Public Safety Committee on March 25th, 2014

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for attending, Mr. MacKenzie.

You talked about Kim Hancox, and obviously the difficulties of losing her husband, particularly when she was expecting. I can just imagine the difficulty that she faces, and I'm assuming that she has gone through a number of Parole Board hearings. I wonder if you could confirm that.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Payne, I don't know that whole background. She will be here on Thursday, and I'm sure that she is quite well prepared to give you that information.

I can say to you that in my conversations with her, she understands the national parole board and appreciates the work they do. Her belief is, as is my belief, that when national parole board say no, somebody shouldn't get out, that the prison warden shouldn't be put in the position of being able to allow them out.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I think that's the whole point of your bill, Mr. MacKenzie, in that certainly in the last three years it's been taken away from the Parole Board and the warden has that authority. I'm guessing that the individuals impacted, the victims, aren't even notified that in fact this individual could be out on the streets. Is that in your understanding?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Part of the concern is that these people may very well be back out on the street without the victims or the families knowing about it.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

They're being revictimized again in the whole process. I find it hard to imagine that someone could get out once the Parole Board has already said that they're not eligible. I think about all of a sudden going to your mailbox and finding something in your mail to say that this individual who murdered your husband or family member is now out on the Parole Board. I'm just at a loss for words.

I think about families who lose individuals and what the impact is for them. It's very difficult. I understand because I've lost family members, but not through this kind of a situation. I understand that in fact those family members take years and years to get through this process. It's a grieving process and the loss of a loved one is extremely difficult. I'm supporting your bill in this to make sure that in fact when the Parole Board says no, that is the statement, nothing happens beyond the Parole Board, because as you stated the Parole Board does in fact do an extremely good job, certainly on rehabilitation and following the processes. I just wanted to make those comments.

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We still have two or three minutes left if there's further questioning?

Seeing no further questioning, thank you very much, Mr. MacKenzie.

We'll suspend now for three minutes while we welcome our new witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we'll start our second hour and in the second hour we have two witnesses before us here. We have from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan, and from Parole Board of Canada we have Harvey Cenaiko.

You have up to 10 minutes each, if you please. We would certainly welcome your comments now.

We will start with you, Mrs. O'Sullivan, ladies first.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. O'Sullivan.

We will now hear from the Parole Board of Canada.

Mr. Cenaiko, you have up to 10 minutes, please.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much.

We will go to the first round of questioning. From the government side we have Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today. My first question will be to Ms. O'Sullivan.

I know in your former life you were a police officer. I wonder if you would agree with me on the following concepts. First, in order for a member of society to appreciate the law, they should have at least a basic understanding of the law and why it is in place the way it is in order for them to be able to properly comply with social order. Second, to extrapolate on that, in order for victims to understand and appreciate the court system, they should, when there's a finding of guilt, understand the system surrounding the offender's life in prison and their part of it—in other words, the parole process and the temporary absence process.

Would you say that both are somewhat synonymous? In other words, the victim needs to appreciate why the system is in place the way it is—and in this case we're dealing with people who have committed a serious crime, such as the murder of a police officer or a prison guard—and the victim, who is serving a full life sentence until they die, needs to be included in the process. Would you say this particular piece of legislation is one more step down that path of including the victim in the process?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

I think you've touched on several key points for victims.

First of all, you touched on the criminal justice system. I've been before this committee and you've heard me talk about how complex and complicated things are for a victim. One of their basic needs is for information to understand their role within that criminal justice system. They need to understand what their rights are, and they need information about the offender who harmed them.

The two other words you hear me use all the time when I speak about victims are “choice” and “options”. Their choice to be involved should be respected, but in order to make those choices and choose those options, they need to be informed as to what is available to them.

In my opening comments I mentioned—and this speaks to your final comments on this—how important it is for victims to have information, to have an opportunity for input into that process, to have an opportunity to update their victim impact statement, and to be informed, at all points along that process, about their ability to participate. Our key points for the agency that's going to have responsibility for this process are that they should ensure that it's transparent, that it's inclusive, that there's an opportunity for victims to participate, and that they're informed.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I know—I think in previous conversations and anecdotally—that you hear from victims all the time. Sometimes as the ombudsman you want to do something, but if there's no legislative authority, no legislative ability for something to happen, then all you can do is point them in the right direction and give them some advice as to who they need to go to in order to get that piece of legislation changed, or whatever.

