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.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East to resume debate, I will let him know that there are only about six minutes remaining in the time allocated for private members' business for this evening. I am not sure if he will need all of that time, but if he does, we have six minutes. Of course, he will have his remaining time when the House next resumes debate on the question, should he need it.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East will have four minutes remaining, should he wish it, when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 6:31 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.)

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.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East had the floor the last time the bill was before the House, and he has four minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[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.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I see another one of these private member's bills coming from the Conservatives. It is one of many we have seen over the years. I guess we could call it one of those backdoor bills.

If the justice minister and the Conservative members over there really believe in whatever legislation they are bringing forward, and I think we have seen some 15 or 16 such bills over the years, why do they not have the minister bring it forward in the proper way? It is, of course, the proper way Parliament should work.

We should take a bill before committee and go through it. The committee could travel, digest it, and have stakeholders from around the country come in and talk about it. We could visit other countries and see what they are doing in these situations. However, right now, we have political statements from a backbencher, and one wonders if they come from the backbencher or where they come from, at the end of the day.

Maybe there have to be changes in the judicial system. Should we be like the United States? I doubt it. Should we be more like Europe? Maybe, in some ways. However, this is not the way to have legislation.

It is interesting that the Conservatives talk about getting rid of more laws and rules and regulations. Then they turn around and throw out these private member's bills, which waste a lot of time in this House, because many times, private member's bills do not go anywhere. If the government were really serious, it would put forward the legislation.

I do not know how many people at home are watching this, but many know that I am a farmer. I am not a judge, a police officer, or a warden, but I do know what happens in the community. If we are going to have a safe and more just society, the resources have to go to the community.

A friend of mine was a police officer, and he worked at our local high school. He was a young police officer who worked undercover. I think he prevented more crime than all the rules and regulations put forward, because he was working on the ground. He saw where there was trouble in families. He saw troubled kids. That is the philosophy I believe in: We can make this a safer country by putting our resources where they should be.

We start handcuffing judges to make sure they have certain rules and regulations and mandatory sentencing, and we tell our wardens what they can and cannot do. We have these important people in our society, with very important jobs, to maintain our justice or improve it.

What is the next private member's bill that will come forward? Maybe it will be that anyone in prison should not have a TV or computer. Of course, everyone may agree that it sounds good, as a private member's bill, but does it really help us make a more just society?

We can see what is happening in the United States. They are trying to keep fewer people in prison and are trying to have more intervention before that happens.

We have to wonder where these private member's bills come from. If we are not going to look at them and go through them the right way, what is the sense of it?

Of the legislation I have seen the Conservatives bring forward, one that really bothered me was on closing the farm prisons. The member for Malpeque was with me when we visited those farm prisons. They were very well-run farms. Yes, they were criminals, and maybe they did wrong in their lives, but seeing them working with the animals and seeing them on these farms, we were seeing them become better citizens.

How much did it cost the government to keep these prison farms open? It did not cost very much. They were producing good products. They were also rehabilitating men and women who were in trouble, who may have done wrong.

At the end of the day, when we look at other systems around the world where they have the lowest crime, the two things those societies focus on is prevention and rehabilitation. That is where the focus has to be.

If everyone in between is going to be handcuffed and told what to do and not do, we might as well have the whole judicial system run by a computer, because local police officers, judges, or wardens have no say in anything they do.

When it is all said and done, eventually the Conservatives are not going to be running this country, but how much damage will they have done to our system? How much will they have made our streets any safer? How many fewer criminals will be out there? I do not think there will have been any improvement. However, they might have struck a cord with a few people and had a few cheap political points, and it might work for them a bit.

It is interesting how the Americans are even changing their philosophy. It is noted that prisons in California are full and overflowing. They have no more room. If a kid is caught with a few joints, all of a sudden that person is in jail. Is that really going to change that young person? They say that the person should have a warden to make sure that young person does not go out. There is no doubt that they are talking about people with serious crimes, but there is no warden who is going to let out somebody who is dangerous. Surely, wardens are going to do due diligence and check it with the judge.

