Dave MacKenzie

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Hancox-Spencer's husband was a murder victim. He was a police officer in Toronto.

I have spoken with her. She is very adamant about this whole issue. It is about being fair to victims and letting them be a part of the system. Currently they are part of the system up to a certain point and then they are cut off. That does not seem right to her, and it does not seem right to other victims with whom we have talked.

This is about victims' rights. It is not about the rights of criminals.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is the whole issue. These people have no concern for the victims. This is about the victims having some rights in the system. They are worried about the criminals, about their getting out and getting out quicker.

The Parole Board system functions now with people for up to three years outside of the release date. If they have no concern about the victims, I do not know what their concern is. They have to have concerns about victims and the families.

These people do not seem to understand that this puts those folks at a terrible stage in their lives. They have already lost a loved one, then they go through it over and over again.

This is about victims. It is not about the criminals.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe the Parole Board can handle whatever the issue is, but my friend opposite has to have some thoughts about the victims. One of the problems that this has created, and I mentioned the name of the victim who had brought this matter forward, is that the Parole Board makes its decisions in an open and transparent manner, providing accessibility to victims and their families.

In these cases, what happens is the Parole Board is taken out of the equation and it goes to the warden of the prison. I have no complaints about the warden of the prison or anything of that nature. It is the process that is wrong. The victims get no information. As a result of that, they are not allowed any input into it. Therefore, all of a sudden there is a surprise that an inmate has been granted day parole by a warden and has not gone through the parole system, which is the system that is developed to provide some access to victims.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, November 21st, 2013]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think if the member for Malpeque would just wait for a couple of seconds, he will understand.

This commitment was recently reaffirmed in the Speech from Throne, which noted that our government will introduce a victims' bill of rights to restore victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system.

Indeed, these are all important steps. We are pleased with the progress we have made. We are taking the necessary steps to reshape the criminal justice system into one that is more responsive to the needs of victims. That is why I introduced the bill before us today, which would build upon the previous measures introduced by our government.

Bill C-483 proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as it relates to escorted temporary absences for offenders convicted of first- or second-degree murder. The bill is consistent with our commitment to ensuring that the needs of victims and victims' families be considered when correctional officials make decisions affecting a prisoner's release. An escorted temporary absence would allow a prisoner to leave prison for very short periods of time, for very specific reasons. As the name implies, the inmate is escorted for the duration of the absence by law enforcement, possibly a sheriff or a correctional officer.

I would like to take a few moments to briefly outline the current structure for escorted temporary absences, as set out in the Criminal Code.

With the exception of specific situations I will mention in just a moment, the Parole Board is the releasing authority on escorted temporary absences for all those serving indeterminate sentences, from the start of their sentence up until they reach day parole eligibility. For those sentenced to a minimum sentence of life imprisonment, eligibility for day parole occurs three years prior to eligibility for full parole.

The exception to this is the escorted temporary absence for medical reasons, judicial proceedings, or a coroner's inquest, which can be authorized by the Correctional Service of Canada at any time in the sentence. Once those serving an indeterminate sentence reach day parole eligibility, the Correctional Service of Canada then becomes the releasing authority for escorted temporary absences, and so remains until the time the offender is conditionally released into the community.

That is the current scheme. I would now like to take a moment to examine what Bill C-483 proposes to do.

The bill proposes to grant the Parole Board of Canada authority for the full length of the sentence to grant or cancel escorted temporary absence for offenders convicted of first or second degree murder.

The exception to this would be that the Correctional Service of Canada would retain the ability to authorize escorted temporary absences for medical emergencies. This would mean that the wardens of federal prisons would no longer have authority to grant temporary escorted absences to inmates convicted of first- or second-degree murder, except in a medical emergency.

Instead, the authority would rest with appointed Parole Board of Canada members, who are accountable for their decisions.

As I have previously noted, for some victims' families, the decision-making authority of wardens to grant escorted temporary absences to murderers has been a matter of great concern. There are several reasons for this, including the decision-making process, access to hearings, a victim's right to make a statement and access to decisions.

I will briefly touch upon each of these reasons.

When a decision regarding an escorted temporary absence is made by the Correctional Service of Canada, no hearings are conducted, as decisions are made on an administrative basis by institutional heads. In contrast, when decisions by the Parole Board of Canada are made, hearings are conducted until the first escorted temporary absence has been approved, and further hearings can be held at the Parole Board's discretion.

