audio recording or teleconference.
The amendment here is really just to ensure consistency with what's already in the act. It's up to the victim to indicate the manner in which they want to participate, and every effort is made by the board to accommodate that.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
My understanding of the act, though, is that in those other cases, if they have not been denied, it would be discretionary for the board to decide whether they would be allowed to attend by teleconference. Is that correct?