Public Safety Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Harvey Cenaiko]

Thank you very much, Mr. Richards and Mr. Chair.

The Parole Board of Canada has done additional work these last years in relation to ensuring there is a balance between offenders' rights and victims' rights. We work looking closely at what other agencies are doing, both nationally and internationally, throughout Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand. We work closely with our partners regarding parole, regarding other work they're doing with victims. We want to, again, be leaders internationally in relation to ensuring the protection of Canadians and society, but as well, ensuring that victims are provided with the services they require and the services they need, ensuring, again, that there is a balance under law in relation to an offender's rights in an institution and the victim's rights to attend a hearing and/or provide information.

In doing the research behind this and preparing for this presentation, I noted that at present there are 1,782 offenders serving an indeterminate or life sentence and there are 4,062 victims registered with the board for those lifers. Our total number of registered victims at the board is 7,585. It shows you that two-thirds of the victims registered with the Parole Board of Canada are for 1,782 offenders, when we have 15,000 offenders in institutions across the country and another 8,000 offenders on conditional release in the community.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

So yes, you can obviously see there is some importance to these victims in terms of this, just in relation to what has happened to their family member in these kinds of cases. I can see that's clear in what you're saying with your statistics there.

Just to be clear on this as well, when the board makes decisions about the escorted temporary absences, you're provided with all the same materials in terms of the correction plan, etc., that the CSC officials would have on the ETAs that they're making the decisions about, correct?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

I can't answer to how CSC makes their administrative decisions.

I can tell you that the Parole Board of Canada will review the file from start to finish. That file would include the background history of the offender and any societal issues he may have grown up with through his life. It would look at his criminogenic behaviour and criminal activity throughout his life. It would include the judge's comments at sentencing each time, or just the one occurrence when the offender was sentenced. Our board members would review the police reports in relation to the offence and look at the whole picture of the individual—how he got into the institution, the crime, and the nature and gravity of the offence he created.

Then they look at psychological assessments, psychiatric assessments, while in the institution; his institutional behaviour while he is in there; the conduct in relation to the successful or unsuccessful programming that he is taking in the institution. Then they look at his community release plan. It's legislated in the CCRA that there has to be a correctional release plan provided for that, which he in fact has to work on. This is to ensure the protection of society in a gradual, monitored, supervised release back into the community.

So that's how we assess risk, but I can't answer for—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I appreciate that. I don't have much time left, and I want to really quickly get one last question in.

I'd like to quote back to you a couple of sentences from your opening statement. First, you said, for those victims who wish to, there will be more occasions to provide their statements to the board. That's what you're talking about with this change. As well, “In addition, registered victims will be notified of all board ETA decisions, as well as the date and location of the temporary absence”.

Obviously, given that, given the fact that your look at this, as a board, would certainly be more open and accessible to victims than obviously that of CSC's when they're doing that, could you maybe just comment on that? I think what that tells me is that this is the more open and accessible process for victims, and that would probably make this a good move in terms of ensuring victims have better access to the hearings. So if we're looking at this, that would be an aspect that should be considered as well.

Both of you could comment, if you'd like.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

We have a process. One, you're notified in advance. If you're not notified in advance, which you aren't in a warden's board, then how are you going to know to update your statement? It's the kind of process that's going to ensure that they're notified in advance, that they are given the opportunity to provide and update these statements, that they are going to get information. The frustration we hear from people about the decisions made in a warden's board is that they can't access any information as to why that decision was made. They don't understand it. They don't understand why the decision was made and that kind of thing.

So when you have a process that allows for a decision register, or written information coming out of there as to why that decision was made, they can be informed and they can take the steps they need to take and feel they're being respected in this process.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Did you want to comment on that, Mr. Cenaiko? To me, it seems as though that open and accessible process would be—

[Harvey Cenaiko]

Well, as I mentioned earlier—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Just briefly, Mr. Cenaiko.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

—of the 900 additional, approximately 200, or 25%, would be hearings. The other 75% would be office reviews. Some of these would be an ETA for the first time. They could be applying for a second, third, or fourth ETA. However, it would provide victims with approximately 200 additional hearings that they could....

As well, in relation to these offenders, there is usually more than one victim family member or person affected. There is usually a number of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter, you have seven minutes, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ms. O'Sullivan and Mr. Cenaiko. Those were two really good presentations.

I will turn to you first, Sue. You obviously believe, from your remarks, that the bill is isolated to cases related to the murder of policemen and correctional officers. There is some dispute about that around the committee as to how broad the bill is or how narrow it is.

So is that your interpretation?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

My interpretation is that this bill is for all offenders who are in for life or indeterminate sentences. However I'm not a lawyer, so I defer to the people who—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You're suggesting that the bill should be extended beyond that.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

We're talking about a point of fine process here that applies to all victims. When we're talking about those basics—and I've said them, the needs of victims—it is my job to ensure that we take all these opportunities, and I think we have an opportunity here.

We have an opportunity to broaden this bill so that all victims who are registered, have offenders in the system, and want to participate have the opportunity to have a transparent process, have an opportunity for input, and have an opportunity to be informed and protected. So yes, it is my recommendation that we expand it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

My question to you, Mr. Cenaiko, is under the.... Let me put it this way. How many current, how many such ETAs or paroles are granted by wardens now? How many have been granted to offenders serving time for murders of police officers and correctional officials? Do you know?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

I don't have Correctional Service Canada's statistics here. I just have our own, so I can tell you that last year we conducted 119.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

One hundred and nineteen—because we really do need to know how broad or how narrow this particular bill is. My problem is that the bill seems to be based mainly on one case and that is Detective Constable Billy Hancox's murder by two individuals. Maybe you can't answer this question either. As I understand it, one of those individuals has asked for parole.

Can you tell us how many parole hearings that offender was granted over time? This seems to be based on just one case. Do we know how many parole hearings that individual was granted? Was the individual ever granted parole? Do we know how long before the warden granted the individual parole that the previous Parole Board hearing was held? Those are important questions we need answers to.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

To disclose that information, we can't have the ability to disclose that. I think it would be improper to talk about a single certain case. However I can say that we worked with CSC in relation to getting our expected numbers of 900 additional. You could infer that it means that they conducted 900. But I can't be certain on that; however, we have hard numbers.

We're saying we're going to have an additional 900 cases to do because they won't be doing any other than for medical emergencies. They'll be continuing to—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But that 900 seems to me to be in the broad aspect. Is it not the narrow aspect of policemen and correctional officers?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

That's everything.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's everything.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

That's every lifer and offender convicted of first-degree murder.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So we really don't have the number that really applies to this bill.

Let me come back another way on this then. I'm sitting here wondering if this is a situation where we're looking at a problem in the correctional system that really relates to a warden doing what he or she shouldn't have done. Maybe that warden should have been tuned up by the head of corrections. Maybe this decision shouldn't have been made. We're looking at changing the whole Correctional and Conditional Release Act as a result. I don't know that. We don't have that information.

Let me ask you this. Is the warden required to discuss the granting of a parole with the Parole Board in that last three years? Do they get the file from you? Do they have the file? Do they discuss it with people who are involved in the previous parole hearing?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

No. The present legislation allows for the warden to make that administrative decision based on areas that he has. He has to ensure that the offender won't be an undue risk to society. He has to follow what is in the legislation now.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But I mean—