Bill C-483 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence)

This enactment 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.

Criminal Code

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to report that private member's bill, BillC-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), passed third reading in the Senate yesterday. I would like to thank the members of the House and the Senate for supporting the bill.

The bill deals with release provisions for escorted temporary absences of offenders serving life sentences. Now offenders will remain under the control of the National Parole Board for the duration of their term. This means that the families of victims will retain having their concerns heard and taken into account when decisions regarding escorted temporary absences are being made for those serving sentences for the most heinous crimes. The bill also ensures that decision makers are accountable to the public for the approval or refusal of an escorted temporary absence.

I would also like to especially thank Kim Hancox, the widow of Detective Constable William Hancox, for all of her time, effort and support for this bill. I look forward to seeing it become enacted into law soon.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I too congratulate the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale on bringing forward this legislation and getting it to this stage. I do expect it to pass in the House. The Liberal Party will be supporting the bill at this stage.

I want to draw on a couple of points that were mentioned by the NDP member who just spoke. He indicated there were amendments by opposition members—and very good amendments, I believe—that did not get the consideration that they should have at committee.

I agree with the member that video conferencing for victims was a sensible request. It would reduce cost and reduce stress on victims from having to appear in the same room with an offender. Turning down that amendment was a mistake.

The other point the member raised, which I will also not elaborate on, is that at the end of the day, public safety is key. If offenders, because of the longer time between hearings, find themselves unable to enter a rehabilitation program, that is a dilemma in terms of public safety. It could increase the risk of those offenders reoffending when they get back into society.

Given that the key element of the legislation, namely that the discretion of the parole board to conduct its tasks would not be infringed, it is our intention to support the bill.

The intent by the mover to ensure that victims of crime are considered remains. This was the cornerstone of previous Liberal initiatives and came into strong focus with the 2003 Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime that was negotiated between federal and provincial governments at that time.

The problem with this legislation, as with many private members' bills coming forward from government members relating to public safety, is the extent to which the government, through Department of Justice lawyers, has had to intervene to amend the legislation to bring it into line both legally and constitutionally.

The trouble begins in part with the statements at the beginning, when the legislation is brought into the House. I see it this way. This legislation was brought in and went to committee. Witnesses came before committee based on the original bill. They were supportive of the original bill because it proposed to do a, b, c, and d in terms of victims rights. After the hearings were over and the witnesses left town—and I have said this with previous bills—legal counsel with either the Department of Justice or Public Safety Canada came in and made a number of government amendments that, in my view, substantially changed the legislation. As a result, the bill has ended up not being the same as it was when the mover of the bill talked about it at the beginning.

Even at report stage, the government is still trying to clean up the bill in an effort to bring it more in line with what is legally acceptable. By my count, the government introduced and passed nine amendments to what was originally a seven-clause bill. This ensured that the legislation would be in conformance with the legal requirements of any legislation.

It should be noted, for example, that the legislation now before the House does reinforce the idea that the requirements for Correctional Service of Canada, or in this case the Parole Board, to disclose certain information to victims related to offenders are not requirements without limitations. The power of the Parole Board to use its discretion has remained with the provisions of the act and within Bill C-479.

One of the concerns that has arisen is the contradictory nature of private members' legislation that is related to the government's tough on crime agenda and that comes from government members. I have raised this issue in the House and at committee. It relates to government members having a somewhat confused agenda. I cannot understand it. My colleague as well previously mentioned that there needs to be more coordination with the government itself in terms of legislation coming forward.

Why does the Minister of Justice not coordinate all these interests and private members' bills in a substantive way? That way, they would perhaps not be in conflict with one another, and the government would also be less likely to see legislation turned back by a superior court.

The principle behind Bill C-479 was to reduce the number of Parole Board hearings to which victims would be subjected. During the course of testimony before the public safety committee, it was emphasized that this legislation was necessary to minimize the re-victimization of victims.

The House needs to understand, and rightly so, that we heard some pretty sad stories from victims before the committee. When they have to prepare victim impact statements, go to a Parole Board hearing—sometimes practically without any notice—and then have to do it again in two years, it is the re-victimization of victims.

However, as members will find out later in my remarks, it appeared that the intent of the bill was to change that period to five years. That did not really happen at all. There is the possibility it could go to five years, but it could also remain at two. It is at the discretion of the Parole Board.

My concern, as I stated earlier in my remarks, is that victims who came before the committee actually believed that it would be five years. It is not so now. It could be two or it could be five or it could be four. It is at the discretion of the Appeal Board. The intent and the stated fact of what the bill would do did not really happen.

However, we then have the contradiction that I also want to mention. The principle of Bill C-483 was to increase the number of Parole Board hearings related to escorted temporary absences, thus creating further hearings to which victims would be subjected.

On the one hand we have a bill that is trying to reduce the number of Parole Board hearings, and on the other hand we have another bill in contradiction to that, trying to stretch them out.

The question victims and victims' organizations should ask themselves is straightforward: since government members speak to each other, why do they not coordinate this in a substantive way so that we have an overall strategy that works in harmony rather than in conflict?

Let me close by saying that my concern with this process is that when the bill is presented, it states one thing, but then, after the witnesses leave town, justice lawyers come in and amend it. We then have a substantively different bill, one that does not do what backbench Conservatives claimed in the first instance it would do. We have seen this on several bills now.

However, there are some good points in the bill. It is a step forward, and at the end of the day we will support it. However, I want to tell victims that it is not all they were told it would be in the beginning.

Public Safety

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night the House passed my Bill C-483. The bill would ensure that the Parole Board of Canada would make decisions related to the release of prisoners on escorted temporary absences. It would stop the process of allowing unaccountable bureaucrats the authority to make decisions about who could leave prison.

The bill came about as the result of an absurd decision to let a convicted cop killer out of prison after he had already been denied parole. The widow of the police officer, Kim Hancox, was fully supportive of my legislation.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on the bill?

The House resumed from May 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), be read the third time and passed.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Oxford, once again for his demonstrated commitment to supporting victims of crime. Whether it is his great work as a member of Parliament or his numerous years as a law enforcement officer, he has spent his life keeping Canadians safe.

It was this member who brought forward the bill we are discussing today, which would further strengthen victims' participation in the corrections and conditional release systems.

As all members of the House know, our Conservative government has taken strong action to support victims of crime. We believe that the criminal justice system must provide victims with an opportunity to have their voices heard.

Since 2006, we have established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to provide information on victims' rights and services for victims, to receive complaints, and to raise awareness of victims' concerns among policy-makers and in the justice system. We have also made the rights of victims a priority in our reforms to the justice system and have recently followed through on our commitment in the Speech from the Throne to introduce legislation to create a Canadian victims bill of rights.

Our government is determined to do more and will continue to listen to the concerns being raised by victims. Our commitment is that we will act on victims' concerns to ensure that we provide them with the support they need.

Simply put, an escorted temporary absence is a short temporary release of an inmate into the community under escort. There are two types of ETAs. These are rehabilitative and non-rehabilitative. As it stands now, ETAs for inmates serving minimum life sentences must first be approved by the Parole Board of Canada before being authorized by Correctional Service Canada. This scheme is found in the Criminal Code, which states that the Parole Board of Canada has to approve ETAs for inmates serving minimum life sentences from the start of a life sentence up until he or she reaches day parole eligibility.

Once an inmate reaches day parole eligibility, Correctional Service Canada's authorization of ETAs is no longer subject to the Parole Board of Canada's approval. In other words, if an inmate who is serving a life sentence is never granted parole, Correctional Service Canada remains the releasing authority for ETAs for the remainder of the sentence.

The Criminal Code also states that although the Parole Board has the authority to approve ETAs up until day parole eligibility, Correctional Service Canada has the authority to grant temporary absences for medical reasons, court proceedings, or coroners' inquests at any time in an inmate's life sentence. While the current regime works well in that almost all ETAs are successfully completed, we feel that it is important to consider the position of victims.

Prior to the introduction of this bill, we heard from victims that the Parole Board of Canada needed greater decision-making authority over these types of absences. During the study of the bill, committee members were given an opportunity to hear first-hand how the ETA scheme currently operates and what concerns members of the public have about the current system. Among the witnesses who appeared at committee were victims support groups and victims themselves, who shared their concerns about the current system and questioned why ETA releasing authority is transferred to Correctional Service Canada.

We heard from a witness who said that victims are asking for an open, transparent, and accountable system. On the point of accountability, we heard that the current ETA system does not go far enough in terms of adequate checks and balances. Victims believe that the power to grant ETAs more appropriately belongs within the Parole Board of Canada, through which it is felt there is increased rigour and accountability involved in making these types of release decisions. Our government wholeheartedly agrees.

Bill C-483 would do just what victims have asked us to do. It would give the Parole Board of Canada almost exclusive authority to grant ETAs to inmates who are serving minimum life sentences. That is the primary reason we support this proposed legislation.

That being said, our government felt it was important to introduce amendments at committee to ensure the sound application of the measures laid out in this proposed legislation. We are pleased that two government motions were adopted at committee stage. These motions would work in tandem to give the Parole Board of Canada greater authority over escorted temporary absences. The bill, as amended, would ensure that the Parole Board would maintain decision-making authority for ETAs after an inmate reached day parole eligibility. In other words, the amendment would ensure that decision-making authority for ETAs would not continue to be automatically transferred to Correctional Service Canada once an inmate reached his or her day parole eligibility date.

We have also ensured that Correctional Service Canada wardens would have limited authority to authorize ETAs for inmates serving minimum life sentences. Under the proposed scheme, if an inmate was never granted a rehabilitative ETA, or if an inmate was unable to successfully complete this type of ETA, the Parole Board would remain the releasing authority for the entirety of his or her custodial sentence.

By virtue of our amendments, the only time rehabilitative ETAs would be granted by Correctional Service Canada is if an inmate successfully completed a rehabilitative ETA after day parole eligibility. Only at that time would CSC be able to take over as releasing authority.

Although the proposed scheme would allow ETA releasing authority to be transferred to CSC in limited circumstances, we would also ensure that the authority could revert back to the Parole Board as needed. When would this occur? If an inmate failed to successfully complete an ETA authorized by CSC, releasing authority would go back to the Parole Board.

These amendments respect the spirit of the bill, which is to ensure that the ETA decision-making authority stays almost exclusively in the hands of the Parole Board of Canada. In addition to respecting the intended objective of the bill, the amendments would also ensure legislative harmony between the ETA scheme in the Criminal Code and the scheme we are proposing in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The ETA schemes in both pieces of legislation would work together to ensure that the Parole Board had greater authority over escorted temporary absences for inmates serving minimum life sentences. The Criminal Code would continue to give the Parole Board authority to approve ETAs from the start of a life sentence up until day parole eligibility. Once at day parole eligibility, the ETA scheme we are proposing in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would take over and would state that the Parole Board would continue to have decision-making authority over ETAs.

This bill builds on the strong measures we have taken to support victims of crime and to improve our federal correctional system. I hope that all members will support us in our goal to improve the rights of victims, and I ask for full support to pass this bill as amended.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand at third reading to further discuss Bill C-483.

As I indicated in my question, I listened to the member for Oxford as he spoke on the third reading of this bill. What he did not say, though, was that this was now a substantially different bill than was originally introduced. I personally believe we are seeing a pattern where backbench members introduce private members' bills with all of these quite out there intentions in terms of protecting victims.

A set of hearings are held on original bills. Quite a number of witnesses come in and make presentations based on original bills. After the hearings are done, the Department of Justice comes in and sometimes makes more amendments than there are clauses in the bill, which means it is a substantially different bill at the end of the day. The victims who have come before the committee, at the request of Conservative members, still believe the bill is in its original intent. However, it is not. Justice has come in and changed the bill substantially.

In my view, to a great extent victims are being misled on what legislation is being implemented here at the end of the day. The original intent of Bill C-483 would have required the full participation of the Parole Board of Canada in virtually all escorted temporary absences for those convicted of either first or second degree murder rather than the warden of federal institutions being responsible for that program.

The targeting of only those convicted of first and second degree murder in this legislation implies that both the number of offenders involved and the likelihood of their early release represents a threat to the community. The information by the promoter of the bill identifies a single case of the release of an offender on the authority of the warden of the institution who had been denied a similar request the year prior. No evidence was provided that the offender in question committed any offence while on temporary release. The legislation as it was originally presented to the House was not supported by evidence indicating an abuse of the escorted temporary release program, which would justify such legislative change.

Even in its current form, it remains to be seen as to what degree the legislation is actually addressing an issue or whether it is an example of the Conservatives playing to their base and creating an issue. If the issue was what was stated in the beginning with this legislation, then why the amendments by the Department of Justice?

As I said earlier, when victims come before the committee, they base their decisions on the original legislation, which in this case is that the Parole Board would have to review all escorted temporary absences. That is no longer the case because the bill has been substantially amended by the Department of Justice after the witnesses presented at the hearings. It certainly does not look at the evidence of the witnesses who came before the committee because the witnesses wanted to go a bit further in many cases.

What evidence has been produced has indicated that ETA program, or escorted temporary absences, as currently structured, basically has a 99% success rate. That has to be said.

Escorted temporary absences are granted to allow offenders to obtain treatment that is unavailable in a penitentiary, to be with critically ill family members, to attend funerals, and to prepare for other types of conditional release. During these absences, an offender is escorted by a Correctional Service Canada staff member or a trained citizen escort.

Offenders are eligible for an ETA at any time during their sentences. The duration of an ETA varies from an unlimited period for medical reasons to not more than 15 days for any other specified reason. Wardens typically authorize ETAs. In certain instances, for offenders serving life sentences, Parole Board of Canada approval is required.

The category of escorted temporary release, as defined above, in 2011-12, involved 2,675 offenders, and for all categories and all offenders it was granted on 44,182 occasions.

The point was raised by some witnesses that the government should be taking control of its justice agenda and should introduce well-thought-out and carefully drafted legislation, rather than using the private members' bill process, which has required government intervention during the committee process to bring the private members' bills into conformity with Canadian law.

As I said, and I really want to emphasize this point at third reading, some 16 private members' bills have been brought forward by backbench members on the government side. We have seen some challenges in the courts to some of the legislation coming out of this place. When witnesses come before committee on various private members' bills, they look at the original bill and everything that is intended to be done by the original bill. The hearing process is based on that.

As I said, there are 16 different bills we have seen or that are yet to come forward.