I was not brought up as a lawyer or police officer, but I see what happens on the ground. In my community in Cape Breton, the chiefs of police would like to see more resources, especially for preventing crime. That is key with today's society. We have situations with broken families and young people who are unemployed. If the Conservatives were serious about making a safer country and safer communities and having fewer people in jail, because we want fewer people in jail because we want less crime, they should focus on investing in the communities, in the areas that need it.

When we look at young people, they are watching movies that influence them, and there are gangs around. How do we change that? As a farmer, I used to have a lot of young people working for me. A lot of them were going through hard times, in single-parent families, and it was sometimes difficult working with them. Sometimes they needed a break. Sometimes they needed to feel that they could accomplish something. It was interesting. A lot of them were in trouble but they were getting a second chance. The probation officers used to visit my farm because I had so many young people who were in trouble. They had a second chance. The system helped them out. We gave them a job. They pulled up their boots and their socks and got things going, and we all can do that more.

I know the Conservatives are not going to take my suggestions, as they do not usually. However, they should look at the amount of money they are spending. Instead of building more jails and prisons and handcuffing the judges and wardens so that everybody is locked up, getting only bread and water, if they think we are going to have a better and more just society, they should look at all those billions of dollars. Why not encourage and expand on the things that have worked? We will be in power, but it would be almost impossible to open up those prison farms because they have been taken down or dismantled. It would be almost impossible. That is the Conservative way: to destroy everything that another party might have put in place that makes any sense so the Conservatives can continue with their ideology.

They should take a visit to our friends down south. They are changing their ideology and they know things are not working. We do not want to get into the marijuana debate, but there are states down there that are dealing with it in a different way. Locking them up is not going to solve the problem. Locking them up at a very young age, where maybe there could have been intervention, help, or rehabilitation, is not going to make our society any safer. It is not going to make us a better society.

Why would the member for Oxford come forward with this bill? I wonder if he really believes in it. Did it come from the centre, the PMO? Maybe it did not want to put the work into getting the Minister of Justice out there and having him put it before a committee. This is a nice back-door way to get it out there. Everybody talks about it and changes the channel from all the other problems they have. However, is it really going to make a safe society? Is it going to make a better society?

I am on the agriculture committee. I would like to see the members of the justice committee go and see what other countries are doing. They should see what they are doing in Scandinavian countries and European countries, see what they are doing with their justice systems. Let us see why all their jails are not plugged up. Let us see what the Americans are doing to change things.

That is not going to happen. We are going to continue to see, on top of these 16 bills, another 16 bills—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal member obviously took to heart what a former Trudeau-era Liberal solicitor general said, that the protection of society was secondary to the rights of criminals.

That is what the member's speech was clearly all about. I wonder if the member actually read what the member for Oxford put forward. First, I want to commend the member for Oxford, a police officer and a former police chief.

The Liberal member who just spoke clearly did not actually read the bill, because had he read the bill he would have known what this was actually about. He would have known that it was about protecting victims. The member said that he doubts that a warden would let a dangerous offender out.

Let me tell the House who this bill was for. This bill was for somebody named Kim Hancox. Who is Kim Hancox? Kim Hancox is the wife of an officer in Toronto who was brutally murdered one night when he was investigating or trying to keep our community safe. That is who Bill Hancox was. He was a hero who was slain trying to keep our community safe.

I had the honour of knowing Constable Hancox and his family. I was actually a political assistant working in the same community where this officer was brutally murdered. I knew the family. We often saw Constable Hancox with his two very young children at the Legion for Canada Day and other celebrations in the community. People who worked with me in the office of the member of the provincial Parliament were very close friends with him.

We were all shocked when we learned one night that the officer had been murdered. Even more shocking to the family members was when they then learned, as time went on, that the person who brutally slew this officer was then going to be released temporarily into the community, despite the fact that the Parole Board did not agree with those releases. This person was going to be released into the community, and Kim Hancox and the family were not going to be given notice of these releases.

