Evidence of meeting #17 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 warden.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kim Hancox  As an Individual
Krista Gray-Donald  Director, Advocacy and Awareness, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime
Don Head  Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Mike McCormack  President, Toronto Police Association
Kevin Grabowsky  President, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Good afternoon, colleagues, and welcome to meeting number 17 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today we will be hearing from further witnesses on Bill C-483, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence).

We have a group of three witnesses for our first hour. We have here today Krista Gray-Donald, Kim Hancox, and Don Head. On behalf of all the committee members, I thank you very much for appearing before this committee. We will give you an opportunity to briefly make a comment, for up to 10 minutes, should you wish. Please identify yourself and who you're representing when you're called upon.

First is Kim Hancox, as an individual.

You have the floor.

3:30 p.m.

Kim Hancox As an Individual

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today regarding Bill C-483 and the journey I've taken to get to this point.

My late husband, Detective Constable Bill Hancox, was stabbed to death on the evening of August 4, 1998, by Elaine Rose Cece and her accomplice, Mary Taylor. Bill was under cover on a routine surveillance detail when Ms. Cece plunged a 13-inch knife blade into his chest while attempting to execute a carjacking. While Cece and Taylor were running from the scene, Bill called for help over his radio. He knew he was gravely injured. He pulled the knife out of his chest and tried to apply pressure to his wound with napkins he found in the car. Bill's efforts and the efforts of those who came to his aid were futile. Bill died of his horrific injuries that night.

Bill left behind his two-year-old daughter Sandra, and his son Quinn, who was born one month after his murder. Bill was a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a friend, and a colleague. Both Rose Cece and Mary Taylor were convicted of second degree murder, with parole eligibility set at 16 and 18 years, respectively.

My very trying and emotionally exhausting experience with the criminal justice system led me through bail hearings, a preliminary hearing, a trial, sentencing, notification of institutional transfers, notifications of escorted leaves, and Parole Board hearings. I have always been active in learning and understanding the developments and decisions that have arisen in an attempt to be prepared for what is coming next. Following two life-serving offenders through the system for the past 15 years has been an endless task of patience and emotional endurance.

After attending Rose Cece's Parole Board hearing in June 2010, I felt confident and relieved that the board had taken my thoughts and concerns into serious consideration, and together with their review of Ms. Cece's submissions, they denied her request for escorted temporary absences.

My sense of relief was short-lived. In December 2011, I received notification from Correctional Service of Canada that Ms. Cece's warden had authorized a 60-day work release program with pre-approval for any ETAs that may be relevant during that time period. Ms. Cece was transferred out of her institution and into a halfway house.

I was shocked, angry, frustrated, and disillusioned. How could it be that the very clear denial of the Parole Board just 18 months earlier was seemingly dismissed without any consideration? The Parole Board stated that Ms. Cece lacked insight into her crime, had mixed responses to programming, had recurring issues with anger and violent tendencies, had been convicted of assaulting a correctional officer, and had been disciplined numerous times for institutional misconduct. What on earth was the warden thinking? What had changed? Why was there no hearing? Why was I not notified? Why were my thoughts and concerns not considered? In my opinion and in the opinion of the Parole Board, this offender was not ready to be released into the community.

In an effort to understand what had gone so terribly wrong, I learned that in fact nothing had gone wrong. The warden's authority to release life-serving offenders into the community is clearly set out in CSC's commissioner's directive 710-3. It states that the institutional head has the authority to grant ETAs to offenders who are within three years of their parole eligibility date. Ms. Cece had passed that date by three months when the warden authorized her work release.

Ms. Cece's accomplice, Mary Taylor, has also benefited from this current legislation. In May 2012, the Parole Board authorized one ETA a month for Ms. Taylor, for 12 months. I was informed by CSC in February of this year that the warden had authorized several more ETAs for Ms. Taylor. This offender progressed from one ETA a month authorized by the Parole Board to 17 ETAs a month authorized privately by the warden.

These are my concerns.

Three years before parole eligibility is an irrelevant reference point. The warden's decision-making practice is not transparent and is not held to the same objective independent standard as the Parole Board's is. Transferring release authority from the Parole Board to CSC gives an offender the opportunity to avoid the scrutiny and objectivity of the board in favour of a more informal, possibly biased, review by institution staff. It gives the warden an opportunity to, in essence, override a Parole Board decision and move an offender forward on their own agenda.

Accountability is severely compromised as a result of this closed-door process. There is a lack of consideration for victims, which impedes progress of victims' rights and recognition within the criminal system. This practice undermines the public's confidence in a system that is supposed to keep them safe from violent offenders.