Given the administrative nature of decisions made by the Correctional Service of Canada regarding escorted temporary absences, victims and the public are not granted access to the decision-making process.

However, when the Parole Board of Canada conducts a hearing, a victim or a member of the public who applies in writing is permitted to attend as an observer at a hearing where their attendance would not disrupt the hearing, present security concerns, adversely affect the person providing the information to the Parole Board, or adversely affect the appropriate balance between the public interest in knowing and the offender's application.

Furthermore, under the power of the Correctional Service of Canada, not only is there no right for victims to attend the decision-making process, they also have no right to make a statement when decisions are made for an offender's escorted temporary absence. When the Parole Board of Canada conducts a hearing on an escorted temporary absence, the victim may present a statement. The victim may comment on the harm or damage that has resulted from the offence and its continuing impact, including concerns for his or her safety, and on the possible release of the offender.

Even if the victim does not attend, the Parole Board of Canada has the option to allow the presentation of a statement in an alternative format therefore still allowing the victim's voice to be heard.

Finally, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does not require the Correctional Services Canada to maintain a registry of its decisions therefore limiting access to information for the victim and accountability to the public. However, the Parole Board of Canada must maintain a registry of its decisions and decisions rendered by the Parole Board under section 746(1) of the Criminal Code along with the reasons for its decisions.

An individual who demonstrates an interest in a case, may, on written application to the Parole Board, have access to the contents of the registry related to that case. This request is balanced out in order to ensure that no information is disclosed of which could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the safety of any person or reveal the source of information obtained in confidence. This allows the victim to access not only the decision on an escorted temporary absence but also the reasons for its approval or refusal.

As we can see, there are flaws in the current system that result in a non-accountable and inaccessible system and hinder the rights and voices of victims.

Through my private member's bill, I want to ensure that proper measures of transparency and access are in place for all individuals affected by temporary absences, including the victims. It is also our firm belief that the decisions of the Parole Board of Canada should be respected in letter and spirit as it is an institution that is accountable to all Canadians. I believe the bill is a step in the right direction in this regard.

As I conclude, I would reiterate our government's strong commitment to keeping our streets and communities safe and to a fair and efficient justice system that supports the rights of victims. I hope we can count on the support of the NDP and the Liberals for this common sense measure.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, November 21st, 2013]

moved that Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank Kim Hancox-Spencer for all of her time, patience and help in getting this bill to this stage.

It is my honour to rise today and have an opportunity to speak to my Bill C-483 and highlight our Conservative government's strong action to support victims of crime. Our Conservative government has worked to re-establish Canada as a country where those who break the law are held accountable for their actions, where sentences match the severity of crimes and where the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals. We believe that victims must be at the heart of the criminal justice system.

Since 2006, we have provided more than $120 million to respond to the needs of victims of crime. The Safe Streets and Communities Act, one of our first bills after forming a majority government, was a significant accomplishment, one that further strengthened support for victims. For example, the Safe Streets and Communities Act provides the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada with additional authority to give information to victims.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act brought about meaningful changes in the lives of victims by ensuring that the concerns of victims were taken into account in parole hearings. Victims have consistently called for greater fairness and a greater voice in the criminal justice system. This imbalance between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims was also noted in a report released in 2010 by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Our government has listened and we continue to take action to support victims of crime. We have announced our plan to bring forward legislation to create a victims' bill of rights, one that will enshrine victims' rights in federal law—

[Christmas Season in Oxford, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to spread some Christmas cheer. This past weekend I had the privilege of participating in Santa Claus parades across my riding of Oxford. There were many creative floats from organizations, businesses, churches, and schools that provided non-stop excitement and entertainment for the crowd. I would like to congratulate everyone involved for a job well done.

Christmas is also the season of giving. At this year's parades, the residents of Oxford really pulled together and embraced the spirit of giving to support local food and toy banks. The donations collected will help individuals and families in need to celebrate the holiday festivities with loved ones. I am proud to represent a group of communities that know the importance of giving.

This holiday season, let us all remember those in need and give generously.

In conclusion, I would like to wish all a joyous, safe, and happy holiday season.

[Petitions, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents in my riding regarding issues concerning the mining industry in Canada and around the world.

