Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 23, Evidence - December 3, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 3, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), met this day at 4:16 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good day and welcome, colleagues, invited guests, members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We are here today to begin our deliberations on Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), which proposes to transfer the authority to grant an escorted temporary absence for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment from the head of a penitentiary to the Parole Board of Canada.
Bill C-483 was originally introduced in the House of Commons in March 2013 by Mr. Dave MacKenzie, the MP for Oxford, Ontario. The bill was reinstated by the house at the start of the current session. This is our first meeting on Bill C-483.
As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also available via webcast on the parl.gc.ca website. You can find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under ''Senate committees.''
One quick note for members: We had originally scheduled Sue O'Sullivan, the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, to appear later this afternoon. Unfortunately, Ms. O'Sullivan is unable to attend our hearings due to illness, but her comments will be provided in writing to all members later this afternoon.
For our first panel today, please welcome the sponsor of the bill, David MacKenzie, Member of Parliament for Oxford. With him is Ms. Kim Hancox. We will begin with Mr. MacKenzie's opening statement, followed by Ms. Hancox. Welcome to you both.
David MacKenzie, Member of Parliament for Oxford, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an honour to appear at this committee to discuss my private member's bill.
Our government has a strong record when it comes to improving our criminal justice system. Our goal is very simple: a fair and efficient justice system. In support of this laudable goal, we have made and will continue to make concerted efforts to enhance offender accountability and strengthen victims' rights. Indeed, when it comes to victims, our government strongly believes in the need to give them an opportunity to participate in the corrections and conditional release system. This belief guides our legislative actions, and it is in that spirit that I introduced Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence.)
Indeed, this bill complements other important legislation we are working to pass to strengthen the rights of victims, including, of course, one of our crowning achievements in this regard, Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, introduced by our government in April. That bill is currently being studied by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and we look forward to discussing it here in short order.
Bill C-32 is historic legislation that will do much to enhance the role of victims in the criminal justice system. It will guarantee in law victims' rights to information, participation, protection and restitution. Ultimately, it will give victims of crime the voice that they have been calling for and that they deserve. With my bill, we have an opportunity to do a little more for victims. This is important for our government because we believe that every victim matters, and every effort we make, whether on a large scale or through incremental changes, also matters.
As we know, Bill C-483 would amend the decision-making process for escorted temporary absences for inmates serving life sentences. Specifically, the bill would target escorted temporary absences for rehabilitative purposes.
Escorted temporary absences for rehabilitative purposes allow prisoners to have contact with family or to participate in programs or a community service project.
The decision-making process for rehabilitative escorted temporary absence, as in other areas of the corrections and conditional release system, is, quite understandably, of great interest and concern to victims. Indeed, it is not difficult to understand that some victims could find it distressing that the criminal who harmed one of their loved ones could be released on an escorted temporary absence without their involvement.
We know that victims believe they would be better served by a process that involves them, and we wholeheartedly agree. Indeed, we have heard time and time again from victims that having a voice is important to them, and that makes it important for our government. It is an appeal that we simply cannot ignore.
Here we have an opportunity for improvement in this regard. We have an opportunity to ensure that decision making for rehabilitative escorted temporary absences is more responsive to the needs of victims.
For these reasons, I feel it is important to rapidly adopt this bill. The amendments being proposed will truly bring us a step closer to giving victims a greater role in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Chair, we feel a keen sense of duty to victims who wish for transparency and who have asked for greater involvement in the conditional release decision-making process, particularly when it comes to temporary absences from penitentiaries. This is a sense of duty that our government is always proud to act upon by working to implement precisely the type of measured changes that we see in Bill C-483.
That brings me to the design of the bill. At present, the parole board is the decision-making authority for rehabilitative escorted temporary absences from the start of the life sentence up until day parole eligibility. Once at day parole eligibility, the decision-making authority for escorted temporary absences moves from the parole board to the Correctional Service of Canada.
As we have heard, Bill C-483 would ensure that the parole board plays a more significant role in the granting of temporary absences. The bill would achieve this by extending the parole board's decision-making authority for rehabilitative escorted temporary absences after day parole eligibility. In other words, there would no longer be an automatic transfer of escorted temporary absence decision-making authority between the parole board and the Correctional Service of Canada.
Instead, the parole board would continue to act as the decision-making authority for rehabilitative escorted temporary absences until the offender who has passed day parole eligibility successfully completes one. Then, and only then, would the decision-making authority be transferred from the parole board to Correctional Service Canada. Authority would remain with the Correctional Service of Canada for any future rehabilitative escorted temporary absences, unless an offender breaches an associated condition. If a condition is breached and the escorted temporary absence is not successful, decision-making authority would once again be placed with the parole board.
It is worth noting that the Correctional Service of Canada would continue to have the authority to cancel all escorted temporary absences, regardless of who gave the authorization. Situations arise that necessitate the speedy cancellation of an offender's escorted temporary absence. As the Correctional Service of Canada operates on a 24-7 basis, it is best placed to make the cancellation decision.
Mr. Chair, as you can see, by extending the parole board's jurisdiction over these escorted temporary absences, this bill provides a clear, manageable path forward to enhance a victim's involvement in the process. As such, we have before us measured legislation that will further deliver on our commitment to supporting victims of crime in this country, and I call on all senators for their support.
Kim Hancox, as an individual: I'd like to thank all members of the committee for inviting me to speak today about Bill C-483. The issues addressed in this bill are very personal to me but are shared by many who have been affected by murder and the resulting challenges of navigating the criminal justice system in Canada.
On August 4, 1998, my late husband, Detective Constable Bill Hancox, Toronto Police Service, was stabbed to death by Elaine Rose Cece and her accomplice, Mary Taylor. Bill was in plainclothes, in an unmarked police vehicle, conducting routine surveillance that summer evening. Without warning, Rose Cece approached Bill's vehicle in an ambush fashion and, through his open driver-side window, stabbed him in the chest with a 13-inch knife. For the two women, this would prove to be a failed attempt at a carjacking. For Bill, it would prove to be the end of his life.
Bill left behind a two-year-old daughter, Sandra, and his son, Quinn, who was born one month after his dad's murder. Bill was a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a friend and a colleague.
Both Rose Cece and Mary Taylor were convicted of second-degree murder, with parole eligibility set at 16 and 18 years respectively.
My journey through the criminal justice system has led me to trials, numerous hearings and endless notifications. I have always been active in learning and understanding the developments and decisions that have arisen in an attempt to be prepared for whatever is coming next. Living my life in tandem with these two life-serving offenders who murdered my husband 16 years ago has been an endless test of patience and emotional endurance.
After attending Rose Cece's parole board hearing in June 2010, I felt confident and relieved that the board had taken my concerns into serious consideration and, together with their thorough review of Ms. Cece's submissions, denied her request for ETAs.
My sense of relief was short lived. In December 2011, I received notification from CSC that Ms. Cece's warden had authorized a 60-day work release program, with pre-approval for any ETAs that may be relevant during that time period. Ms. Cece was transferred out of her institution and into a halfway house. To say the least, I was shocked and confused. The parole board had stated that Ms. Cece lacked insight into her crime, had mixed responses to programming, had recurring issues with anger and violent tendencies, had been convicted of assaulting a correctional officer and had been disciplined numerous times for institutional misconduct. In my opinion and that of the parole board, this offender was clearly not ready to be released into the community.
In an effort to understand what had gone wrong, I learned that, in fact, nothing had gone wrong. The warden's authority to release life-serving offenders into the community, despite the opinion of the parole board, is clearly set out in the Correctional Service of Canada's Commissioner's Directive 710-3. It states that an institution head has the authority to grant ETAs to life-serving offenders who are within three years of their parole eligibility date. Ms. Cece had passed that date by three months when the warden authorized her release.
CSC and the warden's board do not share any information with victims with respect to their decision-making process. The warden's board is a private, rather informal review by institutional staff.
I believe there are serious issues that must be considered.
Three years before parole eligibility seems to be an arbitrary and irrelevant reference point. Prior to this, life-serving offenders must appear before the parole board for ETA approval.
It is perfectly reasonable and practical to give institution heads authority over ETAs relating to medical and court purposes, but it's an entirely different scenario when ETAs are authorized under the vague description of personal development and community service, in direct contradiction to parole board recommendations.
It gives the warden an opportunity to, in essence, override a parole board decision and move an offender forward on their own agenda.