With respect to this particular legislation, the NDP proposed an amendment. That amendment was based on evidence that witnesses had produced before committee. The Liberal Party also had an amendment, which would have changed the word “may” to “shall”, to make it compulsory for the Department of Justice and the correctional release system to do such and such.

The opposition parties had amendments based on the evidence of witnesses who appeared before committee. What happened at the end of the day? The Department of Justice or Public Safety Canada, somewhere on the government side, or someone within the bureaucracy, decided to make a number of amendments. They are usually made to soften legislation from its original intent and to narrow the focus, so the bill is substantially different. That is the problem I have with the way the government is proceeding with all of these bills, not just this particular bill.

On April 1, the government presented its amendments to Bill C-483 at the public safety committee. That is where my concerns arise.

The government's amendment, however, has undermined the principle of the legislation. It was presented to the House in the third report of the committee. I am running out of time, so I will not go into it, but it is available in the committee record.

The principle of the bill, as the witnesses who appeared before the committee testified, which was that decisions related to the authority to grant ETAs would be removed from the office of the wardens of the institutions and would be placed under the control of the Parole Board of Canada, has been removed from the bill. The intent that all temporary absences be approved by the Parole Board is no longer there. That changes the bill.

We will support Bill C-483, but it has substantially changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today in support of the member for Oxford's private member's bill, Bill C-482. On this side of the House, we share the concern of all Canadians for the victims of crime and we support initiatives that will help to better support those victims within the legal process, which for victims can often be bewildering and often forces them, on a repeated basis, to relive the emotional impacts of victimization. Therefore, anything we can do to make that legal process easier for victims, while allowing them to have that input, is certainly something worthy of support.

However, on this side of the House, we are also concerned about assistance to victims of crime in helping put their lives back together. We have some concerns that the private members' bills that have come forward, and even the government's victims bill of rights, neglect that part of treating victims fairly, that assistance to them in getting counselling or whatever else they need to get back to whatever they can of their previous life.

Some of this is in provincial jurisdiction, but I am concerned that most provinces have severely underfunded their victims' compensation funds and in some of the provinces, including all the provinces in the Atlantic, these funds have actually been eliminated. Examples of assistance that people might need, let us say if they had a loved one murdered who was the sole breadwinner, are job training to get back into the workforce or those kinds of assistance that we often forget about in focusing on the legal process, which is important. However. there is another side to this.

On this side of the House, we are also concerned that we take measures to ensure we do not create new victims, and that means both effective crime prevention and rehabilitation programs.

We understand the concern that many victims have about escorted temporary absences. We know that to many of them it feels like some kind of early release or privilege to which the perpetrators are not entitled. Therefore, helping victims better understand the process and participate in that is a worthy objective.

We clearly understand the need to prevent surprise encounters. We have had too many instances where families have not known that someone is actually out on escorted temporary absences and they might run into them in the community, which is a great shock to them. I know Correctional Services Canada endeavours to ensure that this does not happen. This bill would actually strengthen the requirements to give notice to victims of those temporary absences.

There is another concern about escorted temporary absences, which I raised just a moment ago in the question for the member for Oxford; that is the safety of those absences both for the public and for the Correctional Service employees of those who are serving sentences for the most serious crimes.

At committee, we urged the government to place in legislation the requirement that those first escorted temporary absences for those serving sentences for murder be accompanied by two fully trained Correctional Service employees, not just one employee. The most serious problems we have had with escorted temporary absences have always been on early escorted absences for those convicted of murder.

Recently in 2011 in Drumheller, we unfortunately had an incident where a convicted murderer was being escorted by a single corrections staff in a non-secured vehicle. The person escaped and took hostages. This creates both a threat to the public and to the corrections staff involved. We were disappointed that the government was not interested in accepting this additional improvement to legislation.

We did support the bill at second reading, but we had some concerns about the original version of the bill. As I said before, I was pleased that the member for Oxford and the government side were prepared to accept a compromise version of the bill that we had suggested. In its main provisions, the bill is substantially different, although not different in principle, than what was originally introduced.

The member for Oxford talked about the current provision for those convicted of serious crimes in which the warden would become the granting authority for escorted temporary absences in the three years immediately prior to parole. The bill would now create a workable situation where the Parole Board would still have the first authority to decide on escorted temporary absences.

If the bill had remained as in its first version, we were concerned that the Parole Board would conduct all hearings into escorted temporary absences and, frankly, that was not workable. That would have required, in the estimates of officials, an additional 900 hearings at the Parole Board every year, placing a large burden upon the Parole Board and also placing a very large burden upon victims who would have had to submit impact statements at each of those additional 900 hearings.

The compromise that has been adopted will have the Parole Board make that initial decision before escorted temporary absences are granted. Then, if there are no problems, additional escorted temporary absences can be granted by the warden. We think that is quite workable and it guarantees a role in that initial decision for victims.

The other provision is that if people fail in their escorted temporary absences, and it does not have to be a hostage taking, then it would go back to the Parole Board, not just to the warden, for a decision on whether they should be granted future escorted temporary absences. Again, on this side, we think that is a reasonable provision. It will also allow victims to have a say at that time. If people had done something which violated the terms of their temporary absence, then the victims would get to talk about that and make their opinions known.

Again, the compromise is important, both in protecting the rights of victims to have input and in not interfering with the role of escorted temporary absences as part of a rehabilitation program. When we stop to think about it, escorted temporary absences are the first step on that road to recovery for many of those who have been convicted of serious crimes and it is a way of testing whether they are ready to go out into the public. Therefore, is important that they be under supervision the first time they are released.

The second part to rehabilitation is that escorted temporary absences create an incentive to complete rehabilitation programs, an incentive to move along through the correctional plan so when those people return to the community, they are not the same as they were when they originally committed those serious crimes. In ensuring that ETAs still play a role in rehabilitation, we will help to guarantee there will not be future victims by the same perpetrators.

I want to stress that we support Bill C-483 in its compromised version. We thank the government for being willing to consider our ideas on this and adopt that compromise. We look forward to having a further debate on how we can have effective crime prevention and rehabilitation programs to prevent their being future victims. When we get to the government's bill on victims' rights, we look forward to talking about how we can provide additional supports, not just rights, to those families that have been victims of serious crime.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

moved that Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-483, the escorted temporary absence act. I firmly believe this bill would provide a good balance between the need to reintegrate prisoners into Canadian society and the need to do everything in our power to keep our streets and communities safe.

Even if we have not been personally affected by crime, it is not hard to imagine the trauma that victims or their loved ones may feel when they learn that the criminals who victimized them have been granted an escorted temporary absence. Regardless of the reason, it is my belief that Canadians want assurances that all possible measures are taken to ensure their safety when the prisoners are in the community. We find these measures in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which outlines the decision-making criteria for escorted temporary absences.

As we have heard in these debates, escorted temporary absences, or ETAs, can be divided into two main categories: those that are obligatory or necessary, as for court proceedings or medical treatment; and those that are for correctional purposes. There is no question that there are circumstances when an inmate must leave a penitentiary for obligatory reasons, such as for court proceedings or medical reasons. In these cases, the releasing authority determines and applies the proper security escorts, up to and including the use of physical restraints. These decisions are for the most part straightforward. Even a high-risk prisoner, for example, must have access to emergency medical treatment when it cannot be provided within penitentiary walls. These types of absence are granted because they are necessary.

It is when we get into the non-obligatory absences, in other words those that are for correctional purposes, that victims become concerned about how decisions are being made to allow the inmate to be absent from a penitentiary. The decision to send an inmate outside penitentiary walls for non-obligatory reasons is made using greater discretion, taking into consideration among other factors whether the absence would contribute to the goals outlined in the inmate's correctional plan.

Today, decisions on escorted temporary absences for inmates serving minimum life sentences are authorized by the penitentiary warden. However, some of them require the approval of the Parole Board of Canada, based on the scheme outlined in the Criminal Code. To be clear, minimum life sentences are imposed for first degree and second degree murder, as well as high treason.

The current ETA scheme for inmates convicted of these offences works as follows. For inmates serving minimum life sentences, the Parole Board must approve the ETA from the start of the sentence up until the time of day parole eligibility. Once at day parole eligibility, the Correctional Service of Canada takes over as the sole releasing authority. For those inmates who committed murder before they turned 18, the Parole Board must approve the ETA from the start of the sentence up until the expiration of all but one-fifth of the specified number of years that the inmate is to serve without parole eligibility. Once at the one-fifth mark, Correctional Service Canada becomes the sole releasing authority.

Over the past several years, our government has made a number of legislative changes that give victims a larger role in the corrections and conditional release system. Of note, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which came into force in 2012, enshrined in law the entitlement of victims to attend parole hearings and to make a statement, and it expanded the definition of who can be considered a victim. Measures like these have contributed to a greater public understanding of the decision-making process surrounding the conditional release of federal offenders. It only stands to reason that victims of crime want every opportunity to make their views known and have their safety considered.

Bill C-483 builds on these efforts, and responds to calls from victims who want the Parole Board to remain the releasing authority for all temporary absences, regardless of when an inmate becomes eligible for parole. Shifting decision-making authority for ETAs to the Parole Board after an inmate reaches day parole eligibility would address victims' concerns. As members of this House know, the bill has received thorough examination in committee, and, as mentioned earlier, the objective of the bill is to provide the Parole Board with greater decision-making authority for ETAs for inmates serving minimum life sentences.

To ensure the bill would meet this goal, amendments were passed in committee so that the Parole Board is explicitly named in the CCRA as the decision-making authority for escorted temporary absences after day parole eligibility. Through these amendments and existing provisions within the Criminal Code, the Parole Board would be responsible for ETAs for the duration of an inmate's life sentence.

At the same time, we have also clarified certain conditions relevant to this authority. For example, if an inmate reaches day parole eligibility and successfully completes a rehabilitative ETA, authority would move to Correctional Service Canada to grant all future escorted temporary absences. At that point, if an inmate breaches any conditions of a subsequent escorted temporary absence granted by Correctional Service Canada, this decision-making authority would revert back to the Parole Board.

Complementary to this, we have moved an amendment to limit the authority of an institutional head of Correctional Service Canada to authorize ETAs to inmates serving life sentences imposed as a minimum punishment. As a further measure to keep the Canadian public safe, the amended bill now states that Correctional Service Canada has authority to cancel all ETAs, including those authorized by the Parole Board if deemed necessary. This particular amendment would ensure that if an inmate's behaviour changes or if there is an issue within the penitentiary that prevents the ETA from taking place, Correctional Service Canada can make the decision to cancel the ETA.

Taken together, these amendments would ensure that the bill meets its intended objective. I ask all members of the House to support this bill as amended, and ensure its swift passage.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

moved that Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in Bill C-483 at report stage under private members' business.

The House resumed from May 2 consideration of Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), as reported with amendment from the committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Malpeque on April 9, 2014, concerning amendments contained in the Third Report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), presented in the House on April 2, 2014.

I would like to thank the member for Malpeque for having raised this important matter. I would also like to thank the government House leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition for their contributions.

In raising his point of order, the member for Malpeque argued that the amendments adopted by the committee had significantly altered the intent of the bill and that these amendments were not in keeping with the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading. In making his argument, the member referred to the second reading debate, during which the sponsor of the bill had indicated its intent as being to provide the National Parole Board of Canada with the authority to grant or cancel escorted temporary absences for offenders convicted of first or second degree murder. The member asserted that the bill’s main purpose was to remove the ability of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences for such offenders.

It was the member's contention that the amendments adopted by the committee, specifically in allowing institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences once the Parole Board had granted an initial absence, were contrary to the principle of the bill. The member is asking the Chair to declare the amendments in question null and void and to direct that they no longer form part of the bill. The House Leader of the Official Opposition rose in support of the member's point of order.

In his intervention, the government House leader contended that the amendments in question were both consistent with the principle of the bill and within its scope. Several procedural authorities were cited to bolster this opinion. He also noted that the chair of the standing committee had ruled that the amendments were in order and that this ruling should be respected.

The government House leader pointed out that the intent of the bill was to involve the National Parole Board of Canada in granting the escorted temporary absences, which would, in turn, involve the victims by providing them with an opportunity to participate in the hearings during such a process. The new provision, in his view, meets that requirement.

Before addressing the particulars of this point of order, I would like to remind the House of the Speaker’s authority in dealing with a report on a bill containing inadmissible amendments. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 775:

The admissibility of...amendments...may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

I have examined the third report of the standing committee, as well as Bill C-483, both in its first reading version and in the reprint containing the committee's amendments. The intent of Bill C-483, as stated in the summary to the first reading copy of the bill, is as follows:

This enactment 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.

The amendment to clause 1 of the bill restructures the bill so that the provisions with regard to the National Parole Board of Canada are removed and later inserted in the subsequent new clause 1.1.

New clause 1.1 of the bill provides that the National Parole Board of Canada is involved in the granting of the initial escorted temporary absence. This process would be very similar to the original provisions previously contained in clause 1. The key difference is a new paragraph that the amendment also added, which provides that:

If the Parole Board of Canada authorizes the temporary absence of an inmate under subsection (1) for community service, family contact, including parental responsibilities, or personal development for rehabilitative purposes and the temporary absence is not cancelled because the inmate has breached a condition, the institutional head may authorize that inmate’s subsequent temporary absences with escort...

This would mean that once the authority is granted by the National Parole Board of Canada for an escorted temporary absence, it remains in place unless it is cancelled. The institutional head may grant subsequent escorted temporary absences only if the original authority from the National Parole Board remains in place. If conditions are breached and the absence is cancelled, authority must be sought anew from the National Parole Board of Canada.

This appears to me to limit the authority of the institutional head in this regard. Escorted temporary absences must still be authorized by the National Parole Board of Canada. What appears to be different in this new provision is the frequency with which authorization must be sought. I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which would alter the aims and intent of the bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences. Therefore, I find that the amendments adopted by the committee are indeed in keeping with the scope and principle of the bill as adopted at second reading and are, therefore, admissible.

Accordingly, the House may proceed with its study of the bill as reported from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I thank the House for its attention.

Motions in Amendment

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That is all right, Mr. Speaker. We did not get many answers.

We will be supporting the bill because the contents and the intent of Bill C-479 remain basically as they were presented to the House during second reading. Given the fact that the key element of the legislation, namely, an effort to reduce the discretion of the parole board to conduct its tasks, has not been infringed, it is our intention to support the bill.

The intent to ensure that victims of crime are considered remains as has been the cornerstone of previous Liberal initiatives, which came into strong focus with the 2003 Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime negotiated between federal and provincial governments.

