Public Safety Committee on March 25th, 2014

[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.

[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]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacKenzie.

We will start our round of questioning.

First off, we will have Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our committee, Mr. MacKenzie. I would like to thank you for bringing this bill before us. I think it is important legislation, and I think it speaks to your background as well to bring something like this before our committee today. I really commend you for having it come this far. I know how difficult it is to get a private member's bill to committee.

I listened to your opening remarks. We understand the basis behind this and how the Parole Board works with regard to these offenders, but I'm just wondering if you could speak a bit about why you actually decided to take on this bill. What was it that prompted you to want to change the system to ensure that those who commit some of the most serious crimes—first- and second-degree murder—are actually having their cases heard by the Parole Board as opposed to having them simply turned over to the institution's warden?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you for the question.

The big issue here, primarily, is police officers and prison guards who are murdered in the line of duty and those who are sentenced to the maximum sentence of life in prison. In particular, my interest in this was raised a great deal by a victim, a police officer's widow. You'll hear from the widow in her words. I think it's important that you hear her.

Kim Hancox's husband was murdered in Toronto in 1997 by two women. Kim is a very astute woman, and you'll hear in her words exactly what that means. She has been through the process with the national parole board. She understands that process and appreciates the opportunity she has to present her feelings to the national parole board. But what happened in this case in particular is that the national parole board said that these people, one of them in particular, should not be released. Then the system, in that last three years, it ends up that this goes to the prison warden, and the prison warden decided that there should be a release.

I think she found that it just wasn't right, that it didn't feel right. I agree with her. For that reason, we have this bill.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that answer.

You said in your opening remarks that, “This switch in releasing authority from the Parole Board to the wardens is what concerns victims of crime and many other Canadians.” I think anyone listening to today's committee meeting would agree with that statement.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but for someone who is being heard by the Parole Board of Canada up until the last three years prior to eligibility, they could actually, on the day before that three-year period, appear before the Parole Board of Canada, and then the very next day go to the warden and ask for the same thing and be approved, whereas the Parole Board had actually said no or maybe there were conditions applied. Can that actually happen?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

That's the essence of why I've brought this bill forward. The national parole board is charged with that responsibility. They go through their process, including having people attend before the national parole board, and then the warden releases someone....

This is not meant to be punitive. They release someone that the national parole board has turned down and the victims then get no notification. They don't get the opportunity to appear before the warden and to have their opportunity to explain why they don't think someone should be released. That's the part they find very difficult from a victim's perspective. It's that they have then lost any opportunity to have their feelings known.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

This is almost a backdoor parole process.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes. You know, I think you'll hear from most folks that they agree with the process with parole. They agree with national parole. They might not agree with national parole decisions every time, but they've had an opportunity to have input in it. As it is now, the system leaves national parole and goes purely to the warden of the prison, and that doesn't feel right to them.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just for the record, I want to make it clear that not in any way do I think the wardens are not capable of making certain decisions. It's the fact that within this particular case, where it's dealing with first- and second-degree murderers who are actually going through the Parole Board instead of the institution wardens, this bill speaks to that and believes for the last remaining three years they should also be going through the Parole Board. I think most Canadians would agree with that perspective as well.

With regard to the victims themselves, and the fact that they've had the ability to be participating in the Parole Board process, and to attend hearings or provide statements and so forth, do you feel that to suddenly have the authority to release that particular offender given to the warden, and having an individual not be made aware of that, or not have the ability to speak to that, is a further revictimization of that individual?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes, it is, absolutely.

I'd like to make it perfectly clear that nothing the wardens are doing is wrong. It's the system that's wrong as opposed to the wardens. The wardens are making these decisions based on their reasoning, and it's not.... They're not the wrong people; it's the system that is wrong. We allowed it to...and not only allowed it; it's in legislation that they can do it.

I think most Canadians, not only the victims, relatives, and so on, but I think most Canadians, would be shocked to know that when you get to that final three years, it's up to a prison warden, even though national parole may have said no.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Sorry, but just as a final statement again, we're talking about only the most serious of crimes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Absolutely. Yes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Garrison, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. MacKenzie, for being with us today.

Certainly on our side we understand the concerns that the victims of very serious crimes have, but we have several times expressed our concern that we've had a lot of private members’ bills that amend various parts of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We've become very concerned about unintended consequences of the various things that are happening here.

Something you said in your opening statement, which is a bit technical, I want to go back to. From reading the text of the bill as submitted, it's not clear to me that this only applies to rehabilitative temporary escorted absences. Certainly the summary of the bill does not say that, and certainly none of the sections the bill as presented say that. It makes an exception for medical absences, but this bill as presented makes no reference to things like the court appearances.

Maybe it requires a more complex reading of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to see that, but I cannot see that in the bill as presented.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Garrison, I don't have that at my fingertips, but I think that is a given, that the wardens always have that for temporary release for medical purposes, and I think I indicated in there, for court appearances and so on—the obligatory options.

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

With respect, in certainly the copy of the bill that I have in front of me, I don't see it anywhere.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay.

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

It only says “medical emergency”. It does not say mandatory court appearances. By my reading of the bill, and with the limited knowledge I have of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the form of your bill may not accomplish exactly what you intended.

I think that's an important question that we'll perhaps have to get legal advice on, if you don't have that today.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

No, I would agree with you that you should get legal advice. You shouldn't take my word on it. But if you look at proposed paragraph 17(1)(b) in the bill, I think it does spell that out.

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

I see the reference to it there, but in your proposed subsection 17(1.1), where you have a new section that deals directly with that limited category of those convicted of first- or second-degree murder, I don't see a reference to it in that fashion.

Proposed paragraph 17(1)(b), which you referred to, says for all those “other than”.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

With all due respect, I think you have to go to where the national parole board can release for those purposes.

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

Well, I'm going to ask for further legal advice.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes, absolutely.