Your factual summary is accurate in that the effect of the government's amendments are such that the Parole Board's authority for granting ETAs will continue once the person reaches...well, effectively the Parole Board's authority will continue throughout the entire sentence of an offender serving a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. That was the first portion of the government's amendments because the bill as it was introduced spoke only to first-degree or second-degree murder.
The Criminal Code speaks to life minimum, so the government's amendments make the CCRA consistent the Criminal Code in that respect so that life minimum applies to first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and high treason. So now the code and the CCRA are consistent, and essentially the Parole Board's authority for ETAs continues throughout that offender's sentence. But you are correct, Mr. Easter, in that once that lifer reaches the three-year window before their full parole eligibility, once the Parole Board grants a positive decision for a rehabilitated ETA and that ETA period is successful—in other words, the offender does not breach their conditions while on that ETA—any subsequent ETA decisions can then be made by the institutional head.
If, however, the offender while on that ETA breaches their conditions, any subsequent decision-making reverts back to the Parole Board. In a nutshell, that's the scheme.