The problem with this legislation, as with all of the private members' bills from government members related to public safety, is how flawed they are and the extent to which the government, through Department of Justice lawyers, has had to intervene to amend the legislation to bring it into line both legally and constitutionally. We just saw that at the beginning of this discussion tonight, with the ninth amendment to the bill coming forward at this late stage.

The trouble begins with the statements delivered by members moving these bills, as was the case with respect to Bill C-479, that they have been vetted to ensure that they met the legal and constitutional standards expected of legislation coming out of this place. The member who moved Bill C-479 provided the House with the assurance that the bill had met these standards.

The consequences, though, were that when this legislation, similar to other government private members' bills, was brought before the public safety committee, there were substantial and numerous amendments by the government after we held the hearings. Witnesses come before the committee on the basis of the original bill. Then in the very last session the government comes forward with a whole series of amendments, as I said in this case eight at committee and the ninth here, and basically the bill, in my view, is quite often, and this one has as well, has been changed substantially from the intent that the mover of the bill talked about.

One of the concerns that has arisen is the contradictory nature of private members' legislation from government members relative to the government's tough on crime agenda. For example, the principle behind Bill C-479 is to reduce the number of parole board hearings to which victims would be subjected. However, we then have Bill C-483, the principle of which is to increase the number of parole board hearings to which victims would be subjected. The previous NDP speaker also mentioned some of the contradictory nature of the bills coming forward and how it could jeopardize justice in our country.

The question victim and victim organizations should ask themselves is straightforward. Do those government backbenchers over there speak to each other before they bring these contradictory bills forward?

Let us examine what occurred with Bill C-479, a bill well motivated I have no doubt.

Bill C-479 is a seven clause bill that required eight government amendments and the ninth tonight. The first point to bear in mind is that the initial rationale for the bill was to extend the period the parole board could hold a hearing for violent offenders from two to five years. According to the member in whose name the bill stands, his intent was made very clear during testimony before the public safety committee on February 13, at page 3 of the evidence, as to what he wanted to have addressed, “our federal parole process...makes the revictimization of victims and their families an all too frequent occurrence”.

The problem has been, and remains after the changes at committee made by the government itself, that the discretion of the Parole Board remains, in spite of the intention of the member opposite. That was the reason for my question earlier, which I guess was out of order. That was my question earlier to the parliamentary secretary. Basically, we are back to where we were in the beginning. The discretion, whether it is two years or five, remains with the Parole Board.

On this bill, I moved a motion that the condition be changed from “the Parole Board may make such a decision” to “shall”, but the government voted against it. I wanted to make it strictly so that the Parole Board makes such a decision, and government members themselves voted against putting in place that clear direction to the Parole Board.

As has been stated before, the former public safety minister, Vic Toews, was supportive of the bill. At a media event at which the member sponsoring the bill was in attendance on May 8, 2013, he stated that, “The Parole Board has the option of waiting up until five years before a hearing takes place. It can be done sooner”.

The member himself acknowledged that the Parole Board would retain the discretion as to when to conduct a further hearing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness confirmed in testimony before the public safety committee on February 27 the discretion of the Parole Board to convene hearings at its discretion. The point that raised the concerns of the mover of Bill C-479 was being maintained. She said:

...the Parole Board of Canada could still hear, could still have that happen. It doesn't have to wait for five years; it doesn't have to wait for four years. It could actually do it in two years. It could do it in shorter than that as well.

What is the point, then? We have had a lot of propaganda from government members around this bill. They brought the victims in, telling them that this was going to happen, and now we are basically back to where we started. The discretion remains with the Parole Board.

The rhetoric was clear. The purpose of the legislation was to reduce the number of occasions victims might be revictimized by the number of hearings held by the Parole Board. It is clear from the statements of the former public safety minister and the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that the Parole Board has, and will retain, its discretionary authority over when and how many times hearings will be conducted.

That is what people who came forward as witnesses need to understand. What the promoter of the bill said in the beginning, and the end result after the government made amendments to the bill, is that the Parole Board has the discretion to make the decisions. I have to say that there is some smoke and mirrors in terms of these private members' bills coming forward from the government when, at the end of the day, they really have not changed a whole heck of a lot.

I do not question the sincerity of the member who proposed the bill. Clearly, his intentions were what was contained in the bill. Nor do I question the sincerity of those witnesses who testified in supporting the original bill, which the House approved at second reading. What I do question is the deliberate misleading by the Conservative government of victims of crime. When it comes to presenting legislation, it assures these people that the bill will achieve certain objectives for the victims, and then government lawyers intervene to bring those commitments in line with Canadian law and the Constitution.

To the people who came in good faith as witnesses before this bill, I say that they should understand that there have not been a lot of changes. The Parole Board still has the discretion to make the decisions on when the hearings will be held.

We will be supporting the bill at this stage.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to supplement my comments made in an initial response to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Malpeque on Wednesday, April 9, respecting the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-483.

I will tackle two matters in these submissions. The first is to address the subsequent response made by the hon. House leader of the official opposition. The other is to offer some citations in support of my argument.

On April 9, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster intervened and said, “I found the point of order raised by the member for Malpeque to be very compelling. I did not find the intervention from the government House leader very convincing at all”.

I found something that the member just might find convincing: his own party's position at committee. On page 2 of the evidence of the April 1 meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the public safety critic, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, spoke to a question of the scope of the bill and whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill. He said:

...I would have to say in this case, having spent a lot of time looking at the bill, I believe that the amendments by the government make changes that really amend the same sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and they do it by the same means. So to me it would technically seem to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested.

I will repeat that: “...seemed to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested”.

The member went on to say:

Now I have to say I'm very happy because we raised some concerns in the questioning of witnesses and the vast majority of those concerns have been accommodated in these amendments. So I would also be in a very strange position if I said the government actually listened and then I don't think procedurally they can do that.

If the NDP House leader will not find my arguments convincing, I do hope he will at least find his own colleague's arguments persuasive. I do find the arguments from his colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, quite convincing on this point.

It does bear an interesting question for you, Mr. Speaker, of who actually does speak for the NDP: the House leader or its critic. In this case, I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to listen to their critic. However, I digress.

The second part of my submission relates to the assertion of the hon. member for Malpeque, that the amendments adopted by the committee go beyond the scope of the bill. This morning, on another matter, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons read from page 564 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition on the definition of the scope of the bill. It states:

Any amendment (or new clause or new schedule) proposed to a bill must be within its scope. The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases difficult cases of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine its scope.

I would supplement that by reading from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition at paragraph 698(2):

An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.

Paragraph 5 of that Beauchesne's citation states:

An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the second reading stage is not admissible.

Despite these amendments, the bill's proposal to enable victims to participate in the hearings to be held by the Parole Board of Canada on certain applications for an escorted temporary absence is preserved. As I mentioned on April 9, the committee's amendments may in fact narrow the extent to which the escorted temporary absence regime in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would be changed, and thereby arguably narrow the scope of the bill, not broaden the scope of the bill or not go beyond it. It would narrow it.

What has changed is that these Parole Board hearings would not be required in every instance. If an offender is approved for an escorted temporary absence by the Parole Board, a warden could approve subsequent temporary absences, so long as the offender did not breach a condition of an earlier temporary absence. If anything, these amendments would actually strengthen the spirit of the bill, to respect victims. With these amendments, victims would have an opportunity to participate in this process, but they would need not fear being revictimized by receiving invitations to many repetitive and redundant hearings.

Nevertheless, while the scope or extent of the bill may be narrowed here, the amendments do not negate, do not overturn, and do not offend the principle of the bill. Therefore, the public safety committee's report is in order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. As I said earlier, it is a fairly lengthy point of order, and my apologies for having to disrupt the chamber right after question period.

I was closing the quote on Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who stated in evidence on March 25, on Bill C-483, “At its core, this bill”, and what she meant was the original bill, before the amendments: “At its core, this bill aims to bring a more transparent and inclusive process to victims of crime. I fully support this shift and the benefits it brings to victims”.

Another witness, Kim Hancox, spoke in support of Bill C-483 stating that “Accountability is severely compromised as a result of this closed-door process”. She was referring to the process whereby prison wardens are empowered to grant escorted temporary absences. She continued by saying:

There is a lack of consideration for victims, which impedes progress of victims' rights and recognition in the criminal system. This practice undermines the public's confidence in a system that is supposed to keep them safe from violent offenders.

Krista Gray-Donald, director representing the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, an organization that the committee was informed had been working closely with the member for Oxford on the legislation, was clear in her testimony before the committee, on March 27, as to what she believed the legislation would terminate, namely, the ability of wardens to grant escorted temporary absences. She said:

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.

I believe it is important to place on the record the statements made before the committee by both of the commissioner of the Canadian Parole Board, in testimony on March 25, 2014, page 13 of the evidence, and the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, in testimony on March 27, 2014, page 8 of the blues. Both stated that with respect to the ETA program that their agencies are responsible for permitting and overseeing, the success rate is 99%.

At no time, and I repeat, at no time, did any member of the committee, government members in particular, challenge either commissioner on the success rate of the escorted temporary release program. This program is by all accounts a success, with no demonstrated risk to public safety.

On April 1, 2014, and this would be after the above witnesses presented, the government presented its amendments to Bill C-483 at the public safety committee, and that is where my concerns arise.

At page 767 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states with respect to amendments made to legislation which may be found to be out of order:

The committee's decisions concerning a bill must be consistent with earlier decisions made by the committee. An amendment is accordingly out of order if it is contrary to or inconsistent with provisions of the bill that the committee has already agreed to....

I would also remind the House of the ruling of Speaker Fraser on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of Debates:

In cases in which the Chair is asked to rule on the admissibility of committee amendments to bills, any modifications which offend a basic principle in the legislative process are struck from the bill.

However, the amendment from the government has undermined that principle. It reads in part as follows, which was presented to the House in the third report of the committee.

On clause 1.1, and I am reading from proposed subsection 17.1(2):

If the Parole Board of Canada authorizes the temporary absence of an inmate under subsection (1) for community service, family contact, including parental responsibilities, or personal development for rehabilitative purposes and the temporary absence is not cancelled because the inmate has breached a condition—

This is the critical section:

—the institutional head may authorize that inmate’s subsequent temporary absences with escort if the institutional head is of the opinion that the criteria set out in paragraphs (1)(a) to (d) are met.

In my view, this would change the principle of the bill.

The witnesses all came before the committee on the original bill and claimed that they did not want the institutional head to be allowed to make those decisions. That was the basis of the witnesses' presentation at committee.

That whole thrust changed with the amendments from the Government of Canada.

In speaking to the amendments presented by the government, the following exchange illuminates the concern I have with respect to the principle of the bill having been changed as a result.

I put the following question to the director of policy for Corrections Canada on April 1, 2014:

As I understand it, the original bill was ensuring that the warden would not be in a position to allow any temporary absences at all during the last three years of a sentence. Now with this amendment, the Parole Board will be involved in the first request for a temporary absence during that three-year period, but not anymore after that unless there is a problem with what happened on the temporary absence.

The response from the director of policy stated, in part:

You are correct...in that once that lifer reaches the three-year window before their full parole eligibility, once the Parole Board grants a positive decision for a rehabilitated ETA and that ETA period is successful—in other words, the offender does not breach their conditions while on that ETA—any subsequent ETA decisions can then be made by the institutional head.

Therefore, I am suggesting that the government amendments to the bill are inconsistent with the original principle of the bill as articulated by the member in whose name the bill stands, by other members of the government during second reading and at committee, and witnesses appearing before the committee. Namely, that as a result of this legislation, it was expected that the Parole Board, and only the Parole Board, would be involved in the granting of escorted temporary releases as they apply to offenders convicted of first and second degree murder.

Given that evidence as to the success of the ETA program, evidence which was available prior to the tabling of Bill C-483, I would submit that the principle of the bill as originally passed at second reading, has, by the government amendments, been completely undermined.

The principle of the original bill has ceased to exist and has been replaced.

Again, while the intent of the member for Oxford is not in question, the ability of his legislation to achieve what he committed to this House and, more important, what he committed to the victims of crime in whose name he presented the bill, has been refuted through government amendments.

As such, I would submit that the amendments have placed the bill as reported from committee within the context of being out of order.

I would conclude by reminding Canadians that as we undertake a debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights, that they examine the text of that bill closely and match the content of that bill with the rhetoric of the government with respect to what has been promised.

It is my submission that Bill C-32 is worthy of support. It will fall to the government to explain to the victims why the legislation would likely not achieve the promises that have been made.

Let me sum up in layman's terms. These private members' bills are becoming a shell game. Witnesses come before a committee, the promoters promote their bill on the basis of the original bill, and on the basis of what the promoters of the bill have said relative to the original bill.

However, after all the witnesses have appeared before committee, the justice department's legal counsel, also from the government side, then come before committee and either water down the bill or change it in such a way that the original principle and intent of the bill is undermined.

Thus the bill no longer does what the promoter of the bill, in these cases backbench Conservatives, said it would do. Therein lies the problem. That is my point of order; that the bill no longer represents the principle and the intent of the bill brought in by the backbench Conservative member. In fact, government lawyers, themselves, changed the intent of the bill at committee, after all the witnesses had appeared.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the private members' bills in question are Bill C-489, Bill C-479, and now Bill C-483. I would suggest that this is a matter the Chair might wish to carefully examine.

With respect to Bill C-483, I would like to cite a number of references made by the member for Oxford and other members of the government with respect to what the intent of the bill was and what in essence the principle of the bill was.

At page 1236 of Debates, November 21, 2013, the member for Oxford stated what the purpose and the principle of Bill C-483 was. He said:

The bill proposes to grant the Parole Board of Canada authority for the full length of the sentence to grant or cancel escorted temporary absence for offenders convicted of first or second degree murder.

...This would mean that the wardens of federal prisons would no longer have authority to grant temporary escorted absences to inmates convicted of first- or second-degree murder, except in a medical emergency.

There is no ambiguity in the statement by the member as to the intent of the legislation. The bill was written to specifically remove the ability of wardens to grant escorted temporary releases.

Under the current legislation, Correctional Service of Canada, through the wardens of federal institutions, has the authority, when offenders serving a life sentence are within three years of their eligible parole date, to grant escorted temporary absences.

The reason the member has moved, through Bill C-483, to undertake these changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, were stated as follows during second reading debate on November 21, 2013, at page 1236 of Debates:

...for some victims' families, the decision-making authority of wardens to grant escorted temporary absences to murderers has been a matter of great concern. ...

