Justice Committee on March 9th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 65. We're meeting pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 24, 2014, on Bill C-587, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility.

Today's witnesses for the first hour are Mr. Head, commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada; and Ms. Suzanne Brisebois, director general of policy and operations, Parole Board of Canada.

With that, Mr. Head, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

As you know, I'm here before you to provide what information you may require of the Correctional Service of Canada with regard to Bill C-587, an act that seeks to amend the Criminal Code to allow for increased parole ineligibility for certain offences.

As you are aware, the Correctional Service of Canada, which I'll refer to as CSC for the sake of brevity, is the federal government agency responsible for administering sentences of a term of two years or more as imposed by the courts. CSC offers a variety of programs for offenders within the institution and those on parole in the community to assist them to successfully reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.

Bill C-587 would specifically affect offenders sentenced to a life sentence upon being “convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events”.

While a life sentence does not necessarily mean life imprisonment, it does mean that the sentence continues for the rest of the offender's life. If the offender is released on parole, the parole period never ends during the offender's life. The offender must still follow the terms and conditions of release imposed by the Parole Board of Canada and can be sent back to prison if those conditions are breached.

Currently, offenders serving life sentences are eligible for day parole three years prior to their full parole eligibility date. Offenders serving life sentences for first-degree murder are eligible to apply for full parole after serving 25 years.

The courts set eligibility dates between 10 and 25 years for offenders serving life sentences for second-degree murder. Some further exceptions exist if the offender was under the age of 18 at the time the murder was committed. Offenders who are declared “dangerous offenders” and who receive an indeterminate sentence are normally first eligible for parole at seven years, with a review every two years thereafter.

As you know, this bill seeks to grant judges the discretion to increase the maximum parole ineligibility period for offenders who have been “convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events” from 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years.

With regard to the specific offences on which this bill seeks to focus, a more in-depth study would have to be conducted to determine the exact number of offenders whose index offence includes all of the above and thus would correspond to the criteria as described in this piece of legislation.

As of yet, the long-term impact of this bill on CSC's management of offenders is difficult to determine. The two main areas where we see potential change are in the long-term accommodation of these offenders and in the management of their correctional programming to prepare them for the possibility of eventual release.

In the first instance, CSC continues to implement a number of measures, including building new living units and ensuring full use of available beds in order to ensure its facilities provide a correctional environment that is safe, secure, and conducive to both inmate rehabilitation, and ultimately, public safety.

The second area of interest is in regard to correctional programming for offenders. Correctional programs contribute to public safety results by making offenders accountable for their behaviour, changing pro-criminal attitudes and beliefs, and teaching skills that can be used to monitor and manage problematic behaviour.

CSC offers a broad range of correctional programs to offenders in institutions and the community, including programs designed to target general crime, general violence, family violence, substance abuse, and sexual offending.

CSC provides correctional programs of differing intensity levels within each of the principal program areas. Research demonstrates that matching program intensity to the level of risk enhances program effectiveness. Moreover, research indicates that the higher the offender's risk and need, the more intense the program needs to be in order to be effective and reduce reoffending. Higher intensity programs are longer than moderate intensity programs in duration and generally provide offenders with more skills and opportunities for skill rehearsal.

Despite clear and compelling evidence that correctional programs are, overall, associated with considerable reductions in reoffending, for offenders serving longer sentences, the proximity of parole eligibility dates is one of the factors considered by my staff when assigning offenders to programs.

As a result, offenders serving these longer periods tend to begin their correctional program later in their sentence, so that the programs retain a stronger effect closer to release.

As the proposed legislation would lengthen the incarceration period for some offenders, it's possible that it can reduce incentives to rehabilitation and good behaviour, potentially compromising institutional security as well as the safety of my staff and other inmates.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee and offer whatever help I can with regard to CSC's work in promoting public safety, and fulfilling our mandate to administer offenders' sentences and to assist them to successfully reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.

I welcome any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Head.

Ms. Brisebois, the floor is yours.

[Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm here today to speak to how Bill C-587, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, would affect the Parole Board of Canada.

As you're likely aware, the Parole Board of Canada is an independent administrative tribunal responsible for making decisions on the conditional release of offenders. The board's conditional release decisions are made in accordance with specific criteria set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or the CCRA. Decisions are based on a thorough review and careful assessment of the risk an offender may pose to the public if released under supervision in the community. In every decision the paramount consideration is public safety.