I wonder if you could share some of your experiences with victims surrounding not just this piece of legislation but pieces of legislation like it, where there's a lack in their ability to let the system know, to let the people within the system who make it run, like the Parole Board, know how they're feeling. I know you mentioned there could be changes to their circumstance that they feel the authorities need to know.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Yes, and I think what we're talking about here is to set up at all stages along the continuum, if you will, that they have opportunities to be informed, to be considered, and to ensure...I use the word “protected”. In many cases, victims want to know that the governing authorities are considering their safety issues, particularly when it comes to different types of conditional release. So they need to understand that the people who have these authorities to make that are...and one way is through the victim's statement.

I also think that when you look at the role of victims in the criminal justice system—you touched on legislation—well, an agency can only give information that the legislation says it can to a victim. That's why it's so important that we allow them to have a transparent process so they can give input. In my comments when I talk about a decision made by the warden's board, there's no written documentation. At the very least, although you've heard me also say we'd like more, a decision registry allows them at least to have some information around that. It's a closed process if they don't.

If you were to ask me, in terms of recommendations, they need to be informed in advance of a hearing process that allows for their participation, they need to be able to present statements, they need to be able to be informed of their offender's progress, because when you're making these decisions on release, that's what they want to know—that you're considering their safety. They want to ensure that they're allowed to update their impact statement. As we talked about, through the process, they're allowed to do that. Also, as I said, they want access to information as to why these decisions are made.

I will also say that whatever the decision is on the process in terms of this legislation, they should also be financially supported in being able to participate in that.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Well, thank you very much, and I think you've hit on some important parts there.

I was dealing with a victim very recently of a terrible sexual assault on her child, and she was given a piece of a map of the community in which she lived. She and her husband broke up during the time that the child had been...and the child had been victimized by a family relative. They were shown this map of a greyed-out area of their community and told that the perpetrator was given the map and told to keep out of the grey-marked area by the parole officer. So this person said, now I've been targeted.

Is this the kind of situation that you have experienced in the past with victims? Do you have some suggestions for this committee as to how we can improve on the process—parole and temporary absence?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

I did, and I have made those recommendations that I just went down, so I won't reiterate those.

But I think what you're speaking about here is the need for victims in the process to have a sense that they have the information they need to make choices and have options, that they are included in that process and fully informed along the way, and also that they can exercise those choices, because, as you know, every victim is unique. Some may choose to participate in the process and some may not, and they need to have that choice.

The other thing you alluded to that I want to build on is that victims may, as well, along their journey—and for many victims it's a lifelong journey—change those choices and options. So they need to have the information in order to make these choices along the way. Keeping them informed and making sure the processes are transparent and that they can participate are key pieces to this.

Thank you.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Would it also be helpful to the releasing agency, because we live in a very mobile society today? So the information the Parole Board may need, if the victim doesn't take part in the process.... Where the legislation permits them to take part, they may have moved, and the Parole Board or the releasing agency may not be aware of their new address, which might impact the temporary release. That's part of the reasons that....

[Sue O'Sullivan]

That's certainly one of the challenges that have been identified by governing agencies. If the victim doesn't keep the file updated, they may not know. So that's certainly a challenge that's been identified, and that really speaks to the role that we have to ensure that all victims and Canadians understand what's required in part of that process.

You also asked me, how else can we get the victims' message out? Issues of release into proximity around victims is certainly one we hear in our office quite frequently. So this is an opportunity for us to really ensure that victims are included. That's a challenge, but I think every opportunity that I get as ombudsman.... I've had the opportunity to speak at an occasion where I think all of your Parole Board members were there, and also to participate on a regular basis. So there are many ways we can use the voice of this office to inform agencies. I continue to have regular meetings with Correctional Service Canada and with the Parole Board of Canada as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock.

Mr. Garrison, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the witnesses for your testimony. I'm always appreciative of having Ms. O'Sullivan here to remind us that the voice of victims needs to be heard, and they need meaningful opportunities to participate.

You've made recommendations that go quite beyond this bill, so I'm not going to deal with those today. I'm going to ask you a very limited question. You've made the point that when temporary absences are granted by wardens, there is no notification, whereas when this is done by the Parole Board, there is notification of the date and the location. Is that something that we as a committee should be thinking about in the larger sense of requiring some notification to victims when a warden's board grants a temporary absence?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Absolutely.

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

I think that's something that everybody around the table will be willing to consider.

[Sue O'Sullivan]

Absolutely...that they be notified that this is coming up.

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

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Cenaiko, I really appreciate your presentation for doing a couple of things. You've clarified the difference between parole and temporary absences. I think we sometimes run those together. I understand why victims do. They don't always understand the difference between those two, but I think it's important at this committee that we keep in mind that those are two very different things.

You talked about the rate of success for temporary absences—I'm assuming granted by the Parole Board— is 99%, or is that for all temporary absences in the system?