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.

[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.