There is a lack of consideration for victims, which impedes the progress of victims' rights and recognition in the criminal system.
This practice also undermines the public's confidence in a system that is supposed to keep them safe from violent offenders.
I certainly understand that offenders will be released back into the community at some point, and while the warden and CSC staff play an important role in preparing an offender for release, ultimately the decision of whether or not an offender is ready should remain solely with the Parole Board of Canada. It is the parole board's statutory obligation to ensure public safety, and fulfilling that obligation is not possible if institution heads have the ability to make release decisions independently and in spite of parole board recommendations.
My experience has shown me that the intentions of the parole board and those of CSC are somewhat different. One has a mandated obligation to uphold public safety in a transparent way while the other is motivated by the pressures of returning rehabilitated offenders back into society in a not-so transparent way.
With the implementation of Bill C-483, there will be at least some element of that mandated obligation to public safety involved in the release decision, as well as the important sharing of information that happens between the parole board and the public.
I believe Bill C-483 is a good first step in bringing the parole board and CSC closer together in their approach to rehabilitating and reintegrating our most violent criminals, and begin to level the playing field between victims and offenders in terms of access to information, accountability and transparency.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll begin questions with the committee's deputy chair, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Thank you to the presenters here today. I congratulate the mover of the motion, the bill. He has certainly been trying to get this passed for some time.
I wonder if we could have one of the witnesses explain what would have been the procedure, the advantage of having this new legislation in place in the case of the release of the person convicted of second-degree murder when they get to a point where it is within the three years of parole eligibility? With the passage of this legislation, what change would take place?
Ms. Hancox: So if this was implemented back in 2010 when Rose Cece was initially denied by the parole board for her ETA, she would not have been released on her work release and encompassing pre-approved ETAs, because she was never authorized by the parole board to ever leave the institution on an escorted leave. Because there was nothing in place — this three-year window where you're no longer accountable to the parole board — she was able to just approach the warden of her institution. So the warden evaluated her file and felt that she was ready to take on this work release and this big chunk of ETAs.
Had this been in place, she would never have left.
Senator Baker: So what would be the advantage to the victims, who Mr. MacKenzie is presenting on behalf of? What would be to your advantage with the passage of this legislation and the new rule? For the second part of the question, what would be the effect of what you think is the purpose of having the present system in place as it relates to the correctional service?
There are two questions. What advantage is the main advantage to the victim; and secondly, what do you think the adverse effect could be that some people may say would result with the passage of this legislation as far as the correctional service is concerned?
Ms. Hancox: I can tell you from a victim's perspective, the one glaring advantage would be the sharing of information. When correctional services and the warden hold a board review of an offender's file, no information is shared with the victim. The victim is not notified that a hearing has been requested, is taking place, what is being reviewed, what changes have happened. The only time a victim gets information about an offender of any significance is when they attend a parole board hearing, because that is public record. Everything is discussed in the open. You can take notes. They discuss programming, institutional problems that have happened, reasons for transfers. They discuss all sorts of information about what progress, or lack thereof, the offender has been making.
When things get handed over to correctional services, there is no sharing of information. It's a closed-door meeting. It's a closed-door process. Even going forward, having the parole board initially authorize the release, I would still hope, in the spirit of the bill, that correctional services will see a need for their institution heads to start providing reports and sharing information about what the offenders are doing after the parole board has given them that authorization.
Senator Baker: If there were a complaint about the content of the legislation, it might go, Mr. MacKenzie, to the fact that you included in your bill that if there is a violation of a condition that the matter reverts to the old system. Could you explain, answer that objection?
Mr. MacKenzie: I'm happy to, senator.
Under the current system, it never goes back to national parole. I think the members around this table understand that national parole deals with these things in the sense of, as Ms. Hancox said, the interest of the public and also in the interest of the incarcerated person.
But what happens now is that at the three-year period, it simply goes to correctional service. We've talked with correctional service people. We're not being critical of them for the release, but it's the way the system operates.
So after the period of time that National Parole Board says, ''Yes, this person would be eligible for parole,'' then it would transfer in that last three years to the prison warden. To cancel that, the prison warden would cancel it, but it only seems logical that when somebody cannot abide by the terms and conditions of their release, it reverts back to national parole.
All the individual would have to do is make the case with national parole that they are rehabilitated, whatever the issue may be, and it would then revert to correctional services again. This is not taking authority from correctional services. It's simply trying to clarify the position.
We hear from many victims who are in the same position. The system with respect to national parole has been far more open and transparent with victims. It's something they've asked for, for a long time, and it's only right and just that they do. We also recognize that once it goes to correctional service, the family, the loved ones never get to know how the decision was made.
Senator Plett: Ms. Hancox, our sympathies go out to you, certainly. Thank you very much for coming and testifying on what is obviously a very difficult situation.
Mr. MacKenzie, thank you for your tenacity, keeping this on the burners here and for bringing this bill to the point it is at today. I think it's a very important bill.
I have a couple of questions, and the first one is for clarification.
When the individual who went to the parole board, the person who killed your husband, was she going to see if she could get parole, or was it simply for early release or escorted temporary absence?
Ms. Hancox: Yes. Anyone can apply for escorted temporary absences during any period of their incarceration.
Senator Plett: And that goes to the parole board first, even now?
Ms. Hancox: Yes, because she is serving a life sentence. With the exception of medical appointments and court dates, those requests have to go before the parole board because she's a life-serving inmate.
She went to the parole board to request a community service ETA, a once-a-week absence from the institution for a period of hours to work in a kitchen or something to that effect. The parole board denied her that request for all the reasons that I listed in my statement.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Mr. MacKenzie, is this bill intended to be punitive? Are we seeking more punishment or is this simply to enhance victims' rights?
Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Chair, to the senator, this is not intended in any way to be punitive, and I don't know how anybody would think it was punitive. This is not to deny opportunity for escorted temporary absences; in fact, we wouldn't see any being denied, only those that have not met the standard from National Parole Board. I think that's what society as a whole would see, is that somebody serving a life sentence, I think most of us understand that national parole sort of are that gateway. But once it gets to within that three-year period, as Ms. Hancox has said, then the whole thing is transferred to correctional service.
Like I said, we're not critical of correctional service, but the system sort of loses its balance, if you will, to the public and to the victims and their loved ones. The thing then all goes behind closed doors, and it would be hard to understand, I think, for any of us how somebody who got turned down at national parole for the murder of a spouse or a family member then, within three months, gets a pass from Correctional Service of Canada. That's the intention here, not to be punitive.
Senator Plett: In this bill, is there intent to get some kind of impact statements from victims before the parole board would make a decision, or did the parole board talk to you before they made their decision not to give her the temporary?
Ms. Hancox: Absolutely. The parole board will inform me that an application has been made by an offender. They will provide the date and any options of how I wish to participate in the hearing.
Senator Plett: And you're allowed to participate?
Ms. Hancox: Yes. Generally in the past I've attended the hearing, I've given a statement, and I've taken notes. I receive a written decision from the parole board.
In fact, the offender can appeal the decision of the parole board, which Ms. Cece did, and so it went through the appeal process. Again, the parole board did provide me with written reasons that they upheld their initial decision.
Senator Joyal: Thank you and welcome.
Could you try to help me to understand the procedure? As I see the situation of the system now, when it is a CSC decision, it is an administrative decision; it is a decision taken by the warden in his office. It's what we call an administrative decision. When it is a parole board decision, it is a quasi-judicial decision. Parties are heard. They can be invited to make representation. They can be assisted. They can question, and so forth. It's a quasi-hearing in the court.
Now, of course, if we fill those three years with a parole board approach, it would mean that at any time all the decisions with the partial release of an inmate will fall under a quasi-judicial procedure. Hence, my question: How many times would a person be able to apply to the parole board?
As you know, there are rules in parole boards in relation to release or temporary release of inmates. How many people will it add to the process of the parole board? What will be the delay? I don't know the numbers. How many new inmates will have to be heard by the board in the three years now? I'm trying to understand the complexity of the functioning of the system to see what we'll change in the practice of the system and how it will reflect on the expectation of an inmate to get a decision.
As I see the system, the closer you are to the end of your time, the presumption is that you are better rehabilitated. We expect that an inmate at the end of his or her term will be in a position to be rehabilitated, that is, to function normally in society. We hope that the system is conceived in that context.