[Correctional Service of Canada, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, John Porter was convicted of killing an Oshawa man, Roland Slingerland, in cold blood. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years. However, we have learned that three years before he can apply for parole, Correctional Service of Canada has allowed Porter to leave prison early.

Canadians find this unacceptable. That is why I introduced Bill C-483. Those serving life sentences for heinous crimes must appear before the parole board before they can see the light of day. I am proud that our Conservative government announced that we will make life sentences mean life behind bars.

I call on the Liberals and the NDP to support these important measures to help protect families and increase accountability for offenders.

[Electronic Petitions, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 428, sponsored by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, which would instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to recommend changes to the Standing Orders to establish an electronic petitioning system.

The motion would prescribe changes to our convention governing petitions so as to establish an electric petition system. It would also require the committee to consider, among other things, the possibility of a debate in the House outside of sitting hours when a threshold of signatures was reached.

I heard my friend from the Liberal Party, probably the finest weatherman in the House, give all of his reasons why we should support the motion. When I listened to some of his comments with respect to frivolous petitions that he could picture, it gave that whole background on why electronic petitions may or may not be all that effective when it came to changing people's names or seceding parts of the country by electronic petition unless we had some other means to deal with these things. I would suggest that the House would be terribly tied up in dealing with those.

I will begin by noting the unusual nature of the motion, namely, that it would seek to predetermine the study of the procedure and House affairs committee.

The motion would prescribe a resolution to a study the committee had not conducted. Rather than asking the procedure and House affairs committee to undertake an examination of our petition system, the motion would dictate to the committee that it must recommend changes to the Standing Orders to implement an electronic petition system. In other words, the motion would require that the committee report lead to the implementation of an electronic petition system for the House.

I find that an affront to the members of the committee and, more fundamental, to the principle that committees are masters of their own affairs. Instead, the committee should have the ability to review the effectiveness of our petition system under review of the Standing Orders and decide on its on terms whether changes are needed.

While the House provides the standing committees with the powers to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them, our standing committees have broad powers to undertake studies relating to their mandates.

The procedure and House affairs committee has already undertaken a study on the Standing Orders. It would seem reasonable that a proposal to modernize the petition system could be studied within that context. Should the committee study this issue as part of the Standing Order study, it would certainly want to develop recommendations based upon witness testimony and other research.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas has an academic background. Prior to being elected, he was a professor at the Simon Fraser University. I find it strange that the member is trying to undermine the principle of evidence-based research by reading the text of the motion:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to recommend changes to the Standing Orders... to establish an electronic petitioning system....

As opposed to evidence-based decision-making, the member has proposed decision-based evidence-making.

While I am willing to support a study to investigate initiatives to modernize our petitioning system as part of the procedure and House affairs committee study on the Standing Orders, I will not support the motion. If the committee chooses to conduct this review, as a member of the committee, I would hope we would have the ability to hold meetings, hear from witnesses and come up with recommendations, as opposed to having the outcome dictated by the motion.

I will now turn to the important democratic role that petitions play in the House of Commons.

This is where more of my concerns with this motion rest. The presenting of petitions by members of Parliament is a key feature in the democratic representation of the views of constituents in this House. Not only are petitions a key feature of democratic representation, but they are also a long-standing feature of the House.

The House has also provided for the presentation of petitions by members. At the time of Confederation, the rule allowed members to make a statement identifying from whom the petition came, the number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations it contained.

While the rules governing petitions have changed, namely by providing a rubric in routine proceedings specifically for this purpose, the presentation of petitions in the House has largely stayed intact. One could assume that the system has worked and continues to work, in that petitions create a clear link between constituents and the members who represent them.

The motion before us seeks to alter that relationship. We should all tread very carefully with changes to our rules that could seek to undermine the connection between members and their constituents.

Unfortunately, despite this caution, we are asked by this motion to simply accept its terms without meetings. I would not support that.

Our current rules allow members to table over 2,000 petitions each year on a wide range of issues of concern to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Most jurisdictions share the same approach we have with respect to petitions. The jury is still out on the long-term effect of electronic petitions; however, the experiences of the United Kingdom and the United States indicates that electronic petitions can have very negative consequences for citizen engagement and parliamentary operations and can empower special interest groups to advance their issues.

That is why I am going to oppose Motion No. 428, and I call on all members to do likewise.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock as at midnight.