When the hon. member from the Liberal Party gets up in his place to defend the rights of criminals, he might want to think of people like Kim Hancox, like the Hancox family, like the children of this slain police officer who never heard their father's voice, who do not know what their father sounded like, because they were never given the opportunity.

Before the member gets up in this House and talks about prison farms, the rights of criminals over the rights of victims, and the fact that he doubts the warden would let people out if they are not responsible, he might want to consider for one second the families of the victims and what they have gone through, time and time again, because of a justice system that we are still trying to repair, a justice system that put the rights of criminals ahead of victims under the Liberal government, for decades.

That is what the hon. member might want to reflect upon.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The crime rate went down when the Liberal governments were in power, and we do not defend criminals.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is not a point of order but a matter of debate, it sounds. The hon. parliamentary secretary still has six minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Hancox family, which is undoubtedly watching this debate, appreciates the ridiculous and silly intervention of the member for Malpeque, who should be listening to the debate and not making fun of what happened.

Let me tell the House what happened in 1998. Officer Hancox was investigating undercover in a plaza late at night, trying to keep the community safe, when he was brutally stabbed. He bled out and died on the ground of a plaza that a lot of us have known and attended. It was a very busy plaza. He is a hero for our community and his family. His children will never hear the sound of their father's voice. While the member for Malpeque stands and makes idiotic and silly interventions, he might want to take a moment to listen to the victims of crime who have to relive this constantly.

It is inappropriate that people like Kim Hancox have to relive this. It is inappropriate that she should not be made aware of the fact that the people who did this to her husband, to the children's father and his father's son, are being released into the community. I do not think it is funny, I do not think it is appropriate, and I do not think Canadians think it is appropriate.

The hon. member who spoke before me got up and talked about prison farms and how he had people working on his farm and that probation officers would come by. I do not think it gives the people who have suffered any comfort knowing that the Liberal members opposite want to talk about prison farms, that somehow the rights of criminals are put ahead of the rights of victims.

The member talked about this side of the House. I can say that the member for Oxford worked as a police officer for some 30 years. He was the chief of police in his community, a very well-respected member of his community, someone who mentored a lot of us when we came to this place. After years of working, he brought forward a bill that he thinks will address victims' rights in the community and the grievances that have been brought forward by people like Kim Hancox and others who have to suffer this constantly.

I know the family is in the riding of the member for Ajax—Pickering. This is something that he has also talked a lot about. He gave a very eloquent speech in this place. Perhaps it is not the usual course of action, and we certainly know it was not the usual course of action when the Liberals were in power, to ever allow their backbenchers, those of us who do not have the honour of serving on the front benches or government benches, to allow us to bring forward legislation that is important for our constituents, allowing us to get things done for the reasons we came to this place.

Many of us came to this place because we wanted to reverse the chaotic system of criminal justice that the Liberals brought in. Many of us were elected for that reason and the member for Oxford, having served for 30 years, saw an area that he wanted to improve. He has brought a bill to the House, and despite all of the nonsense that we have heard from the Liberal Party on prison farms, I bet that when the camera is on and it comes time to vote, the Liberals are going to stand in their places and vote in favour of this bill, not because they believe in it but because they know that Canadians believe in it. Somehow between now and when that vote is held, Canadians will contact them and shame them into doing what Canadians want, which is putting victims ahead of criminals, so that we can finally put an end to the Trudeau-era edict, when Solicitor General Goyer said that victims' rights are secondary to the rights of criminals.

We would all agree that one of the primary roles of our justice system has to be the rehabilitation of criminals. We would all agree to that. We always want to release people back into society as better persons than when they went in, but at the same time, in those instances where the actions are so grievous, in an instance like this, we need to inform families by letter that a person will be released. Not informing the families will not give Canadians across this country confidence that the justice system is looking after the rights of victims.

I will be very proud to stand in my place and support this, not just on behalf of the Hancox family but on behalf of all victims of crime in this country who for years have had to suffer under the delusions of the Liberal Party, which still thinks that the rights of criminals trump the rights of victims. I hope the members of the Liberal Party will take the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on this and on what victims of crime, across the country, have been saying.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?