I'm trying to understand the implications that your proposal will have in the functioning of the system. Could you enlighten us on that?
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure.
Mr. Chair, through to the senator, this should not change anything. If someone is eligible for parole and they're within that three-year term, then the prison warden can make the releases. The only change comes, particularly in the case that Ms. Hancox has mentioned, and many others, where national parole has said this person is not ready for release; there are too many other reasons why they're not ready for release.
As you understand, a life sentence is a life sentence. The parole eligibility is the determinate point there. But if someone is ready for release and national parole says they're ready for release, they don't have to go back to national parole. It will be the prison warden. The only time it would get kicked back to national parole is when somebody breaks the terms and conditions of their release.
We have talked with officials about it. There should not be very many people who, when national parole says they're ready — but some of these inmates shouldn't be allowed to bypass the decisions of national parole, wait a couple or three months, or whatever the case may be, as in this case, and go to the prison warden and get the release and then nobody knows about it. It's done, as you said, in an office. We're not being critical of correctional service in any way, shape or form; it's the legislation that we're critical of. Just go back to national parole and have them do what they properly do, make those decisions about release.
Senator Joyal: Do you want to add anything, Ms. Hancox?
Ms. Hancox: It's this arbitrary three-year window before parole eligibility. We have a series of checks and balances which are put in place, which are governed by the Commissioner's Directives and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that say a life-serving inmate must approach the parole board for approval for release. Once they get to this three years, it all changes.
I don't understand what that three years represents, because an inmate who has not made the progress to receive an approval for release up until that three years plus a day, nothing is going to change, but yet where they go for their authority and decision making changes.
The rules of checks and balances are different with the parole board than they are with CSC because their intentions are slightly different. They're trying to achieve kind of different things. I just feel that this bill will affect really a small group of people, but the most dangerous people we have in our system. I think that we need the parole board, which has a statutory obligation to protect all of us, to be the definitive decision maker of as to whether or not these people are ready to be released into the community, for any reason.
Senator Joyal: Do you know how long it will take for an inmate who petitioned the parole board to be heard? In other words, within that three-year period, suppose an inmate is in his last two years of prison service. How long will it take from the moment that the person petitioned the parole board to be heard and get a decision? Do you have any idea?
Ms. Hancox: It has been my experience that an inmate will make a request for the parole board hearing. I know that I'm notified when the request is made, and the date is usually within about two months.
Going back to the three-year window, it bounces off that parole eligibility date, but with a life-serving offender, that parole eligibility date moves; it floats. It's not a statutory release date. It moves. It's simply a date where, if they've completed the programs and they've been rehabilitated up to a point where they can start to commingle with society, then they're given the opportunity to apply to do that. But because they're life-serving inmates, they are in the system forever. So that parole date moves with them. That three years could follow them forever because they may never be out of the institution, based on their behaviour and what they've accomplished.
Senator Joyal: That's what I was going to mention to you. In other words, as the system functions now, an inmate would be under the guidance of the warden for those last three years, but the final release will still have to come back to the parole board to get the authorization to release so that somebody decides if a person is dangerous or rehabilitated to a point to be able to live a normal life, as one would expect. In other words, that inmate would have to come back to the parole board anyway, at any point in time, once the time that has been determined in prison has been completed. I feel that that's how the system works, doesn't it?
Ms. Hancox: Yes. They would have to go back before the parole board to be approved for day parole. Ultimately, full parole would still have to be approved by the parole board.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you both for your presentations.
Ms. Hancox, my deepest sympathy for the loss of your late husband.
I agree with the comment you made regarding victim participation in the decision-making process as it relates to the parole board as opposed to Correctional Service of Canada.
Mr. MacKenzie, I was just wondering what the reasoning was for introducing this legislation. Why did you bring this legislation forward? Was it because there was an issue with the institutional head of federal penitentiaries, or was the issue with the legislation currently in place? In other words, did you simply want to give victims a voice in the release system?
Mr. MacKenzie: There's no question that we have no issue with the heads of the institutions. They have not done anything wrong. The issue is with the legislation.
I have heard from people like Ms. Hancox and others about this little discrepancy that occurs in that three-year period. The only way to fix it is to change this legislation so that national parole does not lose that authority, if you will, in that last three years, on temporary absences. To bring the legislation forward is to enhance, first, the rights of victims.
As a whole, if I could have shared with you some of the stories that we heard at committee, I might have, even from the guards who have made the escorts possible, who talk about their sense that these people shouldn't have been out. Some of the guards have been attacked. That's the one side of it, but that's not to blame the prison wardens for that. That's what happens when the system is changed, like it was a number of years ago.
But it's the National Parole Board that has all of the evidence before them and makes victims and their loved ones part of the process in the whole release system. That was the reason behind my bill.
Senator McIntyre: Before this bill was passed in the House of Commons, I know that amendments were made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Taken together, are you satisfied with those amendments? Are you satisfied that those amendments would ensure that the bill meets its limited objective, which is to give the Parole Board of Canada almost exclusive authority to grant ETAs to inmates who are serving minimum life sentences?
Mr. MacKenzie: Absolutely. The amendment, by and large, was to retain the National Parole Board, once they had given approval, then to allow the prison wardens to continue it.
As you've heard from Ms. Hancox, it had to be heart-wrenching to know that national parole had turned these people down for all of the good reasons and then to find out that the prison warden had made a release decision. As long as national parole retains that, that you can't get released until national parole says you can, it just makes eminent sense. We're going to talk about rehabilitation. That's the goal. I think everyone in this room wants to know that rehabilitation is the goal, but when somebody has not met those conditions, they shouldn't get the temporary absence.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our witnesses. Ms. Hancox, I am a former police officer and I know what it is to lose a colleague; I can only imagine what the loss of a husband represents, and I offer you my condolences.
Mr. MacKenzie, I have two quite simple questions. Does the National Parole Board of Canada have the necessary resources to examine the additional escorted temporary absence requests it would be responsible for under Bill C-483? Does it have the necessary resources at this time?
[English]
Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Chair, as a matter of fact, that question was asked at committee in the Commons. First, the belief is that it will not add a great deal of time or hearings. As Ms. Hancox said, the parole board had already heard this individual's appeal, and it had been turned down. So it would be one more, somewhere down the road, when the National Parole Board would have said that they're eligible for release. I think the National Parole Board people said that, at this point, they couldn't envision that it was going to be a big increase to their workload. Certainly there would be some, but it would not be significant.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: One last question. I am not asking you for an exact figure, but do you have some idea of the number of offenders currently serving a sentence who would be affected by the measures proposed in the bill?
[English]
Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Chair, one of the problems we ran into was that there are not accurate numbers kept on the inmates that were turned down and then subsequently released. We were provided with information from the ministry. If we use 2012-13 year, there were parole board decisions granted positively for 225 and turned down for 4,992. The problem is that they're not all in that last three-year period. So although we have all of those numbers, I'm not sure how you can flesh out the real information. They made it clear to us that they didn't have that.
Senator Frum: Thank you, as well, for being here. I'm sure it's not pleasant to have to review all of these matters.
When you testified in front of the Commons committee, you said that the parole board and the CSC have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the readiness of violent offenders returning to the community. Can you characterize that difference of opinion and what you think informs it?
Ms. Hancox: As I touched on in my statement today, I think where I came to the conclusion that they have a difference in opinion was that the parole board clearly stated that after their thorough review — and they do a thorough review of an offender who is requesting release — they had a grand list of reasons why this inmate was still a danger to society. For the Correctional Service of Canada to suddenly deem her fit to be back in the community made absolutely no sense.
As a victim, there is a bit of push and pull in dealing with the system. The parole board is very thorough. There is an objective review of documents. They're not personally connected with an offender. I think it's a much more detailed look at the problems they go through and all of the programming. They come, I think, to a really informed decision.
It has been my experience that correctional services really need to get these offenders back into the community, because that's what people want. That's my own opinion.
I think public perception is that offenders will be rehabilitated while they're in prison and they'll eventually work their way out, and that's the role of Correctional Service Canada. That's in a perfect world and in a vacuum. In reality, it doesn't work that way; and in this case, this offender is not ready to be released. But I think that correctional services has a bit of pressure to release victims back because they want their programs to be seen as effective. That's where I sort of come from.
Senator Frum: Mr. MacKenzie, you talk about the escorted temporary absence and the risk to officers. Can you flesh out for me how escorted they are? How long do they last? Who does the supervising? How secure is it?
