Public Safety Committee on April 1st, 2014

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, it's the same subject matter, but because it's now a subamendment the text of it had to be changed. So it is the same subject matter—

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

Right. So we're dealing with—

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

—6492415. It's the same subject matter but because it became a subamendment, the wording had to be altered.

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

I have a comment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay and I will just read the subamendment, just so we have clarity first of all. It says that Bill C-483 be amended by adding the following new paragraph to 17.1(1), which is (e), and it reads as follows: The institutional head may still authorize escorted temporary absences for medical emergencies or court appearances.

Yes, Mr. Norlock.

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

I don't think it's necessary because the Criminal Code, which is the parent authority for ETAs, already delegates authority for granting ETAs for medical reasons, judicial proceedings, and attending court inquests to the Correctional Service of Canada. The Criminal Code's not being changed by Bill C-483, so that authority does not change.

I think we need to rest assured that the effect of Bill C-483, after the government's amendments, will be to ensure that the warden, Correctional Service of Canada, maintains authority for granting ETAs for judicial proceedings throughout an offender's proceedings, because, quite frankly, a warden cannot disregard a court order. When an inmate attends court, there's either a subpoena or some kind of court order, and there already exists within the system the authority for granting those temporary absences for that purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion?

Mr. Easter, is it on this issue?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, it's on this issue.

I'm wondering whether we have the Department of Justice or legal people here. Is it the legislative clerk? Who's giving us the legalities around this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

With the permission of the committee, if there are experts in the room, I would certainly ask them to come to the table, if that would be acceptable to the committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have one question on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

While they're coming up, please carry on, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a question on the amendment and whatever happens on the motion as well. But on the amendment, given what Mr. Norlock said, that this may already be covered under the Criminal Code, is there any problem with having the amendment in place that makes it absolutely clear in terms of what's being requested here? Does it jeopardize in any way anything by stating in this bill as well that this is the requirement?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Have our witnesses heard the question from Mr. Easter? If you have, please identify yourself and respond.

[Daryl Churney, Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Daryl Churney and I'm the director of corrections policy at Public Safety Canada. I'm joined today by Michel Laprade, general counsel of legal services at Correctional Service Canada.

I did hear Mr. Easter's question, and I think I would just reiterate Mr. Norlock's answer, which is Bill C-483 only makes amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as you know. However, that said, the Criminal Code is the parent authority for escorted temporary absences, so the CCRA is the subordinate legislation subject to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is very explicit and very clear in that the Parole Board of Canada is responsible for ETAs other than those for medical reasons, to attend judicial proceedings, or to attend a coroner's inquest. That will not change as a result of this bill. CCRA will remain subject to the Criminal Code and that explicit authority for wardens will remain in effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

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

Would it add anything by adding this for additional clarity, or would there be any advantage legally to adding it to this section?

[Daryl Churney]

It's my understanding that, no, it would not add anything. We did consult with legal counsel and we did consult as well with legislative drafters at the Department of Justice, and the conclusion was that it would not add anything of value.

I don't know if Mr. Laprade has anything else he wants to—

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

In that case, I'd like to withdraw my subamendment, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for the explanation, then. I guess there's no need to duplicate, but certainly we're not there. Your concern would be most valid. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Garrison, and we at least have some clarity on the issue, and we're able to move forward.

At this particular point, the subamendment, then—

Oh, excuse me. Do we have the full consent of the committee to withdraw the subamendment by Mr. Garrison?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

(Subamendment withdrawn)

Fine. Thank you very much.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the following subamendment:

I move that the following be added after paragraph (d) of the new clause 1.1 proposed in Conservative amendment G-2:

That an inmate granted an escorted temporary absence be escorted in a secure vehicle by two staff members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much.

Then this is the subamendment that was originally amendment 6494472 by Madam Doré Lefebvre. It would follow in after (d) on page 6 and it would simply be amended by replacing line 12 on page 1 with “in a secure vehicle by two staff members”.

Is there any comment?

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for bringing that subamendment forward.

We did hear some testimony from the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers indicating some concerns with the security of individuals who are being escorted and not having the proper people in place, as he may have put it. However, the intent of this bill is to deal with the actual scheme of the ETA process with regard to the Parole Board of Canada versus the institutional head from Correctional Service Canada. It does not deal with the processes that are involved with the actual escorted absence from the penitentiary, so it's not dealing with the procedures or any of that sort of thing. I'd actually wonder if that would be within the scope of this bill, because it was clearly not the intention of the person who brought forward this private member's bill to deal with that aspect with regard to this particular section of the code.

Having said that, we will not be supporting that particular amendment. Again, I'm wondering if it is within the scope of the bill, but I would certainly suggest to the NDP if they wanted to create a private member's bill, to bring that forward on that particular part of this section of the code, but it's not something that we'll be supporting at this point in time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay.

I think there are two questions here. Obviously, one is whether or not the amendment is actually within the scope. As an example, this is basically suggesting not what they should do, but how they should do it.

So does C-483 tell us how to act or just whether to act? At this particular point the chair would be willing to hear discussion on that and perhaps we could even ask our witnesses for their opinion as to whether or not this would be in order for Bill C-483 as it is requesting that Correctional Service Canada.... At this particular place, it's basically advising them how they must staff and is that in order or is that within the parameters of the bill or would that be a matter with Correctional Service Canada within their own decision? The chair is asking for comments, certainly, from our witnesses, and we are open to the floor as well.

Yes, Mr. Churney.