...no hearings are conducted, as decisions are made on an administrative basis by institutional heads. In contrast, when decisions by the Parole Board of Canada are made, hearings are conducted....

The member continued by saying:

...when the Parole Board of Canada conducts a hearing, a victim or a member of the public who applies in writing is permitted to attend....

During the course of second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness contributed, at page 1241 of Debates, November 21, 2013, to the declaration as to what Bill C-483 would achieve. She stated:

...the bill we are here to talk about today relates to escorted temporary absences from prison. More specifically, it is about ensuring that only the Parole Board of Canada has the power to release prisoners except in very limited circumstances.

There is no ambiguity as to what the member for Oxford or the parliamentary secretary believes Bill C-483 would bestow upon victims. They would have a direct role as participants in the escorted temporary absence system from the first day of incarceration until the last day of incarceration of those convicted of first and second degree murder.

The parliamentary secretary continued at page 1241 by stating:

As the member for Oxford has said, we continue to hear calls from victims of crime who feel that decisions on these absences should remain with the Parole Board, rather than an unaccountable official.

During the course of the hearings on the legislation before the public safety committee, the statements related to the key principles of the bill were restated a number of times. I will not go through all of those particular statements from witnesses, other than to say that as noted on page 11 of the Evidence, Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, stated on March 25:

Bill C-483 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to shift the authority of the warden to authorize the escorted temporary absence, or ETA, of an offender convicted of first- or second-degree murder within three years of full parole eligibility to the Parole Board of Canada. At its core, this bill aims to bring a more transparent and inclusive process to victims of crime.

Let me sum up in layman's terms.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in relation to private members Bill C-483, which stands in the name of the member for Oxford.

I want to begin by stating that my concerns are not related to the intent of the bill. I also want to acknowledge that the member for Oxford placed this bill before the House and the committee with the best of intentions, and in his remarks both in the House and at committee, he stated eloquently and with conviction the intent and principle behind the bill.

However, I would submit to the Chair that in the process of the committee's examination of both the bill and the amendments that the government was compelled to bring forward, the bill as amended has in fact moved a great deal away from its original intent and principle as articulated by the member for Oxford, as well as other members of the government in speaking to the bill and witnesses who testified before committee in support of the bill, all of whom were in support of the bill prior to the government amending the bill, but which is now substantially different from what those witnesses and members were speaking to.

At this point I would also draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that each of the private members' bills by government members that has come before the public safety and justice committees have required amendments that most often have exceeded the number of original clauses in the bills.

This, I would submit, is a situation of either bad drafting of bills or of government members insisting upon a specific course within their private members' bills, resulting in legislation that is so flawed that the government, with its legal advisers, literally has to redraft the legislation through the use of amendments.

The private members' bills in question were Bill C-489, Bill C-479, and now Bill C-483.

Public Safety and National Security

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in relation to Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), from the member for Oxford.

The committee has studied this bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, colleagues. We have now completed before this committee, Bill C-483.

I thank our colleague for introducing the bill and I thank my colleagues for all their cooperation moving forward.

We obviously have a full meeting scheduled for Thursday, I would assume. We can slip into committee business right now if you wish. However, it was my understanding, as carried forward, that we would proceed with the economics of policing and that there will be other business that we could of course introduce at that particular point. Are we all comfortable with that?

Fine. Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay.

I think there are two questions here. Obviously, one is whether or not the amendment is actually within the scope. As an example, this is basically suggesting not what they should do, but how they should do it.

So does C-483 tell us how to act or just whether to act? At this particular point the chair would be willing to hear discussion on that and perhaps we could even ask our witnesses for their opinion as to whether or not this would be in order for Bill C-483 as it is requesting that Correctional Service Canada.... At this particular place, it's basically advising them how they must staff and is that in order or is that within the parameters of the bill or would that be a matter with Correctional Service Canada within their own decision? The chair is asking for comments, certainly, from our witnesses, and we are open to the floor as well.

Yes, Mr. Churney.

[Daryl Churney, Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Daryl Churney and I'm the director of corrections policy at Public Safety Canada. I'm joined today by Michel Laprade, general counsel of legal services at Correctional Service Canada.

I did hear Mr. Easter's question, and I think I would just reiterate Mr. Norlock's answer, which is Bill C-483 only makes amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as you know. However, that said, the Criminal Code is the parent authority for escorted temporary absences, so the CCRA is the subordinate legislation subject to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is very explicit and very clear in that the Parole Board of Canada is responsible for ETAs other than those for medical reasons, to attend judicial proceedings, or to attend a coroner's inquest. That will not change as a result of this bill. CCRA will remain subject to the Criminal Code and that explicit authority for wardens will remain in effect.

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

I don't think it's necessary because the Criminal Code, which is the parent authority for ETAs, already delegates authority for granting ETAs for medical reasons, judicial proceedings, and attending court inquests to the Correctional Service of Canada. The Criminal Code's not being changed by Bill C-483, so that authority does not change.

I think we need to rest assured that the effect of Bill C-483, after the government's amendments, will be to ensure that the warden, Correctional Service of Canada, maintains authority for granting ETAs for judicial proceedings throughout an offender's proceedings, because, quite frankly, a warden cannot disregard a court order. When an inmate attends court, there's either a subpoena or some kind of court order, and there already exists within the system the authority for granting those temporary absences for that purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay and I will just read the subamendment, just so we have clarity first of all. It says that Bill C-483 be amended by adding the following new paragraph to 17.1(1), which is (e), and it reads as follows: The institutional head may still authorize escorted temporary absences for medical emergencies or court appearances.

Yes, Mr. Norlock.

[The Clerk]

C-483 is a private member's public bill. It's not a private bill, sir. Regarding the amendments themselves, the legislative clerk Mike MacPherson can advise the chair on the effects that the amendments would have to the bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I do have a point of order that is basically in the form of a question to the clerk of the committee.

I've had an opportunity to go through the government amendments to this bill. Given the very extensive changes, I wonder whether the clerk has assured the chair that the amendments are in order and do not create a bill substantially different from the bill that was passed at second reading. I submit they do. I'll refer to page 1197 of O'Brien and Bosc, which states:

The amendments made to a private bill by a committee ought not to be so extensive as to constitute a different bill from that which has been read a second time.

I would submit that I believe they do. Having said that, I'm basically asking the clerk to give us the assurance that at least he believes the amendments to Bill C-483, if passed, would not result in a substantially different bill from that which the House approved at second reading.

I will state this as well. It is my intention, regardless of what the clerk states, that if these amendments are in fact approved, to pursue the matter with the Speaker of the House when the bill is reported to the House. Therefore, I want the record of the committee to be clear on this point as to whether the amendments from the government, if approved, will or will not, in the opinion of the clerk, constitute a bill different from that which was approved at second reading.

There's no question, in my mind, Mr. Chair, that the amendments improve the bill substantially from what the bill was, but that's not the point here. The point is that this is a different bill. The committee knows I have concerns about some of these private members' bills and the number of amendments we're getting from the government side.

I'll conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying that if the clerk has any question as to whether these amendments, if passed, would constitute Bill C-483 having been so altered as to constitute a new bill as outlined in O'Brien and Bosc, it is my opinion that the clerk should so advise the chair and that as a result, a new bill would have to be brought in.

If you go through these amendments, Mr. Chair, there is no question in my mind. Number one, as I stated previously, this bill may require a royal prerogative in that it constitutes substantial spending other than what would otherwise be the case, and it changes, in my view, the intent of the bill.

That's my point of order, Mr. Chair. I'd like to hear what the clerk has recommended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we will call this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting number 18 for the session.

Today we will be doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-483. I'll just mention as we're proceeding that we do have votes today, so just consider that in your time for moving forward with this bill and for any other options the committee wishes to pursue at some particular point.

Mr. Norlock.

[Mike McCormack]

First of all, surrounding domestic violence and policing and law enforcement and the culture, we have changed. We have learned a lot from those days. That's exactly the way it was when I started the job. Violence was looked at through quite a different lens and that was the way it was handled. We have learned a lot over the last 30 years from a law enforcement perspective in what is going on with crime and how people are victimized.

The only thing I don't agree with is when you say that this type of legislation is going the extra mile. To me, this type of legislation is about fairness. It's not going the extra mile. The extra mile has a connotation that we're going above and beyond. I think you're seeking the threshold for these victims.

I'm not only here speaking as a police officer who worked in some of the toughest communities in Toronto where violence was a reality, serious violence, murder, and so on, but also from our officers' perspectives. We've had officers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice: they lost their lives. You heard about Bill Hancox, and the last time I was here I talked about Michael Sweet.

Some of the cornerstones of what we were talking about around BillC-479 were just the acknowledgement of victims and letting them have a role and a say, because what continually happens in the legal system is that victims are never a victim on the first occasion and then it's over and they go back to their lives and everything's fine. They are continually revictimized.

Part of having somebody who is accountable and responsible for the death of your loved one is that's always there in the back of your mind, even when we're going through a process like the parole process when there are hearings every year and so on and so forth. That's one level.

To have the victims there to take part in that and to at least feel as if they're having an impact on what's going on is one thing, but then when we talk about Bill C-483 taking away.... It's one thing for them to participate in the parole process, but then to have any citizen go home from that process and then to be arbitrarily cut out and the system usurped and the warden say that we're going to go on these ETAs, where's the procedural fairness? I believe that revictimizes the victims.

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

Mr. Chair, through you to the witnesses, thank you for being here.

My first question would be for Mr. McCormack.

Let me just say that 43 years ago when I was a young rookie officer dealing with victims, especially victims of domestic assault, and I think you would be familiar with this, because policing is in your family history, a woman—usually it was a woman—even with black eyes and serious injuries would have been told by a police officer after she was removed from a residence that she would be given an opportunity, and the police would assist her, to swear information before a justice of the peace, but the police wouldn't.

Would you agree with me that today, some 43 years later, we have vastly improved in that, in especially domestic assault but other assaults also, not only would the perpetrator be arrested and have a bail hearing but assistance would be given to the victims through victim services, etc.? Would you also agree with me that with regard to treatment of victims throughout the whole system, particularly now dealing with Bill C-483, we just need to go the extra mile to balance the scales so that it is at least equal? Would you agree with me? Would you make some comments in that regard?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Another example I cite goes back to 1987 when inmate Gingras was given a birthday pass from the maximum security Edmonton Institution to the West Edmonton Mall, where he overpowered his lone escort, tied him up, and went on a spree that led police on quite the chase. It ensued that two people were murdered while he was out at large, for which Gingras was later convicted.

In the union's view, Bill C-483 does not go far enough. For these first- and second-degree murderers, there should be at least two correctional officers acting as escorts and they should definitely be in a secured vehicle. Correctional officers are often the first victims when an escort goes wrong. We need the tools and the resources to do our job in protecting Canadians.

Bill C-483, as it stands now, also needs a correction where it says “a staff member or other person authorized by the institutional head”. That needs to be corrected. It needs to be correctional officers. It's not the public at large who should be taking these inmates out on these ETAs. Murderers should not be escorted in the public by volunteers.

In closing, the union feels very strongly this must be properly resourced for it to be successful. Parole board backlogs can produce problems for us inside the jails with our population management and our double-bunking. The board must have the means to conduct proper risk assessments of inmates when applying for these ETAs.

Thank you.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Thank you.

UCCO-SACC-CSN, our union, is in favour of Bill C-483's granting the power over temporary absences on first-degree and second-degree murder to the Parole Board. We see it as an objective third party. The Parole Board serves as an effective filter to determine which inmates are eligible for parole and when, or for their temporary absence.

The union does not oppose temporary absences. We believe it to be an important part of an inmate's reintegration into society. We believe that this change will help better manage temporary absences. As it is now, wardens experience many population pressures. They deal with a gang population, a mental health population, incompatibility, double-bunking. The granting of temporary absences is but one that they are responsible for. At this time we feel it's one, for first-degree and second-degree murder, that should be removed from their responsibility.

They are pressured to cascade inmates throughout the system to a lower security. Successful temporary absences help an inmate obtain earlier release on parole. In turn, of course, getting an inmate out is a savings for the taxpayer. As we all know, CSC is under great budget pressure right now, given the present government's cutbacks to the service. Having the wardens grant absences, with some of the pressures that they face, has led to very serious mistakes.

Take the granting of an ETA, for example, to William Bicknell in Drumheller in March 2011. A convicted murderer who beat a woman to death with a baseball bat, he was granted a temporary absence to go to see his sister. On his way back he took the correctional officer hostage, terrorized him, locked him up, took other people hostage, and went on a nine-day crime spree terrorizing northern Alberta, which led to a shootout with police in which he was shot and a police officer was wounded as well.

Yet we didn't learn. Only a few months later, Fowler, an inmate again from Drumheller, in October 2011 was granted an absence. Another murderer, who had killed a nine-year-old child, he went on one of these ETAs and took the female correctional officer hostage, strangling her with his hands and with his seat belt until she got herself free. Luckily he was apprehended a short time later.

I can go way back as far as 1987. Gingras, another inmate, a convicted murderer, was released on an ETA on a birthday pass to West Edmonton Mall. Again overpowering a single officer, tying him up—

[Mike McCormack]

As I was saying, we know first-hand that it is important not only for the optics but also for the transparency and for procedural fairness and for the public and the people in law enforcement to have that transparency and confidence in what the legislation is trying to provide.

From a personal perspective, being a member of the Toronto Police Association, and knowing Bill Hancox back in 55 Division, everybody was aware that in 1998 he was stabbed to death by two women, Elaine Cece and Mary Barbara Ann Taylor.We all heard that Bill was only 32 years of age. Both women were convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. We heard, as I said earlier, from his wife Kim, and he left behind his two-year-old daughter, Sandra. Kim was also eight months pregnant with their son Quinn at the time of Bill's death.

Ms. Cece is eligible for parole on September 5, 2014, and Mary Taylor is eligible for parole on August 6, 2016. Elaine Cece's application for personal development for escorted temporary absence was rejected by the Parole Board of Canada on June 25, 2010, because she had a low level of insight into the murder she had committed, had unhealthy inmate relationships, had a poor response to programs, and had a lack of understanding of her own violent behaviour.

In our submission, the Parole Board has a statutory obligation to ensure that the public is safe from violent offenders. This is precisely the obligation the Parole Board met when it denied Elaine Cece the escorted temporary absence she requested.

However, the following year the warden of Fraser Valley Institution for Women, and this is an important fact, without any requirement to notify the victims of Ms. Cece's brutal and senseless murder or the public at large, granted her three separate ETAs into the community.