Mr. MacKenzie: Some of them are not very secure at all. Others are escorted by jail guards, for lack of a better term, and they may be going to a particular event that they've asked for the temporary escorted absence. But, as Ms. Hancox says, if they are going to work in a kitchen, then they do not have that same escorted security around them.
What we heard from the guards was that they thought there should be more guards with some of these folks than there are. They've experienced problems with them. But in some cases there's no one there.
Senator Frum: So they're not escorted at all?
Mr. MacKenzie: I don't know. Maybe Ms. Hancox has a better idea. She's been dealing with that system, but I suspect some are not escorted.
Ms. Hancox: From my experience, I'm dealing with a life sentence, which is a little bit more risk. In my case, the two offenders are generally escorted by a guard, but they have also been escorted by community volunteers. Correctional Service Canada has many community volunteers who will escort offenders to various functions. They could be family things, community events, substance abuse supports, doctors' appointments, anything. But many times it's community volunteers and not guards.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for being here.
It's pretty obvious that the public would support a quasi-judicial board versus a warden because of the fact that the public and the victims would have some say.
This particular inmate was not a model prisoner, according to what we hear, but I presume that the information that the warden has — presumably there are counsellors in prison, psychologists, psychiatrists, priests, probably clergy, who work with them. I'm wondering: All of this information that the warden has in making a decision, would it not be before the parole board as well? Would they not have like information? I rather suspect that the parole board doesn't go out and do their own investigation, or perhaps they do; I don't know. So they're relying on the information that comes from the warden; is that correct?
Ms. Hancox: That's accurate.
Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Chair, it's accurate to a point. National parole has its own investigators. They also rely a great deal on information from the law enforcement community of contacts that they may have in situations that are important to national parole.
But with national parole — and I think this is one of the issues that Ms. Hancox has expressed several times — you know how they made their decision. She can be there. She can take part in it. She can have input. But once it goes to the prison warden, you don't know. All you may know later is what decision was made, but not on what it was based.
From your comments, we could assume that the prison warden uses all those tools to make the decision, but nobody knows that because it's not held in the open public like national parole is.
Senator McInnis: Yes, and the victim having access is important. It's important, after all of the time of incarceration, what actually is the current victim's impact, and that's the import of it coming before the parole board, where the victim can actually participate.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes.
Senator McInnis: You can give a victim impact statement at the time of the event and the trial and with the sentencing, but then, now 15 years later, you can actually give a more thorough victim's impact statement. I think that's why I would come down on the parole board because of the fact that you have access. You have an opportunity to speak, and that's what it should be about.
As you say, it's not a condemnation of the warden or the corrections system. I presume, Ms. Hancox, you're probably correct that their job is to rehabilitate and to move people out of the system, and I'm sure that they don't do it with callous disregard to their responsibilities. But after 15 years, if that was the case here, one would presume that they would have made a better decision, because apparently the report that came to the parole board was quite different.
Ms. Hancox: Yes, that's true.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much to both of you for being here.
Mr. MacKenzie, I know that you have a significant law enforcement background prior to your election as an MP 10 years ago, and I'm wondering if you can describe that for us, for the record, briefly, because I think it impacts on the type of private member's bill that you have chosen to bring forward. I congratulate you for all of your hard work on that.
Mr. MacKenzie, could you also tell us about a few of those other examples that you heard about when you were investigating this particular bill, and that this bill would have helped had it been in place?
To Ms. Hancox, I really admire you. You're a very strong lady. You're an excellent advocate for this particular bill.
Ms. Hancox: Thank you.
Senator Batters: I thought that you described the arbitrary three-year window very well. Unfortunately, you've probably found that these types of terms and matters have become part of your life, not by your choosing, but you've chosen to make a real positive difference given what's happened to you, and I'm very sorry for your loss.
Ms. Hancox: Thank you.
Senator Batters: I thought you made an excellent point when you talked about how this affects just a small group of people, but they're the most dangerous people, and that's who we need this to impact.
As well, when you brought that up the community volunteers, Mr. MacKenzie, could you briefly comment on that? Are they armed? These are individuals who are guarding people serving a life sentence. If you have any information about that, I would be curious to know that.
Mr. MacKenzie: I did spend 30 years in policing, and a great deal of that was doing criminal investigations, but the last 10 years of my career was as Chief of Police of the City of Woodstock. We have dealt with many accused but, more importantly, we've dealt with a lot of victims.
So when you ask about victims that we've heard and we've studied in this process, many of the stories almost mirror what Ms. Hancox has told us. These people don't want blood. They don't want to be punitive. They want to know that the system is there, that the system hasn't forgotten that there's been a loss and that there's a process. I've not met anyone who didn't want to see someone rehabilitated. There are the serial murderers that I suppose nobody ever wants to see out, but aside from that, the vast majority of these are situations where they just want to know that before they are back on the street, they've met some criteria, like the National Parole Board.
There's a trust in the National Parole Board. We don't hear complaints about national parole. Given my policing background, we frequently dealt with parole violators, not to the extent of what Ms. Hancox is talking about. But in many of the cases, when we're talking about the people on absence, there are lots of good organizations out there — church groups, the John Howard Society — that have volunteers who are willing to work with these people. They're not necessarily the lifers, but these are good, community people, and we need them and we trust them.
I think when we talk about this particular situation, it is kind of the crux of what this bill is about. It's the few that have seemingly slipped through the system, but a system that is a little bit broken, and if we can fix it by this small change, I think that that's just a benefit to everybody.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Hancox, congratulations on your testimony. I myself had a daughter who was murdered by a recidivist on probation; and so I understand your involvement in this matter very well.
The data I have indicate that approximately 18 per cent of incarcerated offenders would be subject to this measure. We are talking about approximately 300 criminals. This means that 82 per cent of offenders would not be affected by this measure. For the victims that is somewhat inconceivable. There are too many closed rooms within the Canadian correctional system where decisions are made behind the scenes, without any knowledge on the part of the population or the victims.
I think this bill does not go far enough and I would like your opinion on that topic. The Canadian correctional system and the National Parole Board are two organizations where transparency should be the first policy guiding decision-making.
The second principle should be that people should have to explain their decisions when they lead to crimes being committed. Unfortunately, these are environments in which decisions are never explained, and often they are made behind closed doors without any knowledge on the part of the public or victims.
Ms. Hancox or Mr. MacKenzie, I would like to hear your point of view because 18 per cent is very little to ask in terms of transparency. What is your opinion on the fact that 82 per cent of incarcerated offenders will not be affected by this measure?
[English]
Mr. MacKenzie: I think you're right. It is a smaller percentage of the prison population. It's obviously a far smaller percentage of the prison population who are serving life sentences, and that's what this applies to — the lifers. These are the people that have committed, if you put it that way, the worst of the crimes. It's not intended to keep anybody in jail longer. It's not intended to prevent them from rehabilitation, because I think we all agree that that's the point.
Ms. Hancox has lived with this for a long time, and it just doesn't seem fair. She takes part in the system as it exists up to within those three years. Then all of a sudden, well, she's forgotten. She and her family and all of the things that they've gone through are forgotten in that one little period of time. All we're asking for is that this system be changed so that the National Parole Board have that final decision, if you will — well, almost final decision, but once they've said, ''Yes, this inmate is eligible for parole, has met the rehabilitative standards and all of these other things,'' and then the prison warden would be quite properly then releasing them.
But I think without that, it leaves victims in that terrible spot in the world where everything has gone black, and then all of a sudden they get some notification that these people have been released, and it's a shock to them and to their families.
I think that if it's 18 per cent, that might be a small part. But you know what, if it's only just 2 or 3 per cent, we can fix the system, and if it's 20 per cent we can fix it, and I think that this is the fix.
Senator Joyal: I would like to come back to the decision of the warden. When a warden takes a decision to release a person, it's on a temporary basis and the person, of course, will be escorted. The person is not free to go for two weeks and come back. There will be conditions attached to the release of that person. As you stated, Mr. MacKenzie, quite rightly, they remain responsible for the decision that they make. If a warden makes a decision to give permission to an inmate to go with an escort to attend an activity covered by the bylaws or the regulations of the prison, there are reasons. It's not just done because they want to empty the cell that afternoon. There are reasons. It's normally linked to the rehabilitation of the person.
