Public Safety Committee on April 1st, 2014

[Daryl Churney]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not certain that the proposed amendment would be within the scope of the bill, because it really does speak to a level of the administration of the scheme that is quite operational. I certainly take the member's point, though.

What I might suggest is that this is the kind of amendment that could be conducted by CSC, either through their own internal policy through a commissioner's directive or potentially through an amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, which is where you find that sort of day-to-day administration detail around the ETA scheme. I don't believe that's necessary as part of the bill or potentially within the scope, but it could certainly be done by CSC through an amendment through regulations in concert with their own policy, if they so choose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you.

Mr. Garrison, please.

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

Thank you very much, and I thank Madam Doré Lefebvre for her bringing this forward.

In the government amendment under proposed subsection 17.1(4), it says:

The Parole Board of Canada or the institutional head, as the case may be, may impose, in relation to a temporary absence..., any condition that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect society.

So, in fact, this bill deals with conditions and how you do the release and it authorizes already the Parole Board or the institutional head to place conditions like this on the release. So all this is doing—it's within things already discussed in the bill—is simply setting a legislative directive and in the case of those who are serving a life sentence, that they be accompanied by two people in a secure vehicle. It is very much under what's already in proposed subsection 17.1(4), as to setting any condition to protect society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Yes, Mr. Norlock.

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

It is for that precise reason that I don't think it's necessary to prescribe it. I think the warden, in executing the directive, and the Parole Board of Canada will take the necessary caution, because the bill says so. If it requires four members to escort, I'm sure the warden would have that authority.

I don't like to be too prescriptive, because it takes away....We're basically saying we're going to deal with everyday occurrences. Once again, I say it's unnecessary and it pushes the bill in a direction that the drafter of the bill never intended it to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Norlock.

Certainly the chair has heard your discussion and Mr. Garrison, your comments were well-structured. I have also been advised by the clerk that there is a reference that says a structured plan for the absence has been prepared, which basically states that this issue is relevant should this committee wish to proceed along that way. So it is in order.

However, Mr. Norlock has also suggested that the committee would certainly not, in its mind, in his mind, proceed in that matter. That would then be eligible to come for a vote on this, so certainly this is an issue that is votable. It is in order at this point to be described.

Do we have a further comment, Mr. Easter?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, well, I do think...I understand what Mr. Norlock is saying. You can get too prescriptive and end up taking more authority away from wardens, the Parole Board, or whomever than you want to. But I think if you go back and rethink the evidence that came from the correctional officers union that we were having such a hard job hearing on the phone the other day, you'll remember that they cited several examples that ended up in very serious tragedies where two guards would probably have made a difference.

So I do think as a committee we have to come down on the side of public safety. I will admit you always hear about the bad cases, you never hear about the good ones. But, given the evidence provided by the correctional officers and their representatives, I certainly think we should be supportive of this. I think it pushes the wardens to be more cognizant of the safety of security guards in some of these situations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Norlock on this particular issue. Going back to our colleague, Mr. MacKenzie, who brought forward this private member's bill, his original intention was not with respect to what occurs when an ETA has been approved and the offender is out on a pass. His intention for this particular bill was to ensure that the Parole Board of Canada had more of a play within the last three years so that victims had more of an opportunity to participate. As such, we will not be supporting that particular amendment in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Obviously, the chair has no decision on this at this particular point, unless it should come to the chair on a tie vote.

Yes, Madam Doré Lefebvre, you're still up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to my colleagues for their comments on my subamendment.

I believe that Mr. Garrison and Mr. Easter have summarized the intent of the subamendment very well, specifically in terms of the testimony we have heard from the officials of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.

Mr. Easter reminded us of what we were told about incidents that have happened during escorted temporary absences. According to the sponsor of the bill, the main intent is to protect victims. We must also consider our correctional officers who have become victims themselves during these incidents.