Why was the warden able to do this? He was able to do this because Elaine Cece was within her three-year parole eligibility period.

Again, in our submission, this loophole, and that's what we'll call it, allows the offender and the warden to bypass the authority and the jurisdiction of the Parole Board. In our submission, this is unacceptable.

What happened over the preceding year to justify a different result? In the preceding year, did Elaine magically gain a unique insight into the murder that she had been unable to achieve in the preceding decade? Did she have an epiphany, experience some cathartic event triggering an understanding of her violent behaviour? We don't believe so.

How can Canadian citizens have confidence in our corrections and parole system if a warden has unilateral authority to undermine the decisions of the Parole Board? The Parole Board of Canada has a very specific and critically important statutory responsibility. The Parliament of Canada has mandated the Parole Board of Canada giving it the responsibility of protecting the public from dangerous offenders. The Parole Board is a very specialized, quasi-judicial tribunal with unique experience, knowledge, and expertise.

This specialized knowledge allows the Parole Board to discharge the very statutory responsibilities given to it by Parliament. The warden of a federal penitentiary does not possess the same specialized knowledge, expertise, or statutory responsibility. It follows that a warden ought not to be allowed to undermine the authority and jurisdiction of the Parole Board with respect to the most dangerous offenders in our prisons, namely those convicted of first- and second-degree murder and sentenced to a life of imprisonment.

We are not talking about shoplifters or people who have committed minor offences. As I just stated, we are talking about murderers: people with life sentences, not people with fixed sentences.

This distinction is a very important one. We understand that people with fixed sentences are eventually going to be released back into the community. We fully support the need to rehabilitate offenders to the greatest extent possible and to manage the risk to public safety through a parole system that reintegrates the offender into the community through a structured and controlled release program. We understand the need for a decompression period through structured parole.

But murderers are in an entirely different category. We should add dangerous sexual predators to the list also, but today we are addressing the issue of people who committed murder and are sentenced to life.

The 8,000 members of the Toronto Police Association whom I represent fully support Bill C-483. Except for medical emergencies, the jurisdiction and authority to protect the public from offenders convicted of first-degree and second-degree murder must remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parole Board of Canada. Only the Parole Board can decide issues of release, whether that is by an ETA, a UTA, or parole itself.

Thank you.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Fine.

My colleague Mr. Garrison partly touched on something I would like to ask you.

You mentioned that you would be conducting a considerably higher number of ETA reviews. If I heard you correctly, the number would be around 900 reviews a year.

If Bill C-483 is passed, will you have enough staff to deal with those reviews?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. O'Sullivan and Mr. Cenaiko, thank you for being here. You provided very detailed and valuable information.

Mr. Cenaiko, I have a few questions on some of your comments. One of them has to do with your conclusion. You said the successful completion rate for escorted temporary absences was currently 99%.

To your knowledge, will the changes proposed in Bill C-483 heighten public safety?

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

I had a look at the estimates before I came in today, and what I see is that you don't have additional resources coming to you at the Parole Board in the future, even though we have an increased federal prison population. In your statement you say that BillC-483would add significantly to the work of the Parole Board.

I'm asking you the obvious question, how's the Parole Board going to manage that when you don't have any increased funds in the budgetary allocations?

[Harvey Cenaiko, Chairperson, Parole Board of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

It's a privilege to appear today before this committee to speak to Bill C-483, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I'll briefly provide an opening statement and an overview of the bill's effects on Parole Board of Canada operations. Afterwards, I'd be pleased to take questions.

As the honourable members of the committee are aware, the Parole Board of Canada is an independent administrative tribunal with exclusive authority under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, to make day and full parole decisions for federal offenders. The board also makes record suspension decisions and clemency recommendations. However, since this bill does not affect the Criminal Records Act, I will confine my remarks to conditional release and to escorted temporary absences, or ETAs, in particular.

All of the board's decisions are made in accordance with criteria set in legislation and are based on a thorough and careful assessment of the risk an offender may pose to the public if released under supervision in the community. The paramount consideration in every decision is the protection of society. In this regard, the Parole Board of Canada works closely with Correctional Service Canada, or CSC.

As you know, this bill would transfer the authority to approve ETAs to the board for certain offenders. In my view, it is important to understand how ETAs fit within the corrections and conditional release regime to understand how this bill might affect the board. The corrections and conditional release regime is designed to be a graduated and supervised movement toward increased liberty for an offender, with public safety as the paramount consideration. Its objective is to protect Canadians by returning offenders to society as lawful citizens.

ETAs are short-term releases during which the offender is supervised at all times by Correctional Service Canada, or a person approved by the warden of the institution. At present, CSC has the legislative authority under section 17 of the CCRA to authorize ETAs for all offenders. However, for offenders sentenced to life, including those convicted of first- and second-degree murder, this authorization is subject to board approval until the offender reaches day parole eligibility under section 746.1 of the Criminal Code. In all other cases, CSC has the authority to authorize ETAs.

In addition, all ETAs for medical reasons or to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest are also authorized by CSC.

So, for example, to put that more concretely, for an offender who is serving a life sentence with a parole eligibility of 25 years, the board would be the decision-making authority for most ETAs for the first 22 years of the sentence. After this, CSC becomes the authority for ETAs for this offender.

There are, if you will, two categories of ETAs. There are ETAs that might be broadly described as rehabilitative. The first category of ETAs may be approved for community service, family contact, parental responsibilities, and personal development for rehabilitative purposes. They may also be approved for compassionate reasons. There are also ETAs that are more administrative, such as those for court appearances or medical care, as previously mentioned. Under law, offenders may apply for ETAs at any time throughout their sentence.

An offender serving a life sentence might start with an ETA and then, if all goes well, that offender could move to unescorted temporary absences and work releases. Next, if the offender's risk is deemed to be manageable in the community, the offender may move on to day parole and possibly to full parole. Offenders serving life sentences, as you know, are either incarcerated or under supervision for the remainder of their lives.

The first time the board reviews a rehabilitative ETA application from an offender serving a life sentence, a hearing is set and two board members review the application. The board considers the reports and recommendations prepared by CSC, as well as all other documentation on the offender's file, including any victim statements or information.

Registered victims would be alerted that a review is scheduled. Observers and victims may attend the hearing, and registered victims may provide and present a statement, if they wish to. Board members must take into consideration the criteria of undue risk to society. The ETA must fit within the framework of the offender's correction plan. It must be structured and include specific objectives to be achieved by the offender.

In approving the ETA, the board must be aware of the nature of the proposed escort, board members may impose any conditions considered reasonable and necessary to protect society, and each ETA is approved on a case-by-case basis on its merits. Following this first hearing and a successful ETA, subsequent reviews are typically conducted in office by two board members.

ETA reviews for compassionate reasons are handled differently. They require two board members and are typically conducted in office. The board works in this way because compassionate ETAs are often requested for unforeseen reasons, such as attending a funeral of a close relative, so decisions are required quickly. According to the law in its current form, registered victims will receive notification from the board that an offender has been authorized for an ETA, and CSC will inform them of the date and destination. This is our current system.

Bill C-483 would amend the CCRA to grant the board almost exclusive decision-making authority for ETAs for offenders serving life sentences for first- and second-degree murder. Under this bill, CSC will retain authority only for ETAs for medical emergencies for these offenders. Over the last five years, under the current law, the board conducted an average of 119 ETA reviews per year. Operationally, if Bill C-483passes, because the board's authority for ETA decision-making will expand, the number of ETA reviews the board conducts will significantly increase. It is also important to note that the Parole Board of Canada will continue to consider all information provided by victims in statements about the harm done to them. For those victims who wish to provide their statements to the board, there will be more occasions to do so. In addition, registered victims will be notified of all board ETA decisions, as well as the date and location of the temporary absence, if approved.

Currently, ETAs have a more than 99% success rate. This is no surprise given the strict risk-assessment criteria and the condition that the offender be accompanied at all times while outside the penitentiary. ETAs are an important element in the corrections and conditional release regime, which serves public safety. When public safety is protected, we serve victims and all Canadians.

I thank the committee for its time and attention, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-483, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would like to begin by providing you with a very brief overview of our office's mandate. The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007 to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims, by promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime, by providing information and referrals, by promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime, also by raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims, and by identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact on victims of crime.

Bill C-483seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to shift the authority of the warden to authorize the escorted temporary absence, or ETA, of an offender convicted of first- or second-degree murder within three years of full parole eligibility to the Parole Board of Canada. At its core, this bill aims to bring a more transparent and inclusive process to victims of crime. I fully support this shift and the benefits it brings to victims.

I think it is also important to acknowledge that Bill C-483 specifically proposes to remove granting authority from one organization and give it to another. In doing so one might question which of the two authorities is in the best position to decide on the offender's progress and ability to reintegrate into the community. My remarks today do not in any way reflect any judgments or suggestions that one of these authorities has a greater capacity to make these decisions. This is not my area of expertise, and I will not speculate on that aspect of this suggested amendment.

Instead, what does concern me, and what I do see as a clear advantage of the amendments proposed in this bill, is the benefit to victims of ultimately having a more transparent, informative, and inclusive process. It is within these parameters that I will provide my comments.

Through our work we have generally found that at a minimum, victims of crime want to be informed, considered, protected, and supported. Given this, it would not be surprising for you to learn that we have heard from a number of victims who are frustrated by the lack of transparency in the warden's process. They find it difficult to understand why someone who has committed a serious crime such as murder could be granted any type of release without a process that informs or involves the victim.

In contrast to parole hearings, victims have little to no role in a warden's board process. To be more specific, parole hearings are a much more informative and inclusive process for victims. Victims have a right to be informed in advance of a pending parole hearing, as well as the option to apply to attend that hearing. Those victims who do attend a hearing are able to bear witness to a reasonably fulsome account of the offender's progress and rehabilitation. Even victims who are unable to attend the hearing still have access to the decision registry, which, while not providing full information about the offender's progress, does outline the reasons why a particular decision to grant or deny parole was taken.

Victims are more fully considered in the parole process in that they are given the opportunity to update their impact statement to respond to and reflect the specific release decision being made. Without this opportunity, wardens' boards may potentially review an outdated and/or less relevant earlier version of their statement. Additionally, within the parole hearing process, victims are able to present, not just submit, an impact statement outlining the harm they have suffered as a result of the crime. While not all victims choose this option, victims who we have spoken to describe this opportunity to share the impact directly with the offender as an important part of their healing journey. Finally, in addition, there are funding supports available to help victims cover some of the expenses associated with attending the hearing.

None of these same channels of information, consideration, and support are available to victims in the case of a warden's board. As such, I would support the amendments in Bill C-483 that require a more transparent, open, and inclusive process for victims.

That being said, while I am pleased to see these enhancements being made for victims of those serving life sentences, Bill C-483 does not address the need for information and meaningful participation for victims where offenders are serving all other types of federal sentences. In these cases, the warden remains the granting authority for ETAs, including non-medical or court-related; unescorted temporary absences; voluntary transfers; and work releases. In practical terms, this means that these important enhancements will only apply to approximately 18% of the offenders currently in the federal system, leaving the victims of the remaining 82% of offenders with a process that does not sufficiently inform or include them.

While it is my job to encourage the Government of Canada to ensure its laws and policies better meet the needs and concerns of victims of crime, I am also aware that the practical implications of broadening Bill C-483to apply to all federal offenders and not just those serving life sentences would undoubtedly be of concern for the Parole Board of Canada and would need to be examined and addressed.

To address this issue, I would recommend that in amending the bill, the committee consider making all authorities responsible for release decisions accountable for providing a transparent and inclusive process for victims, one that ensures the same opportunities and supports that currently exist for victims attending parole hearings.

These changes are important not only as a means of addressing victims' concerns but in strengthening the system overall. We know that procedural fairness is crucial to increasing and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system, which means we need a system whereby all participants feel respected, informed, and heard.

In conclusion, I support Bill C-483 in its move to enhance the release-granting process in order to better meet the needs of victims of crime. I also recommend that these amendments should apply to all victims of offenders currently in the federal system, ensuring that all victims are equally able to access a system that better informs, considers, protects, and supports them.

Thank you very much for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie, for appearing before us today to discuss the bill you are sponsoring, Bill C-483. It's good for us to hear what you have to say. I am finding the discussion extremely interesting.

You said you consulted with the staff of the previous public safety minister as well as the staff of the new minister, before introducing your bill. It would seem that you have special access. What a nice way to introduce a bill. At least the department concerned is made aware and you have the benefit of their input, which is all the more informed because you are a government member.

Who did you consult when you decided to introduce Bill C-483? Did you seek the input of other people, experts, in particular?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be here with you today to discuss private member's BillC-483. I firmly believe this bill provides a good balance between the need to reintegrate prisoners into the community and the need to do everything in our power to keep the Canadian public safe from harm.

Even if we have not been personally affected by crime, it is not hard to imagine the relief a victim of violent crime or their family feel when a criminal is removed from the community and is safely behind bars, or the comfort they must take in knowing this particular prisoner cannot seek out the victim and commit another act of violence. It's also not hard to imagine the stress and concern that same victim feels when they find out the prisoner has been granted an escorted temporary absence from the penitentiary. Even for a temporary absence in which the prisoner is under escort for the entire time, the mere thought of the prisoner being back in the community is extremely difficult.

Regardless of the reason, Canadians want assurances that all possible measures are taken to ensure their safety when a prisoner is out in the community. These safeguards are contained within the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which outlines the necessary controls and criteria that must be met for each type of absence and that are deemed necessary for each individual prisoner.

Escorted temporary absences can be divided into two main categories: those that are obligatory or necessary, such as for court proceedings or medical treatment; and those that are for rehabilitative purposes, such as for community-based correctional programs. There is no question that there are some circumstances in which a prisoner must leave a penitentiary for obligatory reasons, such as for court appearances. In these cases the releasing authority determines and applies the proper security escort up to and including the use of physical restraints when necessary. These decisions are straightforward; even the highest risk prisoner needs to be taken to a court date if he faces new charges.

It is when we get into discretionary absences, in other words those that are more for rehabilitation, that victims become more concerned about how the decisions are made to allow the prisoner to be absent from the penitentiary. The decision to send a prisoner outside penitentiary walls for correctional programming reasons is made using greater discretion, taking into consideration the prisoner's engagement in the correctional plan and the risk they pose to society. Today decisions on escorted temporary absences for rehabilitative purposes for those serving life sentences are made by either the penitentiary warden or the Parole Board of Canada, based on a scheme outlined in the Criminal Code.