It seems to me that if we are to change the system, it has to be because an additional risk exists that the warden is not in a position to assess. The decision to release on a temporary basis is made, as I said, in the context of the rehabilitation, and I understand that's why there is a time frame of three years.
I am still wrestling with the two objectives. If you would convince me that there is a danger for public safety, I would certainly be open to recognize that spontaneously. But how do we challenge the decision of a warden in terms of rehabilitation versus the information that should be provided to the victim? That's what I am trying to reconcile.
Mr. MacKenzie: I would say the problem is that you're looking at it from the point of view that we're taking something away. All we're asking is that the National Parole Board, who hears these cases, has criteria that they follow. In the case that Ms. Hancox has illustrated, this person was not eligible for parole. National parole had deemed her as being a danger to society. That's the whole issue.
We're not being critical of the prison warden. We're not critical of that in any way, shape or form. All you have to do is use the system that exists and carry that system to its final stage. But in the last three years, we moved that so that national parole says it's okay, it's okay for the warden, but National Parole Board said this person is not eligible. They don't meet the criteria. They are a danger to society. I don't know everything that they said. Ms. Hancox might be able to enlighten you there, but when somebody like national parole says they're not eligible for parole and then, lo and behold, you find they're out on the street within a very short period of time, I think that's where we find the danger to society.
We're not critical. We're not saying that everybody that prison wardens have released is still a danger. No, they're not, but if they're not, then let national parole tell us that.
The Chair: Ms. Hancox, would you like to respond to that as well? Are you satisfied with that response?
Ms. Hancox: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Then the final question goes to Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: I'm going to be a little more direct maybe than what my colleague Senator Boisvenu was on 18 per cent here. I appreciate what you're doing, and this is a good step.
However, there are many heinous crimes out there. Did you give consideration to making this a little more wide sweeping? If we have the rape and abuse of children, things like that, that many of us would find so offensive, could this not be a little more encompassing than what it is? Did you give consideration to that?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, we did. The issue is that this legislation applies only to those who are sentenced to life. There are many sentences in the Criminal Code that could be imposed with a life sentence. It will apply to people who are there for life. So for crimes such as you mentioned, some of those people will be lifers and it would apply, but we didn't look at it, because the legislation only applies to lifers, as trying to apply it across the board to all persons who are sentenced.
Senator Plett: My question, though, was could you have not even changed the legislation? I mean, you're introducing a piece of legislation.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir.
Senator Plett: You could have changed the wording on the legislation so that it would involve certain crimes as opposed to length of sentences. I guess I'm putting on the record that that's what I would have liked to have seen, and I'm sure you gave it consideration, and I'm fine with that.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, and we did. Honestly, we did, but I think the importance was for people like Ms. Hancox, who also are serving a life sentence, I might add.
Senator Plett: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacKenzie: It's in support of what they have accomplished — a great deal — with opening up the system and National Parole Board being a see-into organization whereas the warden makes those decisions in a vacuum, from her perspective.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie, for your appearance and testimony today.
Ms. Hancox, thank you for continuing to be such a strong advocate for victims of crime for so many years. We appreciate your appearance here today.
For our second panel, I am pleased to introduce a familiar face from the John Howard Society of Canada, Catherine Latimer, the executive director of that organization; and, as an individual, someone who we have seen on occasion, Mary Campbell, former director general in the corrections and criminal justice section at Public Safety Canada, now retired.
We welcome your appearance here this evening. We'll begin with Ms. Latimer and her opening statement, please.
Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada: It's always a pleasure to be before the Senate committee as they are looking at important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and other legislative reforms. We are very pleased to be here on behalf of the John Howard Society, sharing our perceptions about private member's Bill C-483.
As you know, the John Howard Society is a charity committed to the fair, effective and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. We're very dedicated to supporting those who have been involved in the criminal justice system as they're reintegrating back into their communities in a safe way.
We consider escorted temporary absences to be part of the continuum of graduated supported releases, which is ultimately very important to protecting the public. We would also point out that those who have been convicted of murder are those with the lowest recidivism rates and pose some of the lowest risks to the public upon release.
I have four points to make about Bill C-483. The first one deals with concerns that have been raised by the victims about wanting greater transparency and accountability. I think we all share a concern in making sure that the interests of victims are met in the criminal justice system.
I would just point out that after this bill was introduced, the government sponsored Bill C-32, the ''Victims Bill of Rights Act,'' was introduced in the house, which provides significant rights for the victims in terms of information, participation and protection. As that bill comes forward, you will see that many of the elements which would make a difference for victims in this bill will be overtaken by that government-sponsored bill. So while I'm very concerned about the concerns of victims, I do think that Bill C-32 addresses those very squarely.
Our second point is that there is no real evidence to suggest that the current system related to escorted temporary absences is in need of amendments. In fact, the success rate for ETAs is extremely high.
Our third point is that Bill C-483, as drafted, lacks clarity on key points and will slow down the process such that perhaps important opportunities to promote pro-social behaviour are lost. For example, if somebody wants an escorted temporary absence to attend a funeral, and if it has to go to the parole board to get the concurrence, the funeral will already be over by the time that process takes place. So there are some complex issues about the drafting and the effect. My co-presenter Mary Campbell will be addressing some of the problems with this specific drafting of the bill.
Probably our most important concern is about the Parole Board of Canada and its capacity to handle any additional work. I think the agency in the criminal justice system that is really buckling under the increased pressure, weight and limits on resources is the National Parole Board. We think that its inability to discharge its statutory mandate is bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. We note that there is a 10,000 application backlog under the Criminal Records Act, and the parole board has recently announced that it would no longer be processing applications for indictable offences in its backlog. That, in itself, introduces a problem.
We're also concerned that the National Parole Board can often operate inconsistent with principles of justice, and this would apply in its breaching practices, where rather than appearing before hearings, it can be a single parole officer that is now able to breach a person's conditions of parole and deny them of liberty, and that's often on fairly subjective grounds. The parolee does not have a right to face the challenge presented to him and defend himself or herself, which really is inconsistent with some fundamental principles of justice.
The other concern we have is that generally there's just an unwillingness of the parole authority to work at reintegrating offenders by exercising its discretionary releasing authority. Now about 70 per cent of offenders, or more, are being released on statutory release and not through the discretionary paroling authority of the National Parole Board.
We're very concerned that the parole board is significantly challenged in delivering its core mandate, and the delivery of supported reintegration is very important to the protection of our communities. We would be very hesitant to support a bill that actually saw a workload increase to the National Parole Board when they seem unable to discharge their current mandate.
Mary Campbell, as an individual: I would like to say that retirement is very relaxing, but I won't hold that out as one of its benefits. It's a pleasure to be here before the committee again.
I have distributed a short paper with four points and some sub-points under one of the points. I'm not going to go through that now, but I would be delighted to take questions on it.
I've had the pleasure of knowing the sponsor of the bill for many years, and I know him to be a very dedicated and diligent member of Parliament. I don't question the intention behind the bill at all, and I certainly don't find fault with the bill because it's punitive or not. It's not punitive. That has nothing to do with it.
My hope today is to share with you my perceptions of this bill and why I don't think it's going to give you what you hope it will or what, more importantly, victims think it will. That, in fact, makes me very sad because I think there is nothing worse than someone who expresses a need for some reforms, and I just don't think that this bill is going to do it.
This committee may not know due to the youthfulness of this table, but the Senate has a very distinguished history on temporary absences. I was around when the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was created, and then in 1992 there was a very thorough inquiry into temporary absences. It was a three-person panel chaired by Jane Pepino, a lawyer from Toronto; also with Bob Stewart, former Vancouver police chief; and of course Senator Lucie Pépin. That was an in-depth review that made 44 recommendations at that time. I look forward to hearing the thoughts and the questions of the Senate committee today.
My last comment before we take questions is perhaps a general plea. I think the sponsor referred to incremental change, and I understand that. I'm going to make a plea before this committee, and not in the press, that the torrent of criminal justice bills and the pace is really having a negative impact on the system. I found it very difficult to read this bill and to sort it out, and I like to think I have a little bit of expertise in this area. So I can understand why it's confusing to the public. I want to put on the record that this is really a very difficult process for everyone.
At the end of the day, of course, when you're done your work, the work of line staff starts, who have to implement these measures, and that's not an easy job, in many cases.
That's all I'll say right now, and I look forward to questions.
The Chair: We'll begin those questions with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Welcome to the two witnesses. I can't think of any witnesses who have as much knowledge of this particular area as the two we have here today.