I certainly understand and accept that offenders will be released back into the community at some point. I also understand that an offender's ultimate release has little hope of success without a carefully managed reintegration plan. While the warden and CSC staff play an important role in preparing an offender for release, ultimately the decision of whether or not an offender is ready should remain solely with the Parole Board. It is the Parole Board's statutory obligation to ensure public safety, and fulfilling that obligation is not possible if institution heads have the ability to make release decisions independently and in spite of Parole Board recommendations.

At the very least, the institution heads should be working within the parameters of a release plan authorized by the Parole Board, and any expansion of that release plan should be taken back to the Parole Board for consideration.

I support Bill C-483. Victims want respect for what they have endured through honesty, transparency, and accountability. More important, I am a voice for my husband. Those rights did not die with him, and he would be deeply troubled to know that his murderers could gain a benefit from a warden that they could not gain from the Parole Board. The public also wants to have confidence in a system that releases our most dangerous citizens back into the community. I believe that Bill C-483 addresses those needs.

As a point of interest, Rose Cece appeared before the Parole Board in March 2013, after her 60-day work release, with a request for day parole. She was denied. In November 2013 the Parole Board of Canada appeal division upheld that decision. This clearly demonstrates that the Parole Board and CSC have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the readiness of violent offenders returning to the community. In the absence of common ground and continuity between the two agencies, the final decision regarding offender release must remain with the Parole Board of Canada.

Thank you for your time.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Mrs. Hancox. We certainly appreciate your taking the time to come here, and certainly for delivering your personal message before this committee. It's very much appreciated.

Now we will hear from Krista Gray-Donald from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, for up to 10 minutes, please.

3:40 p.m.

Krista Gray-Donald Director, Advocacy and Awareness, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, for inviting our organization to testify today.

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is a national non-profit advocacy group for victims and survivors of serious crime. We provide direct assistance and support to victims across the country, as well as advocating for public safety and improved services and rights to crime victims. The CRCVC is pleased to appear today before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to take part in the debate on Bill C-483, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence).

We would like to take a minute to acknowledge Mrs. Kim Hancox, who has been working for several years now with MP Dave Mackenzie to see this legislation passed in Canada. Kim has suffered incredibly, losing her husband, Detective-Constable William Hancox, a Toronto police member who was stabbed to death in the line of duty in 1998 during a routine stakeout. My office has had the pleasure of getting to know Kim through the Canadian police and peace officers’ memorial service. We are pleased to support Mrs. Hancox and this legislation.

It is hard enough for Kim and victims like her to cope with losing their loved one in a horrific and violent manner, let alone the additional unnecessary re-victimization brought upon them by the corrections and parole system. Kim thought she would have some reprieve from the offenders, Elaine Cece and her lover, Mary Taylor, who were sentenced to life in prison for second degree murder, with parole eligibility dates set at 16 years for Cece and 18 years for Taylor.

Like many victims, Kim felt a sense of relief when the Parole Board of Canada first denied Cece's request for conditional release at a hearing she attended. As she was not aware that the warden had the authority to grant temporary absences once the offender reached a certain date in her sentence, Kim was shocked and appalled that the warden would grant Cece many escorted passes into the community only 18 months after the board’s thorough assessment and finding that she was not yet ready to return to the community.

The accomplice in the case, Mary Taylor, was authorized by the Parole Board for ETAs once a month for one year to attend substance abuse supports. Following that, the warden authorized much more freedom, essentially equivalent to a day parole release, allowing her to be in the community four times a week, and an additional once a month on an ETA.

The board of directors of the CRCVC feels strongly that institutional heads and wardens should not be permitted, by law, to essentially veto the decisions made by the Parole Board. Some of our board members have been impacted, as Kim has, by such decisions made by wardens. In our experience, a warden’s granting of a temporary absence despite Parole Board concerns that an offender remains at risk, or in some cases without an offender having a hearing at all, is a clear circumvention of the board’s authority, allowing the offender to escape the scrutiny of the board, the victims, and the public. We believe it is contradictory to public safety that an institutional head can allow an escorted temporary absence to an offender serving a life sentence who has never faced the thorough questioning of the Parole Board or who has been denied release based on a thorough in-person risk assessment.