That formula is as follows. For prisoners serving life sentences, the Parole Board is the releasing authority from start of sentence up until three years prior to full parole eligibility. Once a prisoner is within three years of full parole eligibility, Correctional Service Canada takes over as the releasing authority.

For those prisoners who committed murder before they turned 18, the Parole Board is the releasing authority from start of sentence up until expiration of all but one-fifth of the specified number of years the offender is to serve without eligibility. Once the prisoner reaches the one-fifth mark, Correctional Service Canada becomes the releasing authority.

This switch in releasing authority from the Parole Board to the wardens is what concerns victims of crime and many other Canadians. They want to know why the Parole Board isn't the releasing authority for the entire length of a prisoner's sentence. They want to know why they as victims and families are suddenly shut out of the decision-making process for the final years of the offender's sentence. They want to know why an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat is replacing someone appointed by the crown as a decision-maker. It is easy to understand their concerns.

Over the past several years our government has made a number of legislative changes that place more discretion and authority upon members of the Parole Board of Canada and that give victims a larger role in the conditional release system. For example, in 2011 the Abolition of Early Parole Act gave the Parole Board more authority when deciding if a white-collar criminal is eligible for parole, allowing it to consider an individual's risk of committing a new offence before the end of their sentence. In 2012, the Safe Streets and Communities Act included measures that now enshrine in law the right of victims to attend Parole Board hearings and make a statement, and it expanded the definition of who can be considered a victim.

Measures like these have contributed to a greater public understanding of the conditional release decision-making process. It only stands to reason that victims of crime want every opportunity to use their newly enshrined rights. To this end, they want the Parole Board to remain the releasing authority for all discretionary absences, regardless of the number of years left in an offender's sentence. We may not be able to fully understand the pain and loss that friends and families of a murder victim may experience, but we can certainly appreciate their desire to want to play as large a role as possible in decisions that may allow prisoners to be conditionally released into the community.

This is really the underlying push behind my Bill C-483. Shifting the authority for rehabilitative escorted temporary absences completely to the Parole Board gives victims the opportunity to be part of all of these types of decisions, thereby further empowering them. This is a pledge that our Conservative government has made to victims of crime and to all Canadians year after year, that we will do everything we can to safeguard families and communities. I believe this legislation will help us in these efforts by addressing victims' concerns and providing assurances that their safety comes first and foremost.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am now happy to take any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good afternoon, colleagues. We will call to order meeting number 16 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today we will be dealing with Bill C-483, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, escorted temporary absence, put forward by the member of Parliament for Oxford, Dave MacKenzie.

Before I start with that, colleagues, as chair I would like to thank you for having your witness lists in to the clerk on time. We've been able to proceed with everything all in favour, both for today and Thursday, so I very much appreciate the cooperation.

I will also make note that just at the very end of today's meeting, we will take about a minute or two to consider a request for budget approval for witnesses on this particular bill. I'll be asking for your consideration on that for approval.

Today's meeting is televised, and this is great. I thank all the representatives of all parties for their cooperation and concurrence in having this meeting televised today. In future, of course, it would certainly be good to know a day or two before so that we can potentially avoid any maybe last-minute expenses that come along with the last-minute decision. I thank you for your cooperation in allaying that possibility today.

In the second hour today, we will hear from Sue O'Sullivan, from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; and Mr. Harvey Cenaiko, from the Parole Board of Canada.

At this particular point, we will turn to our first witness, Mr. Dave MacKenzie, member of Parliament.

You have 10 minutes for your opening address.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Sweet. Let me say that I have attended parole board hearings as well, and it can certainly be a traumatic experience, there's no question about that. I don't think most people realize the professionalism and the amount of work that parole board appointees really put into a hearing. What you see at the hearing itself is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they do and what correctional officials do in terms of preparing the homework before you have the hearing.

To begin, Mr. Sweet, you know my concern with the avalanche of private members' bills that are coming forward from backbench Conservative members. I think there are something like 16 that impact the Criminal Code.

You are members of the government. It sounds like the parliamentary secretary, who is the representative of the minister here, is fully supportive of this bill. What I can't understand, for the life of me, is why these discussions on these private members' bills aren't done in a comprehensive way within the governing party and brought forward as comprehensive amendments rather than one-offs to the Criminal Code of Canada.

One error on our part as a committee, on a private member's bill, could in fact have the opposite effect of what was intended. I know that your intent here is value. We've had experience with this before. One private member's bill that was just dealt with at the justice committee had six amendments, on a five-clause bill, coming from the Conservatives. I just lay that out, and I guess I would ask....

Mr. MacKenzie has a bill as well, Bill C-483, and he has taken the position in his bill that the parole board, rather than the warden, be responsible for all temporary absences. He's taken responsibility from the warden, in that bill, and passed it over to the parole board, which means more work for the parole board. Your bill is going somewhat the other way in terms of, I think, trying to lessen the workload of the parole board.

Is there any contradiction between the two? Was there any discussion within your caucus to determine if there's a conflict here?

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to continue to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-483, the private member's bill that proposes to amend the current scheme for escorted temporary absences. Bill C-483 proposes to grant the Parole Board almost exclusive decision-making authority for escorted temporary absences.

Ultimately, the goal of Bill C-483 is to give the Parole Board greater authority over escorted temporary absences for murderers. Our Conservative government is pleased to support the efforts of the hon. member for Oxford.

Investing in crime prevention efforts, holding prisoners accountable, supporting and protecting victims of crime, and providing opportunities and programing that help prisoners move away from criminal behaviour and become productive, law-abiding citizens are the elements that help form a strong foundation on which we can build safer communities.

The message in the most recent Speech from the Throne was clear: Canadians expect safe and healthy communities in which their children can play safely and in which our most vulnerable citizens can feel safe when they walk down the street.

Canadians deserve no less than our full attention to these issues. That is why we continue to push ahead with a number of initiatives and measures that support victims.

We have recently announced the coming into force of the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which holds prisoners more accountable to victims by doubling the victim surcharge that prisoners must pay.

We intend to introduce legislation to create a victims' bill of rights, which will enshrine victims' rights in law and give them a greater role in the criminal justice system. Bill C-483 will add to our efforts to address victims' concerns.

The House resumed from November 21, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Drug-Free Prisons Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the drug-free prisons act.

If members heard me speaking yesterday on the private member's bill, Bill C-483, they might think I would be happier today than I was yesterday. I was criticizing the Conservatives' use of private members' bills to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, because using private members' bills avoids the scrutiny of charter compliance, results in less debate in the House of Commons and results in a piecemeal approach, amending various pieces of legislation without actually seeing what has happened with the previous amendments. I guess I am happier today because it is a government bill, so we will have more time to debate the bill. It has been scrutinized for its adherence to the charter and it probably avoids a piecemeal approach in that it has been examined by the department before being presented.

Then why am I not really happy this morning in comparison? It is because the bill illustrates yet another unfortunate tendency of the Conservatives, and that is a fondness for propagandistic titles that obscure the real content of the bill. This is much like Bill C-2, which is called respect for communities act, when in fact it is the opposite. Communities that want to set up safe injection sites to try to reduce the harm caused by the injection of drugs will be prevented by the provisions of Bill C-2 from actually doing so. Therefore, how is that respect for communities? It is directly the opposite.

This bill has an even wilder title. I would say that if we are ever doing a documentary on the legislative process and we use this as an example, the documentary should be called, “A Title in Search of a Bill”. The Conservatives are wanting to send out to their members a piece of mail that would help them fundraise that says, “We passed a bill for drug-free prisons”, but when we look inside the bill, there is very little, if anything, that contributes to the goal of drug-free prisons. I really do suspect the title has more to do with Conservative Party fundraising than it does to getting good public policy for prisons.

The public safety committee, of which I am the vice-chair, did a study on drugs and alcohol in federal prisons and more than 20 witnesses appeared at the committee. I did not agree with the government's report, in which the government produced 14 recommendations on drug-free prisons. However, in its bill on drug-free prisons not one of those recommendations, their own recommendations, appears. Instead, it is something else that appears in the bill. It is passing strange to me why the House of Commons committee would spend weeks hearing from dozens of expert witnesses and then the government would ignore that and introduce something completely different from that.

Maybe I should be happy because what is proposed in the bill is, in fact, a very modest change in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which simply makes more clear in law what is already the existing practice of the Parole Board. It says that the Parole Board of Canada can make use of positive results from drug tests or refusals to take urine tests for drugs when it makes decisions on parole eligibility. It already does this. It is just not clear in law, so this has a positive impact.

Giving clear legal authority to an existing practice is something New Democrats can support, so we are placed in an odd spot in the House of Commons. If we were voting on the title, we would vote against it, but the content of the bill we will actually support. Therefore, we will support the bill going to second reading and will be proposing a more realistic title. I am having trouble thinking of anything that could compete with a slogan such as “drug-free prisons”, but I guess what we are going to look for is something that would actually tell the public what happens in the bill.

As I have said many times, drug-free prisons are, at best, a worthy aspiration, and at worst, simply a political slogan. It is not a policy. Saying we have a policy of drug-free prisons is like saying we have a policy against rainy days during our vacation. We cannot have a policy for drug-free prisons. We have to attack the addiction problem in prisons.

We are in an unfortunate situation in this country where 80% of those who end up in federal custody have drug or alcohol problems. What do we do about that? The Conservatives, instead of having a really meaningful debate with us in the opposition, try to set up straw men and propose and tell the public what our policy is. Part of that is, I think, because they know the public does not really accept their policy, so they want to create phantoms for us to debate in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives are very quick to say that we are somehow condoning drug use or are soft on drugs on this side of the House. In fact, what we are saying on this side of the House is that we have to do things that would actually be effective in combatting the drug problem in prison and that would actually have better outcomes for the prisoners. It is not because we love the prisoners but it is because on this side of the House we are interested in public safety.

If people leave our prison system still addicted to drugs or alcohol, they will fall right back into the patterns that got them into prison in the first place. They will create more victims in our communities, and they will become victimized by their addiction.

In fact, we on this side of the House are not soft on drugs. We want an effective policy on drugs. Being tough on drugs is really much like being for drug-free prisons. Being tough on drugs accomplishes nothing.

The Conservative approach to drugs, both in and out of prison, is very consistent. They start with moral condemnation and then they finish with interdiction. It is the same approach that has inspired Bill C-2. We talk about safe injection sites, and the Conservatives say injectable drugs are bad and therefore we are going to try to prevent people from having a place where they can safely inject those drugs. It is moral condemnation followed by interdiction. It ignores the reality in terms of harm reduction.

The Conservatives did a mailing on Bill C-2, saying “Let's prevent having needles in your backyard.” What do safe injection sites do? That is exactly what they do. They place people in safe injection sites so the needles do not end up in alleyways, school playgrounds or backyards. The Conservatives are actually doing quite the opposite of what they say they are doing.

When we look at the things that the Conservatives have tried to do on their goal of drug-free prisons since 2008, we see they have spent more than $122 million on interdiction tools. That includes technology, such as ion sniffers, and sniffer dogs to try to stop drugs from entering the prisons.

What did we find? The head of corrections came to the committee during our study on drugs and alcohol in prisons, and interestingly this part of the testimony does not appear in the government's report. He said that after spending $122 million and doing drug testing, the same percentage of prisoners tested positive as before the interdiction measures.

We wasted $122 million on technology and sniffer dogs, instead of spending $122 million on addiction treatment programs. If we want to get drugs out of prison, we have to reduce the demand for drugs in prison by offering people treatment programs.

I have to say there was a very unfortunate side effect of this emphasis on interdiction, and that was that it interfered with family visits. One of the things we know is very important, both to those who are going to reintegrate into the community and especially those with addictions, is family support.

At the time, the Conservatives criticized us for bringing this up, but what happened was that many family members felt the sniffer dogs facing them every time they tried to visit and bring their children was an intimidation factor that made it very difficult for them to visit. Even worse, the ion scanners produced an inordinate number of false positives. Many family members who would have nothing to do drugs at all were prevented from visiting their relatives in prison because of the false positives of this technology, which really does not work in terms of interdiction.

Therefore, spending the $122 million wasted money and interfered with family visits, and it interfered with rehabilitation programs. However, it is very consistent with the Conservative policy on drugs.

I guess we should have known this kind of thing was coming because in 2007 the Conservatives amended the national drug strategy. They took out one of the goals. The goal that they took out of the national drug strategy was harm reduction. It is very shocking. We actually removed harm reduction as one of the goals of our national drug strategy. Why? It is because the Conservative policy, again, is moral condemnation followed by interdiction, and it ignores the reality.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-483, a private member's bill that proposes to amend the current scheme for escorted temporary absences.

I would like to begin by explaining the purpose of these types of absences and why we have them as part of the conditional release process. Later on, I will explain who has the responsibility for authorizing escorted temporary absences and when.

The purpose of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is simply to correct criminal behaviour. Escorted temporary absences, when used sparingly and appropriately, can help to meet that goal. They help reconstitute prisoners by allowing them to participate in programs that may not be offered inside prison walls. Escorted temporary absences are typically the first type of conditional release prisoners may be granted. Escorted temporary absences are usually very short. The prisoner is typically only out of prison, under escort, for a few hours.

In reviewing an application, the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in deciding whether to authorize a prisoner's escorted temporary absence. The level of security required during the absence is determined by the level of risk the prisoner poses to the community. For a high-risk prisoner, a correctional officer and the use of physical restraints, such as handcuffs and leg restraints, would be deemed necessary to ensure public safety.

In this instance, the absence would only be granted for a required absence such as for a medical appointment or a court proceeding. A prisoner's behaviour while on an escorted temporary absence assists the Correctional Service of Canada in determining whether or not he or she would be a good candidate for parole.

Now I would like to take a few moments to explain who has releasing authority for these absences and at which point in a prisoner's sentence these absences may be granted.

To begin, releasing authority for prisoners serving life sentences is set out in section 746.1 of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code gives the Parole Board of Canada authority to approve absences from the start of a sentence up until the prisoner reaches day parole eligibility.

For those serving life sentences, day parole occurs when prisoners are within three years of being eligible to apply for full parole. Currently, at this point, the Correctional Service of Canada takes over responsibility to grant short escorted absences for the remainder of the life sentence, or until the prisoner is released on parole. After that point, in other words, after the day parole eligibility date, the releasing authority moves to Correctional Service of Canada for the remainder of the life sentence. This is how decisions to authorize escorted temporary absences to prisoners serving life sentences works today.