I have one question for each witness. My first question is to Catherine Latimer. In her statement, she used the words ''bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.'' Of course, this is the remedy section of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at 24(2) — ''would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.'' If you have a Charter violation, then your remedy could either be found in the exclusion of evidence, if the evidence brought the administration of justice into disrepute, if it were admitted because of the Charter violations or violation. So it's a very strong phrase that you use, Ms. Latimer, to make your point. I'm just wondering: Which point are you addressing when you used that phrase?
Ms. Latimer: I was basically referring to the ability of the Parole Board of Canada to discharge its statutory mandate. They have a statutory obligation to look at, for example, applications for record suspensions. That legislation, as you probably know, changed back in 2010. At that point a slight backlog was developed because a lot of people were applying for their record suspensions — or at that time it was called pardons — before the legislative changes took effect. But it has now been four years, and people who applied for their record suspensions — or for their pardons — four years ago have not had those applications processed. They paid their $150, their $631, or whatever the fee happened to be when they made their application, and it has gone into limbo.
The parole board has now indicated that it is only going to be processing the summary conviction offences under its mandate and not the backlog of indictable offences. So basically those who were convicted of indictable offences, paid their debt to society and have been crime free for the requisite period of time to be entitled to be considered for a record suspension or a pardon, their applications are not being addressed.
Particularly when the granting of a pardon or a record suspension brings the person within the protections of human rights legislation, both provincially and federally, and protects them from discrimination on the basis of employment and education and housing, the administrative delay, and in some cases the cost, shouldn't alienate people from human rights protections. And that's what we're seeing by the delays of the parole board when they can't discharge the workload that's ahead of them or in front of them.
I think it's a very sad thing for the parole board not to be able to do that and probably even sadder for those who have been waiting patiently for four years to have an application that they made in good faith processed by a government agency.
Senator Baker: Ms. Latimer, would you know the percentage of Canadians who have criminal records, an estimate?
Ms. Latimer: The estimate is that about 10 per cent of the Canadian population have a criminal record.
Senator Baker: Does that include children as well? Is that men, women and children? So those above 18 years of age.
Ms. Latimer: Yes.
Senator Baker: It would be higher than 10 per cent? You said that about 10 per cent of the total Canadian population have a criminal record.
Ms. Latimer: It's about 10 per cent. If you break it down on gender, it's about 20 per cent of men, just in terms of the way it goes. A lot of people have criminal backgrounds in their past.
Senator Baker: There are a lot of applications, obviously.
Ms. Campbell, my one question to you is this: Is there anything technically wrong with the bill? Have you had an opportunity to read the words? You understand this legislation thoroughly.
Ms. Campbell: Yes.
Senator Baker: You've worked at it for years.
Ms. Campbell: Yes.
Senator Baker: What do you think is technically wrong with the bill?
Ms. Campbell: I've tried to outline the key points in my document. I speak as a correctional law expert and as someone who, as you know, values precision in legislative drafting.
Senator Baker: Yes.
Ms. Campbell: I've started by noting that it actually amends the wrong law. I think that to achieve the goal the better amendment would have been to the section in the Criminal Code that specifically addresses the ETA granting authority.
Senator Baker: Sub (2).
Ms. Campbell: Having put it in the CCRA, unfortunately, it's also put in the wrong part. Part I deals with CSC; Part II deals with the parole board, and this amendment is in relation to the parole board and it's now been put in Part I.
The ''parole board'' is not even defined in the act until Part II. We have now this rhinoceros in the chicken yard, to reach for an analogy, all of a sudden a duty and an authority of the board in Part I.
There may be people who say that's no big deal, and again I say that I speak from someone who really values precision in law making because people are expected to understand it.
The other thing I've emphasized in the bill is that I think there are a number of misunderstandings about how the current system operates. One of the first points I make is the difference between authorizing an ETA and approving an ETA. Those words mean different things. That seems like a very small point, but it's critical to understanding the current system. CSC authorizes the current ETAs. They then get board approval. But I think there's a perception out there that somehow currently the board takes care of all current ETAs in the first part of the sentence, and that's not the case.
I must say, as a work of drafting, you asked whether there are technical errors. I would start all over, if I were to draft to try to achieve what the sponsor wants to achieve.
Senator Plett: Ms. Latimer, you said at the end of your presentation — and this is probably not verbatim — that there is no evidence that an amendment is necessary. I'm wondering whether you weren't here when Ms. Hancox testified and gave us an illustration why this amendment is very necessary. Would you please tell us what you thought of Ms. Hancox's testimony when she said it's necessary?
Ms. Latimer: I didn't actually hear Ms. Hancox's testimony, but I take the point that victims are interested in accountability and they want to know what's happening at the decision points. I would reiterate that I think the victims bill of rights, which now has been introduced in the House of Commons and is making its way through the process, is going to provide a whole series of information — participation rights, appeal rights, protection rights — for victims, and really takes care of most of the concerns that I would imagine the victims would have about not being part of these processes.
What I was talking about is that there doesn't seem to be, in terms of reintegration support and public safety, any evidence that ETAs for people serving life sentences have been exercised in a way that endangered the public and didn't really support the reintegration objectives that we all share in order to make sure that when people are returned to the public, they don't constitute a risk.
Senator Plett: Yes, but there has been no argument that the people should not return to the public. There's a parole board that decides whether they should. If the parole board decides that they should return to the public, there's no argument. The sponsor of the bill isn't opposed to that. I don't think Ms. Hancox is opposed. Ms. Hancox, in her testimony, didn't say that she would have been upset if the parole board would have reached a different decision. She said the parole board reached a decision; the warden made his own decision later on.
So in reference to your comment about the parole board being overworked: In this particular case, the parole board would have had no more work. They made a decision; and the warden, on his own, made a different decision. So the parole board would not have had more work.
To the comment about the parole board being overworked, if we have a piece of legislation that is good legislation, and we have people who are overworked, I think there are different ways of dealing with it than saying, ''Well, let's throw up our hands in the air and not do anything.'' Let's, rather, get more people on the parole board.
Ms. Latimer: That would be great, but most private members' bills are not accompanied by any funding allocations. What private members' bills can do is increase the workload on particular agencies without expanding their ability to be able to achieve the policy objectives of the particular bill that's being put in front of them. We have seen this happen. A whole series of legislative reforms have really led to a serious challenge — an undermining of key agencies like the parole board, and to some extent CSC, in being able to achieve its statutory mandate — and that's a problem.
Senator Joyal: I am surprised by your brief, Ms. Campbell — I read it — on the basis of what you mention in it. What we have been told is that if national parole has denied an ETA within the three-year period, the warden can decide, by himself or herself, to give the authorization so that the parole board is excluded during that three-year period. That's the way I understood the previous testimony. But it doesn't seem, according to what you mention at the top of page 2 — and it's about the decision-making process — that that's not the way the system functions. Could you explain to us how the system functions in that three-year period?
Ms. Campbell: Yes. The way the law is written currently, if you're dealing with a first- or second-degree lifer — and we'll take, for ease of reference, someone who has a 15-year parole ineligibility period — for the first 12 years, if that person wants an ETA, they must apply to the warden. The warden may authorize it, but it's a two-step process, and the package must go to the parole board to get their approval as well.
Normally, as I understand it, the board might hold a hearing the first time they receive such an application, but thereafter they're most likely to do what's called a paper review. This is the other thing I think people need to understand: How much of the board's work is done by paper reviews. There is no hearing. There is no hearing for anyone to attend. That's in the chairperson's own testimony from the other place, and I hope you'll ask him about it tomorrow.
Once the person reaches year 12 of that 15 years of parole ineligibility, the code provides that from that point on only the warden's authority is required for the ETA. You don't have to do that second step and go to the parole board.
What this bill would do is interject what I think is a bit of an oddity at that moment, at 12 years, because it would say, presuming the person has been out on TAs and they've been successful — and I think we have to remember, a 99 per cent success rate. That's been since the day I started in this business. At that moment, at year 12, under this bill the warden would lose his or her authority temporarily, and the person would be required to go to the parole board as the sole decision maker on the initial decision.
I guess my question is: Why? If they've been doing well on ETAs at that point, why would you suddenly have them have to go through a somewhat more complex process and go to the board? Let's assume the board grants the ETA at that point. Then Bill C-483 would say: Fine, then the warden can take over after that.