My office first began addressing this issue in 2006-07. We wrote to then Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day in March 2008 expressing our concern about a warden’s ability to grant escorted temporary absences. The notion of the transformation of the federal corrections system was a hot topic at this time, with an increased focus on offender accountability and responsibility. We wrote that continuing to allow offenders to bypass the Parole Board and return to the community with only a warden’s authority was far from ensuring that the offender was responsible or accountable.

We still feel that allowing wardens to grant ETAs places offenders in the community through a fraudulent process, one that allows them to avoid responsibility for their crimes and accountability to those who have been harmed. The release of these offenders back into the community should be a decision made only by the Parole Board, following the thorough questioning of the offender in an open public hearing where victims can attend and raise their concerns, if they wish to do so.

In 2007, Zachary Finley was granted a number of escorted temporary absences by a Quebec warden even though his institutional conduct during his incarceration was deplorable. He went from medium to maximum security frequently, escaping, injuring CSC staff, and was also involved in a riot. He continued to torment his victims from within the institution, withdrawing his application to go before the Parole Board 11 times. In this case, the warden refused to share with the victims or with my agency acting on their behalf any indications of the positive progress that Finley had made which would allow him to grant Finley such a generous ETA package. We saw this as a clear strategic tactic by the CSC to recklessly reinsert an offender into the community who had little chance of success before the board.

The CRCVC is concerned about how frequently offenders are returning to the community thanks to wardens across Canada.

On February 27, 2014, the St. Catharines Standard reported on the 1990 case of Peter John Peters, who raped and repeatedly stabbed Sandie Bellows, promising to return and kill her if and when he was released from prison. In November 2013, the Parole Board ruled that Peters would not be granted the privilege of temporary releases. The victim was very relieved, given the fact he was serving three life sentences for the attack on Bellows and the murders of two other people. The board deemed that he was too much of a risk.

Two months later, Ms. Bellows received a call from CSC informing her that Peters was seeking approval from the prison warden to have escorted day passes despite the recent Parole Board denial. Although Peters was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences and as recently as 2007 had escaped from a minimum security prison in B.C.—he was recaptured 24 hours later—the warden was assessing him for passes for personal development.

In Ms. Bellows’ case, she was given the chance to file a written submission to the warden by March 12, something that other victims who we have helped have not been offered the chance to do, as there is no right for victims to attend the decision-making process when a warden makes ETA decisions, nor is there a statutory right for victims to make a statement to the warden.

The board of directors of the CRCVC feels the process that allows wardens to grant ETAs to offenders serving life does not assess risk as thoroughly as the release decision-making process undertaken by the Parole Board. We believe this allows offenders to avoid accountability for the harms they have caused and closes the decision-making process to the public.

We understand that ETA decisions are made independently by CSC wardens after reviewing a recommendation made by an institutional committee. Offenders serving life sentences who have reached their unescorted temporary absence eligibility date can be granted ETAs behind closed doors and without involving affected parties, such as the victims. The loophole is a somewhat of a free pass for some offenders, who realize that they have limited chance of success before the Parole Board, perhaps due to poor institutional conduct, a failure to complete treatment programs, or simply not wanting to answer to the board or to their victims.

We feel that the current process provides an avenue for CSC to move offenders into the community without any real sense of accountability to the community or the victims. In our opinion, CSC is too involved in the management of the offender’s case to make an independent and unbiased decision. Giving the Parole Board sole discretion over ETAs, except in emergency medical situations, will allow for a more consistent process, one where all offender hearings are in depth and allow for public scrutiny.

In the past, there was a minister’s directive that required the board’s input into decisions made by wardens, recognizing that the board should have input into such decisions. However, this policy was cancelled by the Federal Court in McCabe in 2001.

The CRCVC understands that the Parole Board made only 174 ETA decisions in 2012-13. We understand that during that same time period, 2,742 offenders were granted 48,006 ETAs by CSC. It is important to note that CSC does not break down the information, so these statistics don't apply only to lifers, but in general, CSC authorizes significantly higher numbers of ETAs than the PBC.

We would prefer that offenders be returned to the community following in-depth questioning in a process that is open and accountable to the public and the victims and that allows victims a voice in the proceedings should they choose to participate. Offenders should not be granted releases by CSC in order to make them look good for a future parole hearing.

The way the system currently operates allows offenders who may have been denied parole, or who have cancelled numerous hearings before the board, to still be granted ETAs by their wardens and enter the community under the guise of personal development. We do not believe that this is in the interest of public safety. Before any sort of release, offenders should have to prove to the Parole Board that they have completed the appropriate programming, conducted themselves positively, and made significant progress in addressing their reasons for offending.

