Public Safety Committee on March 25th, 2014

[Harvey Cenaiko]

Exactly, and I can't answer on behalf of CSC. However, I can say that any pre-release of an offender is one of the most important releases we're going to look at, because you have to measure and take everything into account—their whole lifestyle, all the issues in relation to societal issues that they may have grown up through, addiction issues. It's a very studious process to go through in assessing risk of an offender.

But this is about protecting Canadians, and we don't take this lightly. So we're going to ensure that we assess the risk, and that the offender, as stated in the release plan...that the risk is gradual, it's supervised, and the offender is following a plan that is in place.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

You used 25 years as an example. For the first 22 years these individuals are more or less under your watch, and then, bam, you have three years left and all of a sudden everything changes.

What magically happens that determines that you no longer have the releasing authority on those individuals and that all of a sudden it goes to someone else who follows a different set of guidelines?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

It's the legislation. That's truly what it is.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay, because I think at the end of the day this is about the victims being all of a sudden shut out of the process.

I guess my time is probably up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have another minute.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

Yes, they are.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Going back to Ms. O'Sullivan, talking about victims being shut out of the process, we heard the story of Ms. Hancox and her particular situation. But I think that this particular bill does speak to the need to involve victims in the process from start to finish, not to have them fully participate right up until that 22-year example that you gave, but to fully participate for up to 25 years and be able to be involved in the process and know that they're part of the solution, part of the answer. Something terrible has happened to them, and they have that right.

So here we have the last three years of that particular sentence, and I think it's very important that we don't shut the door on victims or the victim's family. I think it's important that we open up the door and allow them to continue with that process. I know you're going to agree with that, but do you have any final comments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Actually, the time has expired.

Thank you very much.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Rousseau, for a couple of minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cenaiko, what are the steps in the review process for conditional release? When do you do the review and who looks at the file? How long does one review take?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

Each review is approximately two hours. Each board member is allotted approximately two hours to go through the offender's file. Now, depending on the seriousness of the file—and in this case we're talking about indeterminate life sentences, first-degree murder, second-degree murder—in some of the cases these are extensive files, these are quite large, so it could take longer to review them. However, two to three hours per review would be the approximate time you would allot, depending on the case. It's case by case.

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

Do the board members have to do any research or gather information on the file they are reviewing?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

No, the files are provided to the board by Correctional Service Canada, which, of course, is looking after them. So we have the whole file, which includes the court documents, the judge's comments, the police reports, all of the psychological reports, psychiatric reports. All of those reports are included in that file, including the victim statements as well. All of that is reviewed by the board member in preparing for the hearing. Then at the hearing, of course, they're asked questions by—

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

The whole process takes about two to three hours?

[Harvey Cenaiko]

In an office review, it would be two hours and then writing up a decision.

Attending a hearing, you would review, study the file, and then prepare yourself for the interview the next day, go to the institution, have the hearing, which could take up to two hours, and interview the offender and make a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Cenaiko.

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

I thank our witnesses for coming today. We certainly do appreciate your time, your expertise, and your commitment to justice and public safety.

Thank you very much. Our witnesses can be excused.

Colleagues, before we break, I would like a motion from this committee to approve the expenses for the witnesses.

Can I have a motion? Mr. Maguire.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Just a question, Mr. Chair, is this just done on the calculations from Toronto? There are other places in this country besides Toronto. There are five witnesses listed here from Toronto.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter, I can ask our clerk to explain, if you wish, the breakdown of how and why. Do you want that now?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Leif-Erik Aune]

When planning this with the logistics officer, I advised that the witnesses would all be coming from Ontario, not all from Toronto. I know that some are driving from other regions, but for the sake of costing it out, it seemed to me that approximately $1,000 per witness, from whom we expected expenses, seemed reasonable.

For the sake of calculation, I allowed her to use Toronto as the base. It was only for that reason, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Motion put forward by Mr. Maguire.

All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

The meeting is adjourned.