It's odd. I don't see the logic in it. I don't see what it adds for the victim. But I think some of that also traffics on maybe victims not always understanding what access they have to CSC decisions, which is not zero.
Does that explain my concern, what I've called a pop-in, if you like, by the parole board?
Senator Joyal: How long does it take for an inmate to get a decision once he or she applies to the board?
Ms. Campbell: For an ETA decision from the board?
Senator Joyal: For an ETA, yes.
Ms. Campbell: I think that's a question you would have to ask the two heads tomorrow. One hopes that it is guided by the deadline of the reason for the ETA. Ms. Latimer has mentioned a funeral, for example. I can't say with any authority. The board has some fairly generous deadlines on other matters, up to three months. I would suggest you ask tomorrow.
Senator Joyal: Are there practices for emergency issues? Let's take the example of an inmate whose spouse is deathly ill and the person wants to go and visit. It seems to me that this is an emergency whereby a quick decision should be made. You mentioned funerals: It's the same.
Ms. Campbell: Yes. I think you would find as a matter of practice that the warden, assuming the warden has authorized the TA, would try to get a hold of the board member fairly quickly. But you understand that board members are not sitting around waiting for the phone to ring. They have heavy workloads and scheduled workloads. I'm sure they would try to find someone within a matter of hours, or a day, to render a paper decision approving it if they felt that was appropriate.
Senator Joyal: Do I understand that it's for a short period of not more than two weeks?
Ms. Campbell: ETAs are for very short periods. It's specified in the act. Normally an ETA is for something like a court appearance, perhaps a divorce proceeding, maybe for some kind of family contact. An ETA may be used if someone is going to look at a halfway house that they are interested in going to if they were granted day parole.
Normally ETAs are very short. You have to understand that they're escorted. The escort level of security is according to the risk of the person, but any escort, particularly a security escort, costs money.
Senator Joyal: Yes, that's what I was going to ask you. As to the determination on a person who applies for an ETA to attend a funeral, on what basis is the evaluation made that the person is too risky to let the person go? If the person goes, what level of escort should that person be given?
Ms. Campbell: Again, that's up to the warden and the case management staff, and they will have all the information at hand about this person. They will know, first of all, whether they are they in minimum, maximum or medium security. That tells you quite a bit. They will also have file information that will basically already suggest what this person's risk level is. They will gauge, then, the security according to that risk level.
Inmates have gone to funerals with a security escort and in shackles. If that's what's required to make that a safe ETA, then that's what will happen. If it's a much less risky situation, they will probably go with a community volunteer to that funeral, but it is always linked to the risk of that inmate.
Senator Batters: Ms. Latimer made a couple of comments in response to the question Senator Plett asked about the evidence that may have existed. I'm wondering if you're aware that Ms. Hancox also testified before the House of Commons Justice Committee, and I'm wondering if you had a chance to review her testimony there.
Ms. Latimer: No, I did not.
Ms. Campbell: I have read her testimony from the House of Commons.
Senator Batters: Ms. Latimer was the one who made the comment about that.
Also, to your comment, Ms. Latimer, about how private members' bills don't include funding allocation, I'm sure you're aware that that's because private members' bills cannot include funding allocation.
Ms. Latimer: Right. Absolutely.
Senator Batters: I'm sure you are aware of that, but for others who may be paying attention to these hearings, it's actually a requirement for that particular part of it.
Ms. Campbell, I understand that you retired in April; is that right?
Ms. Campbell: Of 2013, correct.
Senator Batters: As Director General of the Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate at Public Safety Canada.
Ms. Campbell: Correct.
Senator Batters: In your role, you met almost weekly with the Public Safety minister or senior staff, giving advice on public policy programs and research; correct?
Ms. Campbell: Yes.
Senator Batters: This bill was introduced originally, prior to that, by an MP that you just described in quite glowing terms, which is very legitimate. Prior to your retirement, this legislation was before the House of Commons, and perhaps you had knowledge that it might be coming before the House of Commons prior to that. Analyzing legislation pertinent to your department and providing advice to government decision makers I'm assuming would have been part of your job; correct?
Ms. Campbell: The role of analyzing legislation? Yes, it was absolutely part of my job.
Senator Batters: An important part of your job, I imagine.
Ms. Campbell: It was probably about half of my workload; correct.
Senator Batters: On this particular bill, then, whether it was the actual piece of legislation or what was coming into effect to be that piece of legislation, did you provide any advice, in that respect, in support of this bill?
Ms. Campbell: To the best of my recollection, I don't think I did. You're quite correct that it had a previous incarnation. I was aware of it, but I don't recall that it ever got to the point where we, or I, provided advice because it got caught up, I think, in the prorogation of Parliament. So I knew it existed, but there are an awful lot of bills that existed. Not every one would receive my personal attention, just given the volume. So I guess the short answer is no, I don't recall giving advice on this.
Senator Batters: You're not sure. Fair enough. Thank you very much.
Senator McInnis: Ms. Campbell, by way of clarification, I was going to ask a supplementary and didn't get a chance. When you mentioned that the warden authorizes and the board approves, are you saying the parole board or the board of Correctional Service Canada?
Ms. Campbell: Sorry, I mean the parole board.
Senator McInnis: Part of the difficulty, as we've heard today — and I think it's the genesis of the bill — is to provide access to the victim. If the warden is making the decision, it's a closed shop, pretty much. I'm sure that all kinds of input goes into it, as I said in the earlier session, but the victim has no say. The importance of the victim having a say, particularly after a lengthy period of time of, say, 15 years, I think is critical. I think it is important that the inmate, the person who is seeking to get out into the community and adapt, hear the repercussions of what the person has endured over that period of time.
Why is it, then, that the warden making the decision would be better for the victim — and there's more than one victim, most often — and the community? Why not the openness?
Ms. Campbell: I do want to go back to the rationale for the bill. I hope we could agree that with a 99 per cent success rate, we're really not talking about public safety here. People have said that they do have faith in what the warden and CSC are doing. I think we're talking more about victim satisfaction with the process, and that is important. I'm not minimizing that at all, but I think we have to be clear that that's what we're talking about, not public safety per se.
In terms of input into the warden's decision, the act may not be as clear as it could be, but victims can provide input into escorted temporary absence decisions by the warden. The act is very explicit that CSC must take victim impact statements into account in every decision that it makes.
Is there a section that explicitly says, ''Please send in your comments''? No, there isn't. Maybe something we do need to think about is whether people understand that they can contact CSC at any time and make any statement they wish, and it will go to the decision maker. I think that is a problem. I guess victims don't know that they can have input into the ETA decision.
Similarly, the point I make is that they can get a copy of the decision that is made and the reasons, and that's in section 26 of the act right now. They can ask for the reasons and for where the offender is going on an ETA and for how long they will be out. So there is a little bit of the victim needing to be proactive in putting this on the record. We can certainly discuss whether that's a good idea or not.
One of the things I have learned in the past year is that I know how to access all kinds of bureaucracies because I've been a bureaucrat, but I also understand how difficult it is to access the system for people who have not been bureaucrats. I fully understand how difficult it is, but I think you would find that CSC would tell you — and you can ask Mr. Head tomorrow — that they would be absolutely happy to have people, early on in the sentence, send them a victim impact statement that might pertain to any ETA decision that is being contemplated, and maybe there's something we could do to the process that would make it easier for victims.
Senator McInnis: The only difficulty is that with the parole board, the person is there. It's pretty cold and difficult to put in writing what you've gone through over the past 15 years — very difficult.
Ms. Campbell: I understand, but I just want to go back and emphasize —
The Chair: We're going to have to move on. We have a long list of questioners.
Senator Frum: Ms. Campbell, in the document you distributed, could you clarify? I don't understand. In the last paragraph, you have statistics. You cite the number of ETA permits issued as 48,000 and the number of inmates receiving ETAs as 2,742. Can you explain the difference between those two numbers?
Ms. Campbell: Yes. It just comes down to the fact that one inmate may get several ETAs, so you do have to look at both. If you simply saw the figure that there were 48,000 ETAs issued in a year, you would think, ''Holy Toledo, that's a lot of inmates,'' far more than we have at the moment.
Senator Frum: It's going down.
Ms. Campbell: That's the difference between them. Obviously, those 2,700 inmates got multiple ETAs.
Senator Frum: This was in the area of workload, but you're saying that they're processing approximately 48,000 requests amongst 2,700 inmates.