We urge the committee to pass this enactment that amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to limit the authority of the institutional head to authorize the escorted temporary absence of an offender convicted of first or second degree murder. We believe this will ensure that offenders being released into the general public undergo a very thorough Parole Board assessment of risk that is both open to the public and independent.

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Ms. Gray-Donald, thank you very kindly for your presentation today.

We now have a third witness for the first hour. From the Correctional Service of Canada, we have Commissioner Don Head.

You have the floor, sir.

3:50 p.m.

Don Head Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

l'm pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss private member's Bill C-483, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The bill proposes to give the Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, almost exclusive authority to make decisions with respect to escorted temporary absences for those federal offenders who are serving sentences for first or second degree murder.

As you have heard from previous witnesses, escorted temporary absences, or ETAs, play an important role in the reintegration process of federal offenders. ETAs are a type of release in which an offender temporarily leaves a federal institution under escort. They can allow an offender to work towards elements of their correctional plan, to maintain relationships with sources of support in the community, to attend court obligations, or to receive medical attention. Moreover, ETAs are often the first opportunity for incarcerated offenders to be released into a community setting, and they afford them a critical opportunity to establish their credibility in order to ultimately be considered for conditional release in the community. Indeed, ETAs frequently represent the first step in a structured and gradual reintegration process.

Following the testimonies provided by the witnesses who last appeared before this committee, I believe members are familiar with the current legislative framework for ETAs, and therefore, I will not further elaborate on that point. However, I will provide information regarding CSC's role in the ETA process and in considering victims throughout this process. I will also provide some statistical information on this type of release. I will then conclude my remarks by briefly discussing the impact that Bill C-483, should it become law, would have on the Correctional Service of Canada.

The current process for an ETA begins with the receipt of an inmate's application, which the inmate's case management team will thoroughly review against the objectives of his or her correctional plan. The team will assess the level of risk posed to public safety and determine the need to impose any special conditions deemed necessary to manage an offender's risk. Based on the case management team's assessment, a recommendation is submitted to the decision-making authority.

Where CSC has granting authority, the application is made to the institutional head, and in cases where the PBC is the granting authority, the decision is made by way of a hearing or an in-office file review. During the assessment the case management team must consult with CSC's victim services unit in order to ensure that registered victims are informed of an ETA application. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act states that CSC must disclose the eligibility and review dates for parole and temporary absences to registered victims unless they request that CSC not do so. Of importance, CSC does inform registered victims when an offender has requested an ETA for which CSC is the releasing authority.

When CSC is the releasing authority, it considers victims' concerns and previous PBC concerns and decisions during case preparation. For instance, if a CSC decision is contrary to a previous Parole Board of Canada decision, CSC decision-makers must fully document the rationale for such a decision and demonstrate how concerns previously raised by the PBC have or have not been addressed within the context of the overall assessment of risk.

I would like to inform this committee that recently, since February 2014, CSC promulgated an internal case management policy which requires CSC's victim services unit to inform registered victims that they can submit an up-to-date statement for consideration, intended for the decision-maker, outlining any concerns they may have with respect to release destinations and special conditions, thus strengthening victim consideration in the decision-making process.

Mr. Chair, CSC's victim services will specifically ask victims to advise if they have any concerns about potential release locations and/or requests for conditions in view of an offender's eventual release on an ETA. All information provided to victim services is information that must be considered in the offender's release planning and can be detailed in case preparation and assessment documentation. In cases of an emergency escorted temporary absence, given the tight timeframes, any new information about victim concerns is to be submitted to the case management team and ultimately the releasing authority as soon as possible. This consultation process does not apply to medical emergency situations.

As I mentioned, CSC's victim services unit contacts all registered victims in advance of an offender being released on an ETA and will disclose the date and time of ETA, the destination, the duration, the conditions, and the reasons for the ETA.

If at any time the known safety concerns of registered victims cannot be properly addressed, the ETA is denied or cancelled.

Finally, once an offender completes an ETA, CSC is required to conduct an assessment in order to ensure that the initial objectives of the escorted temporary absence were successfully met. Research has demonstrated that inmates participating in reintegration ETAs prior to release on day parole, full parole, or statutory release have lower rates of readmission than similarly matched offenders who did not have a temporary absence. The data demonstrate that 78% of the offenders serving first or second degree murder sentences in the community participated in at least one successful ETA during their period of incarceration.