Victims have expressed concerns about how decisions on escorted temporary absence applications are being made and they have asked for more involvement in the decision-making process.

I would like to tell the House about Kim Hancox-Spencer. She is a woman who lives in my riding, who had to suffer the unthinkable tragedy of losing her husband, a Toronto police officer, to a cold-blooded killer.

After that fateful day in August 1998, she found herself a single mother with nowhere to turn. Some 14 years into the life sentence of her husband's killer, Kim received a letter from Corrections Canada that said, “This letter is to notify you that the warden of this [prisoner]'s institution has authorized four additional escorted temporary absences” and “we will not be notifying you every time this prisoner leaves the institution”.

This was granted by the warden despite the fact that the Parole Board of Canada ruled that the prisoner was not ready to go on temporary absences.

We are here to protect the safety of the community and the safety also of the prisoner. I heard that many of my colleagues are concerned about how prisoners are reintegrated into society. However, if they are not ready to go into society, they represent a problem for society and for themselves. This type of ignorance of the rights of a victim of a horrific crime is nothing short of shameful.

Let us listen, in her words, to how victims and their families are often abandoned by the current process. She said, “You end up reliving it over and over again.... No one told me about this”. She goes on to say that this temporary absence scheme is “...absolutely a loophole...”. On this side of the House, we are here today to close this loophole.

Our government has made a number of changes to our laws to address a wide range of victims' concerns and to ensure they are given a greater voice in the corrections and conditional release systems. Chief among these measures is our guarantee of a victim's participation in Parole Board hearings, which can be found in the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

Bill C-483 proposes to grant the Parole Board almost exclusive decision-making authority for escorted temporary absences. Ultimately, the goal of Bill C-483 is to give the Parole Board greater authority over escorted temporary absences for murderers.

Our Conservative government is pleased to support the efforts of the member for Oxford.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-483 deals with an extremely delicate matter. On this side of the House, one of our main concerns is having a free society, a great place to live where neighbourhoods and streets are peaceful and safe. We are quite concerned about public safety.

This bill affects victims, the families of victims, the correctional system and conditional release under the justice system. It is a very delicate subject.

We have before us Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence). This bill has parameters and limits that sometimes are quite broad and other times are narrow.

We are convinced that this amendment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act has merit. However, there are certain problems because the Conservatives are once again using a private member's bill to develop and spread their repressive ideology. Once again, rehabilitation is not a consideration.

There are certainly cases in which parole and supervision are not options. However, in some cases, people are sincere and should perhaps be supervised. They should be supervised after the first offence, however, before they commit first degree murder. These are people who may have a lengthy record, but they could be rehabilitated and reformed so that they can reintegrate into society. Many people are sincere, but are they in an environment where they are receiving the supervision they need? That is the question.

This is the fourth time in one year that we are seeing a private member's bill designed to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These are sensitive topics. The government is the one that should have introduced a bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The system has its positives and negatives. For many years, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have made cuts to human resources, financial resources and infrastructure.

That is why we could have used more than an hour at second reading to discuss this bill in the House. It would have been worth spending more time discussing a reform of the corrections system and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Nevertheless, the NDP will support this bill at second reading, because we believe in the principle of having the Parole Board of Canada making the initial decision about whether a detainee should be allowed a temporary absence before being paroled.

However, it is not realistic to require the board to make all of the decisions regarding these absences, which could be granted to 2,880 detainees, to be exact. That is why I said that the Parole Board of Canada will be short of time and resources.

In reality, since the Conservative government took power, it has made some draconian budget cuts to all sectors of correctional services. Corrections officers have been repeatedly trying to update their old terms of employment, since the environment is changing. I wanted to say, “evolving”, but that is not true.

The prison system is not evolving. Serious and violent crime is on the rise, as are all sorts of other crimes. More and more people are being imprisoned for terrorist activities, and there are more and more crimes related to cyberbullying. Crimes are increasingly varied and serious and affect several segments of society.

The corrections system is in constant flux. People who work in the system should be given an environment, the financial resources and the infrastructure to be able to do their job. The same is true for the Parole Board of Canada. Clearly, it does not have the necessary resources to carry out the tasks in this bill.

The Conservatives cannot continue slashing the parole board's budget while asking it to do more. As a result of other legislation passed by the Conservatives, the backlog of pardon applications to the Parole Board of Canada has reached 20,000, and they would like to do more. I do not know how many years it would take to process 20,000 applications. Clearly, the board is not able to keep up with everything being asked of it. If this bill is not amended, it will not work, and implementing it will be impossible.

I talked about the critical importance of rehabilitation. I would like to share a story with you. It took me a while to decide whether to share this story because it is about a family I am close to that lost a loved one who was murdered by a repeat sex offender. Nobody ever took a real interest in that offender, so he ended up committing several crimes. The whole time he was in the system, he never had a chance at rehabilitation. It ended with murder.

That person did not have a chance to use the resources available in the justice system, to get therapy, to get the kind of supervision he needed to reintegrate into society. Not even once. It ended with murder. A family's loved one was murdered. For all intents and purposes, life for the victim's family is over. After something like that, people can never get back to normal. I am not talking about the victim or the prisoner; I am talking about the victim's family. After such a tragedy, family members lose their bearings and life no longer has any meaning.

However, in a modern, industrialized and prosperous society, it would have been quite easy to provide resources for rehabilitation, whether to address recidivism with regard to alcohol, drugs, spousal abuse, sexual offences or cyberbullying. Governments are not coming to grips with the situation.

Rather than coming up with bills containing more repressive measures, we must address rehabilitation and education. It would just be a matter of engaging with people on the ground before it is too late. However, here we have yet another bill that takes away decision-making authority from prison wardens. They do an exceptional job with the resources they have. They are there on the ground and they are capable of making decisions. This power is being taken away from them and given to the Parole Board of Canada, which is already overloaded.

As I said, the goal of the bill appears very noble, but it will be impossible to make it work on the ground. The resources available at the moment make that impossible.

I am asking the government to co-operate. Then, when the bill goes to committee after second reading, I am asking the government to accept the amendments, be they from the NDP or from the Liberal Party.

People who have worked on the ground have suggestions that will make the bill easier to implement, so that the society we live in can be safer for everyone.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by once again thanking the member for Oxford for bringing forward this common sense proposal.

His law enforcement background clearly provides a wealth of experience, which contributes to practical solutions to keep Canadians safe. His efforts with the bill would give a voice to victims and their families. Victims have long demanded that more be done to ensure that their rights come before the rights of criminals. Giving victims a stronger voice is a key priority for our government, something we clearly laid out in the Speech from the Throne.

Since we were first elected in 2006, our Conservative government has taken steps to end the imbalance created in our justice system by the previous Liberal governments, which replaced bars with a revolving door. Shockingly, Trudeau-era solicitor general, Jean-Pierre Goyer, said that they have decided from now on to stress the rights of criminals rather than the protection of society. That is shameful.

Is it any surprise that the victims of crimes and their families have felt that they are an afterthought in the current justice system? Unlike the Liberals, our Conservative government has listened to the concerns of victims and we have clearly acted. We have pushed ahead with common sense reforms to right these past wrongs. We have done so because we believe that victims have a role to play at the heart of the justice system. Strengthening the justice system to support victims of crime requires us to tackle the issue of crime from all angles, and this is exactly what we have done. We have made significant investments in crime prevention programs to keep at-risk youth out of gangs, and we are providing police with the tools and resources they need to do their jobs.

In many cases, helping our police means bringing in new laws that give them improved powers to investigate crimes, make arrests and keep criminals off the streets for appropriate amounts of time. We have passed laws to ensure that those who break the law are held accountable for their actions, where sentences match the severity of the crimes committed. We have also brought in a number of measures that emphasize offender accountability, from enshrining correctional plans into law to ensuring prisoners cannot withdraw their parole application at the last minute, and ensuring that prisoners are paying for their own room and board.

While I could speak for hours about all of our Conservative government's accomplishments, the bill we are here to talk about today relates to escorted temporary absences from prison. More specifically, it is about ensuring that only the Parole Board of Canada has the power to release prisoners except in very limited circumstances.

Currently, for prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, the authorization for ETAs, or escorted temporary absences, falls either to the Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, or the Parole Board of Canada, depending for the most part on how much of his or her sentence a prisoner has completed. Aside from some minor exceptions, the Parole Board is typically in charge of approving escorted temporary absences from the start of the sentence until the prisoner reaches day parole eligibility.

After that point, the Correctional Service of Canada takes over for all prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for the remainder of their sentence, in other words, until the day they are granted parole and conditionally released into the community. As the member for Oxford has said, we continue to hear calls from victims of crime who feel that decisions on these absences should remain with the Parole Board, rather than an unaccountable official. Victims want assurances that violent offenders who are serving time for murder are only granted escorted temporary absences after a rigorous process of checks and balances similar to that used to grant parole.

The legislation before us was born out of those concerns. It proposes changes to the current system that aim to alleviate this stress and help victims of crime feel greater confidence in the escorted temporary absence system. Under the proposed legislation, the Parole Board would be granted almost exclusive authority for making decisions on escorted temporary absences for first- or second-degree murders. Our Conservative government supports the intent of the proposed legislation. We will introduce amendments at committee to address some concerns regarding duplication and operational considerations.

We are ensuring that the concerns of victims are respected, and that the corrections system actually corrects criminal behaviour. I applaud the member for Oxford for bringing forward Bill C-483. I believe that the bill would continue to move us in the right direction. This is just one more example of how our government is working hard to support the victims of crime.

In the coming months, we will push forward with more initiatives and legislation, with the same determination we have shown in the past seven years. We will do everything in our power to ensure that public safety comes first. This is what Canadians have asked us to do, and this is what we will continue to do.

We will support this legislation, with amendments, and I hope that just for once, the NDP and Liberals will support this legislation that puts the rights of victims first.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I usually say that I am pleased to speak on a bill, but if I am being honest, I am not really pleased to be speaking on Bill C-483 in the fashion it has come forward. My colleague who just spoke mentioned some of those areas.

When the member for Oxford started off, he gave a great rendition of the Safe Streets and Communities Act and the government's tough on crime agenda and all of that. It sounds wonderful when it is talked about that way. However, what are we doing dealing with all these private members' bills coming up one by one? Where is the discussion within the government caucus? Do they not discuss these matters?

I mean, we are talking about the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We are talking about very complicated pieces of legislation.

My colleague who spoke earlier talked about the different rules for private members' bills, and it is true. With this kind of mishmash of private members' bills coming forward from the Conservative backbench, we could be complicating the justice system and could end up with results we do not want.

I have a list of private members' bills. There are some 16 related to the Criminal Code that are all coming forward as private members' bills. Let us be honest. Why are they using these bills, like this one from the member for Oxford? It is a real concern. I agree with the concern in terms of the victims, but why is it not coming forward as a comprehensive piece of legislation from the Government of Canada?

Is what we are really seeing from members on the backbench over there, in collusion with the government, a bit of a farce? Are Conservatives having private members come up with bills so they can tout what they have done for victims at home?

The parliamentary secretary got up a moment ago, and it sounds as if she is fully in favour of this proposal. Well, why did it not come forward as a piece of government legislation? This parliamentary secretary is close to the minister. Why did it not come forward as a well-thought-out piece of legislation?

My concern is with the process. If this place is going to work effectively, then the government itself should come forward with legislation such as this in a well-thought-out fashion that is comprehensive, not piecemeal.

I am getting a little heckling, but it is all right. They can heckle, because I know that sometimes the truth hurts.

I think that is what we are seeing from government backbench members in collusion with the government. They are bringing forward bills so they can showcase themselves at home on all they are doing for criminal justice, when really, the government has failed in its responsibility to do it in a comprehensive way.

In terms of this particular bill, we will, regardless of what I have said, support it going to committee for examination. It is our expectation that we may be able to get some answers from the member for Oxford at those committee hearings.

On the issue of severely limiting the ability of individual wardens to grant such temporary releases, I think the committee process will enable us, as members, to raise questions and allow the member to provide evidence to demonstrate a clear need that requires such legislative changes.

My colleague who spoke before talked about the victims, and the member for Oxford talked about the victims. I know that he tries to paint us as not there for victims and being there for the offenders. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, how can it be done in a way that actually enhances public safety and protects the interests of victims?

We are certainly not as likely to do it in this piecemeal approach that we see by the Government of Canada. This is not really a private member's bill. It is a Government of Canada bill by the back door.

The targeting of only those convicted of first and second degree murder in the legislation implies that both in terms of the number of offenders involved and the likelihood of their early release represents a threat to the community. Is that the case? I am asking the member upfront now. Could he provide us some evidence in that regard? We need to hear it.

I have not heard any evidence. I raised this question. Could the member provide us with evidence where offenders have indeed committed an offence when they are released under the escorted temporary release? He did not answer that question. He just went on his attack that we did not like victims. It is not the way to do legislation.

There is no argument that the temporary release programs for all offenders must be well managed and that only those offenders who have met a certain set of criteria should be eligible for such a program. I really do not disagree with the member that the victim's family should have a right to be heard, but I do not necessarily agree that this is the way to do it.

The legislation, as I have said, is not supported by evidence indicating an abuse of the escorted temporary release program, which would justify these kinds of legislative changes.

What remains to be seen is to what degree the legislation is actually addressing an issue, or whether, as I indicated earlier, it is an example of the Conservative Party playing to its base and trying to create an issue. That seems to be where we are at.

The government members had the opportunity in 2011 to seek amendments such as this in Bill C-10, the so-called Safe Streets and Communities Act, but they failed to bring them forward at that time and they certainly failed to bring forward all these other 16 that are on here that are private members' bills. Why was it not done in a comprehensive way?

What C-10 did provide for, according to the legislative summary, was for “The Commissioner of the CSC, Correctional Service Canada, to make rules regarding the circumstances in which the institutional head may authorize escorted temporary releases and work releases”.

Even the former minister of public safety appeared content with the new restrictions imposed with respect to temporary absences when he testified before the justice committee on October 6, 2011, not that long ago.

The question remains this, and I asked the member to come forward to committee with this: what significant public safety issue is being addressed with Bill C-483? Is there any?

I will not go through all the areas for which escorted temporary releases are granted, but indeed, as others before me have said, we are concerned about the families and we have to find a way of addressing that. However, I do not think the approach to find the way to address that is to haphazardly, through private members' bills, change the Corrections and Conditional Release Act or the Criminal Code. It needs to be done in a more comprehensive way.