I am disappointed that the government seems to want to vote against this subamendment. As members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we are all trying to have the best bills possible in order to guarantee the safety of the public and of correctional officers. We have to respond to the concerns of those officers when bills as important as this one affect the lives of people who work in federal penitentiaries. We have to listen to their concerns and have the best bill possible. That was the intent of this subamendment.

I will leave it in the hands of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you. It will obviously come to a vote right now.

The chair would normally offer a comment. I suppose this is simplified. It's either we dictate how the warden will handle the transit of these individuals or a warden has discretion in his responsibility as to how he will handle it. Anyway, the motion is on the floor now, so I will ask for a vote on the subamendment from Madam Doré Lefebvre.

All in favour?

(Subamendment negatived)

We are now on amendment G-2, number 6494495.

Shall it carry?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We're back on the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Excuse me. We're back on discussion.

Then, Mr. Easter, by all means, carry on, on the amendment.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

My question really is to the legal people on this one. This goes to my point basically of changing the intent of the original legislation, Mr. Chair, so that at least I have it in my mind correctly. I wonder if the representatives here could explain the ultimate impact of these amendments.

As I understand it, the original bill was ensuring that the warden would not be in a position to allow any temporary absences at all during the last three years of a sentence. Now with this amendment, the Parole Board will be involved in the first request for a temporary absence during that three-year period, but not anymore after that unless there is a problem with what happened on the temporary absence. Am I correct in saying that? That clearly in my view changes the intent of the bill. I think it improves it, but the wardens are still going to be involved in the temporary absences beyond the first decision by the Parole Board during the last three years of sentence.

[Daryl Churney]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter, you'll be first, and then Mr. Garrison.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay, then that's fine. If we go back to the minutes—I'm going just from memory, I don't have them in front of me, Mr. Chair. If we go back to the victims who were before the committee and the victims' representatives, one of their big concerns on this issue was that they were not informed, or they didn't have the opportunity to have their say on warden releases. Under this bill, as I understand it, they still won't have the opportunity to have their say on warden releases, which was the thrust of the bill in the first place, to a certain extent.

Am I correct that they will have the opportunity when the Parole Board does its initial hearing, but for any further temporary absences that are authorized by the warden they may be informed? You can tell us on that if they are or if they may not be, but they certainly are not going to be requested by the warden, as I understand it, to give a victim impact statement, which was what all their presentations were about the other day.

[Daryl Churney]

What I can say to that is when CSC is developing a structured plan per the legislation for an ETA, CSC is required, where there is a registered victim, to consult not only with their own internal Corrections Canada victim services unit but also to seek out the views and solicit the input of any registered victim so that the victim is notified in advance before an ETA period takes place, and the victim has the opportunity to submit a statement and make his or her views known. CSC will take that into account, and that may influence CSC's decision, but victim consultation is built into the CSC process as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Carry on, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On the last point, that certainly isn't what victims were saying the other day. They were basically requesting the same opportunity as they had with the Parole Board of Canada. Yes, they can send in a letter, all that wonderful stuff, but that's not what victims were asking for. The ones who were before this committee wanted the same rights and authorities as they had with the Parole Board of Canada with regard to warden releases, and that, certainly in my view, is not now in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On this amendment essentially, that Mr. Easter was talking about, we were attempting to draft a similar amendment to reduce the cost of this, while at the same time respecting the right of victims to have greater participation and greater notice, so we will be supporting this because I believe the government has struck a better balance in this bill from our discussion with stakeholders.

I do have a question regarding notice to victims. We have the legal people here, but Mr. Churney, as a policy person, could you tell me whether there's any requirement as this amendment has been done, that victims be notified of subsequent temporary absences granted by the institutional head?

[Michel Laprade, General Counsel, Correctional Service Canada, Department of Justice]

Basically in section 26 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, there is an obligation for CSC to inform victims of the potential release of an offender into the community, so they are informed in advance of these releases.

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

Okay, given that reassurance, we are prepared to support this.