Mr. Chair, the total number of ETA decisions made by CSC increased by 13% from 2008-09, which reflected 1,223 decisions, to 1,383 decisions in 2012-13 for inmates serving a sentence for first- or second-degree murder. Of those ETA decisions, between 78% and 85% were approved by CSC, and approximately half were granted for the purpose of personal development for rehabilitative purposes. The percentage of successful ETAs for offenders sentenced to first- or second-degree murder at all security levels has remained constant since 2006-07, and that's been around 99%.

In concrete terms, since 2006-07, out of the 118,735 ETA permits granted to this group of offenders, 728 ETA permits were deemed unsuccessful. The majority of unsuccessful ETAs were attributed to offenders returning to the institution late, suspension of the ETA while in progress, and termination for reasons beyond the control of the offender.

Under this proposed private member's bill, CSC would retain the responsibility for the case preparation and assessment associated with escorted temporary absence applications regardless of the releasing authority. As such the anticipated effect to CSC's day-to-day activities would primarily be in the area of case management workload potentially being increased in relation to the preparation for more Parole Board of Canada hearings, and delivering presentations at those hearings.

Mr. Chair, CSC is committed to the successful rehabilitation of all federal offenders, and at the same time delivering the best possible public safety results to Canadians. Indeed, by continuing to allow inmates to maintain family and community ties and to participate in rehabilitative activities through ETAs, offenders are more likely to be successful once released into the community.

However, regardless of whether or not an offender is serving a life sentence for first- or second-degree murder, or whether a release decision rests with the CSC or the Parole Board of Canada, my staff will always ensure that all applications are assessed with the greatest consideration of the risk that he or she poses to the community, the concerns of victims, and the objectives of an offender's correctional plan. Should Bill C-483 become law, my staff will continue to provide the same thorough assessments for all escorted temporary absence decisions, and will assist our colleagues at the Parole Board of Canada in making the decisions that appropriately balance the rehabilitation of an offender with the concerns of victims and the safety of Canadian communities.

In closing, the Correctional Service of Canada will continue encouraging victims of offenders to register with CSC to receive timely information about the offender who harmed them. As well, the service values receiving information about the impact of the offence on the victim, and encourages victims to provide a victim statement, which is used by CSC during the decision process.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you today. At this time, I would be happy to take any questions you may have.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Mr. Head, for appearing today.

We will now go to our round of questions.

For the first question, we have Ms. James.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all of our witnesses here today.

Ms. Hancox, thank you for coming. I know this was difficult, and I really appreciate your presence here at this committee on this particular bill.

Throughout your opening remarks you talked about being part of the process with respect to parole hearings and the justice system, leading up to just recently. Why do you feel it's important to be able to attend parole hearings to be part of that process to speak on behalf of your husband? Why is it so important to be part of that as a victim?

4 p.m.

As an Individual

Kim Hancox

Fifteen years ago, when I started all of this, I think victims really had very little input into the process. Time has moved forward, and victims are allowed to present impact statements and attend hearings. It's a much more open and transparent exercise.

How does that benefit me in particular? There are no surprises. I know what I'm dealing with. Information is power. Knowledge is power. It empowers a victim to know what's going on with an inmate. When you send an inmate off to serve a sentence, you have no idea what their life involves anymore. When you submit a victim impact statement for the purposes of a hearing, that impact statement is shared with the offender. Everything you submit, actually, that goes into the offender's file is shared with the offender.

For a victim, the only way you have the ability to be a part of that process and know what advances or not the offender is making within their incarceration period is to attend a hearing, and to receive reports from the Parole Board, because you get to listen. They talk about their programs. They talk about their progress or lack thereof. You get a really good understanding and a sense of how things are going. You're heard. Your concerns are heard.

When I submit an impact statement, I'm speaking not only only for myself and my kids, but I'm speaking for my husband as well. I feel that even the people who've been taken from us have a voice in all of this, and it's my obligation to be that voice.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

You said in your opening remarks that you've always been active in learning and in understanding the developments and decisions that have arisen in an attempt to be prepared for whatever comes next. In 2010 you attended a Parole Board hearing, and you felt confident leaving that hearing. Eighteen months later, were you prepared to learn that Ms. Cece had been released on a 60-day work release ETA?

4 p.m.

As an Individual

Kim Hancox

No, not at all.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

I'm trying to understand, because to me it's almost like you were shut out of the process as soon as the remaining three years of that particular sentence occurred. You were all of a sudden shut out of the process, from being someone who was able to participate, be involved, and know what was going on, for various reasons.

I'm just wondering how you felt, knowing that this was now the case.

4 p.m.