As you're aware, the proposed Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-587 would serve to mandate a minimum parole eligibility period of 25 years for anyone convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder against the same victim; it would also grant the sentencing judge the discretion to extend the parole ineligibility period beyond the 25 years, up to a maximum of 40 years for these cases.

The board is not involved in setting the eligibility periods for offenders. Parole eligibility is determined through the courts and legislation, namely the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. With respect to the impact for the board, the proposed amendments would serve to extend the parole eligibility date, meaning the board would conduct a parole review at a later period of time.

Offenders convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder against the same victim, serving sentences with a parole eligibility date of at least 25 years, would remain eligible to apply for escorted temporary absences during their sentences. Additionally, these offenders would also remain eligible to apply for both unescorted temporary absences and day parole three years prior to their full parole eligibility date. The process is the same for all offenders serving life sentences.

This concludes my opening remarks, but I'd be pleased to take any questions pertaining to the board's operations. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those succinct opening statements.

Committee, if you don't mind, I have one question for Mr. Head, just for my understanding because I'm not familiar with the process. You don't have to be a first-degree murderer to be a dangerous offender, is that correct?

[Don Head]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, and I'm assuming that the first-degree murder timeframe would take precedence over the dangerous offender one. You say parole eligibility starts after seven years for a dangerous offender, but after 23 years or 25 for first-degree murder. First-degree murder takes precedence over dangerous offender, is that correct?

[Don Head]

Yes, we have a few individuals in the system who...for lack of a better phrase I would call it hybrid sentencing, so yes, the more significant offence would take precedence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, that was just for my understanding.

Madam Boivin, the floor is yours.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Excellent question, Mr. Chair. Give me two more minutes—no, I'm just kidding.

My first question is for both of you. Had your offices, the Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada, been in contact with the sponsor of this bill before it came to Parliament?

[Don Head]

No.

[Suzanne Brisebois]

No, neither for us.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

No one contacted you to discuss what was going on in reality. No one contacted the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada to discuss Bill C-587.

[Don Head]

No. Generally with private members' bills, when they come forward, we examine them and look at potential impacts on our organization, so there would be no discussion with us in terms of private members' bills.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

But you do it on your own.

[Don Head]

That's right.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You keep an eye on the legislation that we provide because you are bound by it.

If I understood your testimony, Ms. Brisebois, basically, you told us that your organization is subject to Canadian legislation. I would summarize your testimony in this way, in general terms: You are going to live with the consequences of what we will produce, of what will be in effect. In this context, that is how the Parole Board of Canada operates.

[Suzanne Brisebois]

Generally, again, with respect to my opening comments, for us, the Parole Board doesn't set the eligibility periods. For us, in these circumstances, the board would see these offenders for full parole reviews at a later period of time.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

The sponsor, when he was testifying, was talking at length about how the rationale of his bill is to try to avoid, for families, for victims, the fact of going in front of the Parole Board.

Maybe you can enlighten us. I'm still without any statistics, any information on how many cases would be really affected by that type of bill. For families, is it what they're voicing to your board? Just give us a sense of what's happening over there on such cases, not every case, but more the ones that are touched by Bill C-587.

[Suzanne Brisebois]

I really can't comment on the origination of the bill because it's really the private member who sponsored it who would be able to provide more of the background.

Again, not knowing the specific numbers, because of the large number of lifers we have—and the circumstances in the proposed legislation are going to be specifically determined by the same events, the same victim—we anticipate there would be a very small number who would be subject to this proposed legislation.

For the board, again, for victims where these offenders are sentenced specifically under this piece of legislation, if it passes, it would mean, for instance, for second-degree the minimum timeframe would be 25 years for the first full parole review date, and then up to 40 years for both first and second, determined by the judge. So the victim, for a full parole review potentially, would be observing and presenting a statement at a later hearing time.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I do understand that.

From your experience, or what you're hearing from your different boards that happen in such cases, what's the feeling of the victims? Because there are some victims I've talked with who want to go—I'm not saying they're counting the days—and I hear also that there are different things done by the Parole Board to make it easier on victims.

Talk to us a bit about that so we have a better sense, because we're not there and at the justice committee level we're less into those types of files than our friends at the public security committee, so make us understand.

[Suzanne Brisebois]

We have over 7,800 registered victims who request information, who are registered with the board to receive information, about offenders under sentence.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Percentage-wise, that would be what?

[Suzanne Brisebois]

For the total number of victims...?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.