We just dealt with a private member's bill at committee. It was amended extensively. That work should have been done by the Department of Justice. It should have been done by the government as a whole, showing leadership to make the criminal justice system better in terms of protecting victims' rights and enhancing public safety.

That is my concern, that we are seeing these private members' bills come forward as if they are playing a game when the real issue is, yes, victims' rights and public safety, and the government should be showing the leadership to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-483, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to escorted temporary absence. The bill has been brought forward by the member for Oxford, I think with very good intentions, but as is often the case, I have many reservations about these kinds of private members' bills.

My first concern is that the bill is part of a pattern we have seen in this Parliament of the introduction of bills that more properly ought to be government bills. Government bills differ from private members' bills in many ways. One of those is in how much scrutiny and how much debate they receive in the House. An even more important way they differ is in the kind of scrutiny they receive before they even arrive in the House. Therefore, as a private member's bill, Bill C-483 escapes any scrutiny with regard to its conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My concern here is not just about the protection of fundamental freedoms, although I do have that concern, but it is also about the stability and certainty we need in our legal system if we want to make sure that the rule of law can actually function. If we pass measures that are likely to be eventually overturned in the courts, or even if the outcome of this measure is endless litigation, then we add a significant challenge to our legal system. How can people know what the law is? How can even defence attorneys or prosecutors be certain that the actions they are taking will actually end up being upheld in court? Without that kind of scrutiny, when something comes forward as a private member's bill, we risk creating instability in the legal system over the long term.

My second concern is that we have had a large number of private members' bills introduced, which were actually government bills masquerading as private members' bills, and they all sought to amend the Criminal Code and/or the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, piecemeal. What we have is a number of different bills making a number of different changes to a very complex Criminal Code and a very complex Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Therefore, quite apart from the dangers of inadvertently adopting contradictory provisions as we deal with these bills, we have another problem. We have a certain danger that we will adopt changes to the Criminal Code or the Corrections and Conditional Release Act without waiting to see the results of the preceding bills that we have already adopted. We have not even seen what has happened or what is going to happen with some of the changes we have already made, and now we are changing the bills yet again. It raises a problem with rule of law. It raises a problem with knowing the certain consequences of what we are doing here in the House.

My third concern is that the ideas for these Conservative private members' bills are often ripped from sensational headlines. They are based on cases that, by their nature, outrage or concern the public and all of us. They forget that these cases, which are so outrageous and sensational, are often news precisely because they depart from the norm, because they are outrageous and unusual.

Therefore, in attempting to fix the law based on the exceptions that are represented by these extreme cases, we do run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water. We may have some things that are operating, as in the case of escorted temporary absences, with a 99% success rate, so we focus on the 1%. These cases are tragic and probably could have been prevented through some other means, but we throw out the whole system, which has been working very well to help rehabilitate people and get them back into society successfully.

I acknowledge that the bill does attempt to address two real concerns. One is the sensitivity of the families of victims of murder when they see someone who has been convicted of this very serious crime released from custody, even if only on a temporary basis. That is something we are sensitive to on this side of the House. It is something we feel needs to be addressed.

The other concern that is real is the safety of escorted temporary absences, both for the public and for corrections staff. The bill, unfortunately, does not really address that concern in its provisions.

For those reasons, New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-483 at second reading. There are legitimate concerns here and we think that in committee we can find the right measures to address these concerns. What we have to do is make sure we do not confuse escorted temporary absences with parole. On the other side, there is an unfortunate tendency to use a phrase that describes escorted temporary absences as “parole by the back door”. The previous minister was very fond of talking about this. Escorted temporary absences are not a form of parole. They are a way in which we test whether offenders are ready for staged and supervised reintegration into the community.

The way we find out whether they handle increased freedom and the way we can find out how they react to being out of custody is through escorted temporary absences when there is someone with them to observe and prevent the negative consequences that might occur. As I said, it is about the staged and supervised reintegration into society that is the real purpose of escorted temporary absences.

This leads me to something the member for Oxford did not mention, which is public safety. He talked about victims quite sincerely, and I believe that. I share that concern, but there is another concern here about not having future victims. We need to have a corrections system that functions to ensure we reintegrate people into society and we do not create problems for other families in the future.

There is a wide range of reasons why escorted and unescorted temporary absences are granted to those in custody. This bill would not affect most of those, but it is important to note how these temporary absences are used. They are often used for rehabilitation programs, including drug and alcohol treatment which is not available in the institution the person is in. This is a particular concern with the very large number of people that we have in our prisons with alcohol and drug addictions.

The temporary absences are also used for significant family events, like terminal illnesses or funerals. They are also used for interesting things that people might not think about, like job interviews for positions after release from prison. If we want people successfully reintegrated into society and they are in prison, how can they get a job? An escorted temporary absence to a job interview might be an important part of that reintegration into society.

Sometimes the absences are used for training that is not available in prisons. When people get out, they need skills to earn a living, support themselves and not be a further burden on the public. Sometimes these temporary absences are in structured situations where people get the training they need. Again, this is very important to public safety after they get out of prison.

There are a wide variety of legitimate reasons which, in fact, contribute to public safety and prevent future victimization by preparing inmates for more successful reintegration into all of our communities upon their release.

What am I worried about in the bill? I am worried about the proposed solution. It is not the concerns. As I have said, we share those concerns. However, as I asked the member for Oxford earlier about the proposed solution, can the Parole Board actually deal with each and every application for an escorted temporary absence from nearly 3,000 inmates in custody at the present time? Do we have the personnel to do this? Do we have the financial resources?

The Parole Board, as I mentioned in my question, now has a backlog of 20,000 pardon applications. It has said that it will not clear these applications until the end of 2015. It has had to hire 1,000 temporary workers to try to attack the problem of pardons.

Why are pardons important? Pardons are important because they are the way that people can get employment after they have completed their sentences and want to be reintegrated into the community. That pardon part, of course, does not apply to those convicted of murder. There is no such thing in Canada. Life in Canada actually means life under supervision.

The Parole Board is already dealing with these other applications and it has had its budget cut by $3 million in this current fiscal year.

It is important to remember that the Correctional Service of Canada reports that 99% of temporary absences are completed successfully.

There was a letter published in the Montreal Gazette in July, when this bill was introduced, written by Peter Huish, who is the Chaplain-Coordinator of the Montreal area. He is the person who organizes work with those who are being released from prison and he has a very intimate knowledge of what happens with both escorted and unescorted temporary absences. In his letter, he emphasized the “significant contributions to effective eventual parole” that escorted and unescorted temporary absences play in our system. This is someone who works with offenders every day, in and out. He also emphasizes that the vast majority, in fact almost all, of these are successfully completed.

What do we need to ensure that the small number are successfully completed? The corrections system needs more resources for the security reviews that the wardens rely on before making those decisions.

What do need to ensure that those escorted temporary absences are safe for the public and the corrections staff? We have had a reduction of resources, meaning that many times, an offender who would need two people on the escorted absence, because of the complexity of the absence or travel involved, is instead escorted by a single corrections officer. Therefore, it is a question of resources in the corrections system that would take care of most of the security.

We on this side do share the concerns that families of victims have about escorted temporary absences. We share the concerns that corrections officials have about single accompaniment in these absences. In committee, we will be proposing that this bill be amended significantly. We need to hear from victims. We need to hear from those who work with offenders.

We believe a solution may be found in having the Parole Board make the initial determination on whether an offender is eligible for temporary absences, then leaving the specific decisions on individual absences to the wardens. This would allow victims to be heard in the parole system, as the member for Oxford suggested. I hope he is willing to consider that this may be the solution to the problem he is trying to solve without placing that undue burden on the Parole Board and without inadvertently eliminating an important part of our system, which helps reintegrate prisoners into society.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think if the member for Malpeque would just wait for a couple of seconds, he will understand.

This commitment was recently reaffirmed in the Speech from Throne, which noted that our government will introduce a victims' bill of rights to restore victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system.

Indeed, these are all important steps. We are pleased with the progress we have made. We are taking the necessary steps to reshape the criminal justice system into one that is more responsive to the needs of victims. That is why I introduced the bill before us today, which would build upon the previous measures introduced by our government.

Bill C-483 proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as it relates to escorted temporary absences for offenders convicted of first- or second-degree murder. The bill is consistent with our commitment to ensuring that the needs of victims and victims' families be considered when correctional officials make decisions affecting a prisoner's release. An escorted temporary absence would allow a prisoner to leave prison for very short periods of time, for very specific reasons. As the name implies, the inmate is escorted for the duration of the absence by law enforcement, possibly a sheriff or a correctional officer.

I would like to take a few moments to briefly outline the current structure for escorted temporary absences, as set out in the Criminal Code.

With the exception of specific situations I will mention in just a moment, the Parole Board is the releasing authority on escorted temporary absences for all those serving indeterminate sentences, from the start of their sentence up until they reach day parole eligibility. For those sentenced to a minimum sentence of life imprisonment, eligibility for day parole occurs three years prior to eligibility for full parole.

The exception to this is the escorted temporary absence for medical reasons, judicial proceedings, or a coroner's inquest, which can be authorized by the Correctional Service of Canada at any time in the sentence. Once those serving an indeterminate sentence reach day parole eligibility, the Correctional Service of Canada then becomes the releasing authority for escorted temporary absences, and so remains until the time the offender is conditionally released into the community.

That is the current scheme. I would now like to take a moment to examine what Bill C-483 proposes to do.

The bill proposes to grant the Parole Board of Canada authority for the full length of the sentence to grant or cancel escorted temporary absence for offenders convicted of first or second degree murder.

The exception to this would be that the Correctional Service of Canada would retain the ability to authorize escorted temporary absences for medical emergencies. This would mean that the wardens of federal prisons would no longer have authority to grant temporary escorted absences to inmates convicted of first- or second-degree murder, except in a medical emergency.

Instead, the authority would rest with appointed Parole Board of Canada members, who are accountable for their decisions.

As I have previously noted, for some victims' families, the decision-making authority of wardens to grant escorted temporary absences to murderers has been a matter of great concern. There are several reasons for this, including the decision-making process, access to hearings, a victim's right to make a statement and access to decisions.

I will briefly touch upon each of these reasons.

When a decision regarding an escorted temporary absence is made by the Correctional Service of Canada, no hearings are conducted, as decisions are made on an administrative basis by institutional heads. In contrast, when decisions by the Parole Board of Canada are made, hearings are conducted until the first escorted temporary absence has been approved, and further hearings can be held at the Parole Board's discretion.

Given the administrative nature of decisions made by the Correctional Service of Canada regarding escorted temporary absences, victims and the public are not granted access to the decision-making process.

However, when the Parole Board of Canada conducts a hearing, a victim or a member of the public who applies in writing is permitted to attend as an observer at a hearing where their attendance would not disrupt the hearing, present security concerns, adversely affect the person providing the information to the Parole Board, or adversely affect the appropriate balance between the public interest in knowing and the offender's application.

Furthermore, under the power of the Correctional Service of Canada, not only is there no right for victims to attend the decision-making process, they also have no right to make a statement when decisions are made for an offender's escorted temporary absence. When the Parole Board of Canada conducts a hearing on an escorted temporary absence, the victim may present a statement. The victim may comment on the harm or damage that has resulted from the offence and its continuing impact, including concerns for his or her safety, and on the possible release of the offender.

Even if the victim does not attend, the Parole Board of Canada has the option to allow the presentation of a statement in an alternative format therefore still allowing the victim's voice to be heard.

Finally, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does not require the Correctional Services Canada to maintain a registry of its decisions therefore limiting access to information for the victim and accountability to the public. However, the Parole Board of Canada must maintain a registry of its decisions and decisions rendered by the Parole Board under section 746(1) of the Criminal Code along with the reasons for its decisions.

An individual who demonstrates an interest in a case, may, on written application to the Parole Board, have access to the contents of the registry related to that case. This request is balanced out in order to ensure that no information is disclosed of which could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the safety of any person or reveal the source of information obtained in confidence. This allows the victim to access not only the decision on an escorted temporary absence but also the reasons for its approval or refusal.

As we can see, there are flaws in the current system that result in a non-accountable and inaccessible system and hinder the rights and voices of victims.

Through my private member's bill, I want to ensure that proper measures of transparency and access are in place for all individuals affected by temporary absences, including the victims. It is also our firm belief that the decisions of the Parole Board of Canada should be respected in letter and spirit as it is an institution that is accountable to all Canadians. I believe the bill is a step in the right direction in this regard.

As I conclude, I would reiterate our government's strong commitment to keeping our streets and communities safe and to a fair and efficient justice system that supports the rights of victims. I hope we can count on the support of the NDP and the Liberals for this common sense measure.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

moved that Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank Kim Hancox-Spencer for all of her time, patience and help in getting this bill to this stage.

It is my honour to rise today and have an opportunity to speak to my Bill C-483 and highlight our Conservative government's strong action to support victims of crime. Our Conservative government has worked to re-establish Canada as a country where those who break the law are held accountable for their actions, where sentences match the severity of crimes and where the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals. We believe that victims must be at the heart of the criminal justice system.

Since 2006, we have provided more than $120 million to respond to the needs of victims of crime. The Safe Streets and Communities Act, one of our first bills after forming a majority government, was a significant accomplishment, one that further strengthened support for victims. For example, the Safe Streets and Communities Act provides the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada with additional authority to give information to victims.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act brought about meaningful changes in the lives of victims by ensuring that the concerns of victims were taken into account in parole hearings. Victims have consistently called for greater fairness and a greater voice in the criminal justice system. This imbalance between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims was also noted in a report released in 2010 by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Our government has listened and we continue to take action to support victims of crime. We have announced our plan to bring forward legislation to create a victims' bill of rights, one that will enshrine victims' rights in federal law—

Correctional Service Canada

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, John Porter was convicted of killing an Oshawa man, Roland Slingerland, in cold blood. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years. However, we have learned that three years before he can apply for parole, Correctional Service Canada has allowed Porter to leave prison early.

Canadians find this unacceptable. That is why I introduced Bill C-483. Those serving life sentences for heinous crimes must appear before the parole board before they can see the light of day. I am proud that our Conservative government announced that we will make life sentences mean life behind bars.

I call on the Liberals and the NDP to support these important measures to help protect families and increase accountability for offenders.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce my private member's bill, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West, also a former police officer.

My private member's bill is an enactment that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in order to limit the authority of the institutional head to authorize the escorted temporary absence of an offender convicted of first or second degree murder.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)