As an Individual

Kim Hancox

Honestly, I didn't know what to think. I was under the understanding, as I had read the legislation, not deeply enough, obviously, that the Parole Board was responsible for life-serving inmates through their entire process with respect to medical appointments and court dates and things like that, but both of the offenders in my case had been released on numerous times through the warden's authority.

I couldn't understand for the life of me why, within this three-year period, all of the rules changed. I said to my victim services officer, who I have a great relationship with and is a wealth of knowledge and information for me, that I just didn't understand. What did the warden review? What did the warden read that I didn't see at the parole hearing?

I don't understand how things could have changed so drastically.This is not a well-behaved offender. She has been involved in many, many discipline issues. At that point, going 13 years or so into the process, she was a very colourful offender.

I couldn't understand it for the life of me. Plus I was not allowed to know what the warden had reviewed. Clearly the warden had reviewed something, but it was not disclosed to me.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

You went from the ability to fully participate to simply receiving notification that this person had been released.

4 p.m.

As an Individual

Kim Hancox

Yes. Not only was she just released on an ETA, but she was released on a 60-day work release and moved outside of the institution. She served that 60-day work release with unlimited ETAs while living in a halfway house.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Actually, you brought up a good question, one that I asked the Parole Board of Canada in the last meeting. For example, in a 25-year life sentence, up until the end of 22 years, they have to go through the scrutiny of the Parole Board. It's an extensive risk assessment process that they go through. That could actually happen right up until the last day of that period. Then the very next day it hits this three-year period remaining in their sentence, and all of a sudden it goes to a completely different body, with a completely different set of rules, in order to determine whether they should be eligible to have that temporary release. I find that quite troubling.

Commissioner, thank you for coming. You appeared on my bill as well, so it's nice to see you again. Perhaps you could answer that question of why it was ever legislated that....

The Parole Board of Canada deals with the most severe of crimes, first- and second-degree murder. There must be a reason they deal with that throughout the first 22 years and why all of a sudden you hit that wall, that three-year hump, and all of a sudden it goes to a different body.

Maybe you have some insight into that, because the Parole Board of Canada had trouble answering that. They're obviously taking on the most serious of crimes and criminals, and all of a sudden it gets changed.

4:05 p.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

Thank you for the question.

It really is a historical issue, one that predates the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and goes back to the old penitentiary and parole acts when they were in place.

There's nothing magical about three years. I think, as was pointed out by the witnesses today, three years was a decision that was made, approved, and passed by Parliament with the understanding that as individuals get closer to the parole eligibility date, there may be the need to look at opportunities to gradually prepare them for release back into the community, particularly for somebody who served a lengthy period of time in incarceration. If you look at an individual who may have gone into the system 22 years ago, many of the pieces of technology you have on the table here are totally foreign to those individuals. I remember talking to an individual who had committed robbery who had never even seen an ATM machine until going out.

That period of time was meant to find opportunities for gradual release, leading into those longer-term releases, which we call day parole and full parole. There is some history behind it, but there is nothing magical about the three-year window.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison, it's your turn, please.

March 27th, 2014 / 4:05 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Thank you to all three witnesses for appearing today. In particular thank you, Ms. Hancox. I know it's always difficult, but I applaud your tenacity in defending your rights as a victim. Also, Ms. Gray-Donald, I know the work of your organization.

When we have three people on the panel, it presents a difficult dilemma for us as MPs because our questioning time becomes very short. I'm going to focus most of my time on Mr. Head. I do appreciate your presentation.

We've had some confusion expressed, I think, between parole and escorted temporary absences. I understand why those who don't work in the field or don't have daily contact with it might see the two as the same, but can you explain to us the differences between the two?

4:05 p.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

Yes. Very simply, the difference between parole and a temporary absence is just in the nature of the name. A temporary absence is meant for very short periods of time. Parole is meant for an individual going out into the community with some very specified conditions, with the understanding that if the individual does not cause any problems, does not violate those conditions, the individual would end up doing the remainder of their sentence in the community. That's the very simplistic explanation.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

The concept is you're using the temporary absence to test the ability perhaps for someone to take the responsibility for the unlimited absence.

4:05 p.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

Yes. Many times we'll get day parole decisions from the Parole Board whereby they'll deny day parole for an individual, with the understanding that we would use the temporary absence regime to test the offender so they in turn can make a subsequent decision about parole the next time there's a review of the case.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Could you comment on the amount of supervision involved?

4:05 p.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

The supervision for an escorted temporary absence is constant. If you're using it in comparison to parole—

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Or day parole.