Ms. Campbell: Right. You'll often see someone ask for five ETAs over a period of time with quite a structure to the program.
Senator Frum: I see.
You talk about a 99 per cent success rate, and that refers to coming and going without incident. What is the success rate for applying for an ETA?
Ms. Campbell: That is a good question. I'm not sure that CSC keeps that record, but I think that's a question for Mr. Head tomorrow.
Ms. Latimer: I happen to hear from a lot of inmates who applied for ETAs and haven't received them. It's certainly not a matter of course.
Senator Frum: Okay.
Senator Joyal: Are we talking about lifers only?
Ms. Latimer: Yes.
Senator Joyal: I mean, this study —
The Chair: Senator Frum still has the floor.
Senator Frum: If I have time for one other question, in the document you distributed, you make the point that under this bill a lifer inmate that wants an ETA for a few hours must apply to the parole board, but if he or she wants a 60-day work release, it can be granted by the warden. I assume that means the standard to get a work release is pretty high if you're a lifer.
Ms. Campbell: For a work release or an ETA, the criteria are the same whether you're a lifer or a non-lifer, and there are criteria in the act that are quite explicit.
The statistics on this page are in relation to all inmates, not just lifers, by the way.
Senator Frum: I see that. You said the number of lifers.
Ms. Campbell: I put the number of lifers at the bottom just so people would know.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our two witnesses. I would like to put the same question to you as I did to Mr. MacKenzie. Does the National Parole Board of Canada have sufficient resources to ensure lawful custody or examine additional temporary absence requests?
I have heard people who work in correctional institutions say that they have trouble ensuring the supervision of escorted temporary absences because of the lack of personnel. Do you think that with this bill the institutions will have the necessary staff to ensure adequate supervision?
[English]
Ms. Campbell: I think I can only echo what Ms. Latimer has said, and it's my perception that the parole board is absolutely maxed out in terms of its ability to deliver services at this point. I cannot see how they can do anything more — and I've put it in this document — without new resources or a realignment of existing functions.
Again, that's my perception. The chairman might have a different view tomorrow, but based on my experience and expertise, that's my view.
Ms. Latimer: I share that perception. I think that they are having difficulty discharging their existing statutory mandate, and if you added anything more you would find there would be delays and you wouldn't be getting the results that were intended.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Campbell, as you know, the argument presented by those who are against the bill is that the rate of recidivism is very low. For the victims of criminal acts, that is not the main concern, however. What they worry about is seeing the criminal who murdered their relative or friend arrive in their environment without any kind of prior notice. I get calls from people every week. First of all, they do not know if the person is out for one or two days or for a week. Often, victims think that the offender was released and that they were not advised. That is the greatest source of frustration for them.
The second point, and you may contradict me if you care to, is that I have been working in the field of victims' rights for 12 years, and I have seen a lot of cases where offenders were released on parole or on escorted or unescorted absences, and then committed serious crimes, including murders.
I am thinking about the case of a poor gentleman of 84 who was murdered by an offender who had been released. When the victims or their families question the National Parole Board they do not obtain any information; things remain hidden, and we do not know which board member examined the file.
So this bill is one attempt at transparency. I do not know if you see it that way. The objective is not to affect the rate of recidivism. Victims simply want to obtain some transparency. I do not know if that was a question or a comment.
[English]
Ms. Campbell: No, I think you raise very important points, and that's why I say a 99 per cent success rate is quite impressive on its own. I don't know of any other social or criminal justice agency that can claim a 99 per cent success rate.
The other factor to bear in mind is there is research that shows not only do people comply with the ETA, but people who get ETAs do better in the long run, all other factors controlled for, having had that experience.
Your point about information and the sharing of information is crucial. In fact, that's why the Pepino inquiry was called over 20 years ago. There were a couple of terrible tragedies involving TAs, and there was a big concern about the lack of sharing of information between agencies, the courts and the correctional agencies.
I think Mr. Head, in his previous testimony, spoke of some things he's trying to do to improve that. But I think you're absolutely correct that the pressure has to be kept on because if people don't have all the information, whether they are the warden or the parole board, they will not make the best decision.
I regrettably do not have quite the same view of the parole boards in terms of accountability or transparency at this point as others do. It pains me to say that, but I don't think that takes away from your point that, yes, victims do need to know more and it's a constant struggle to achieve that.
The Chair: I'm trying to understand the section of the code that you cite, Ms. Campbell, in your written submission, 746.1(2). You heard the witness earlier, Ms. Hancox, talking about the situation where, as I understood it, the parole board rejected the application and then three months later the warden opted to allow the individual who murdered her husband to be granted a release.
Now I understand — and I can't find the section of the act right at the moment — that it doesn't apply to work releases in terms of any authorization for release, whether it's for a funeral or an inquest or whatever it might be, and that they have to notify, get the okay from the parole board. So it seems to me they breached that requirement of the act. Am I wrong in that?
The other thing I've read is that Ms. Cece was allowed to walk or take the bus to this workplace unescorted. I'm wondering if there are breaches of the act in that particular situation, which I think has been the catalyst for this legislation.
Ms. Campbell: I'm not familiar with all the details of the situation, although I am certainly familiar with the major points of it. As I understand it, what happened was that Ms. Cece fell within the parameters of 746.1(2)(c) which says up until three years before full parole eligibility, the warden had to get the approval of the parole board. What seems to have happened in that case was they went to the parole board and the board said no. Then she passed that 12-year point, and she was then in the category of no longer needing that approval specified in 746.1(2)(c). It was only the warden at that point.
The Chair: So a cleaner change of this might be to remove the three-year requirement.
Ms. Campbell: Yes. That's why I thought if you had just changed (c) and taken out that changeover, it would have been one answer to the issue.
The Chair: We have time for a few more questions.
Senator Joyal: I want to come back to your brief. I was listening to the answer you gave to Senator Boisvenu in terms of the victims to be involved and the expectation, as you stated, under section 25 of the CSC Act. It seems to me that most of the time those expectations are worth the paper they are printed on because, as you stated in your brief, the number of ETA permits issued is 48,000; I mean, we're talking a lot. I tried to imagine the paperwork involved with 48,000 requested ETAs.
It seems to me that the system probably works, that unless the victim has repeatedly come forward to say, ''I want to be involved; I want to know; let me know; send me a note,'' the process of those 48,000 is done on the basis of what the act compels the administration to give, but the administration would not go up front to solicit the advice or the opinions or the comments of the victim. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me that that's the way the system works.
Ms. Campbell: You're quite accurate in how you've characterized it. The system does rely on people to come forward to express their views. That was in part a policy decision when the victim access or registration of victims was created. Not every victim wants to have contact, so that's why there wasn't a proactive requirement on CSC to reach out to victims. Some of them don't want to have that. So the onus is on the victim to speak up or come forward, yes. That carries with it, then, certain disadvantages.
Senator Joyal: In other words, for some victims it is seen as a frustration, while in fact there is no presumption that not all victims want to be informed of what will happen 15 years down the road or 12 years down the road.
Ms. Campbell: We know from victims that many of them don't want to be further involved in it, but the act is very clear. If a victim does provide information, it must be taken into account.
Senator Joyal: In other words, the victim bills that they are studying in the House of Commons could have an adverse effect. If it establishes the obligation to inform the victims and the victim doesn't want to be informed, then the victims will have to come forward and say, ''Please delete my name from any additional information,'' because it will work on an adverse position.
We'll have to take that into account, in fact, when changes to the system might come forward in relation to the right to be informed.
Ms. Campbell: Yes.
Senator McInnis: Ms. Campbell, I was just settling into my seat when you made your remarks, Ms. Campbell. I apologize for that. You made a comment, not particularly about the bill, saying that criminal justice bills were going through in a rapid fashion, or words to that effect, confusing the Canadian public.
Legislation, as you would know, comes from or emanates from public interest groups, public servants and so on. The process here to get criminal law in place takes a long time, and due process is such that we have what we refer to as the ''other place'' where it goes through three readings. There are committees that interrogate witnesses. You and others have an opportunity to come. It comes to the Senate where it's debated, and if it involves a legal matter or criminal justice, it is referred to this committee.
I have been a legislator in the province of Nova Scotia for 15 years, and if you have the impression that things are rushed up here, you are incorrect. It takes a long time, and the process is an excellent one. It's called democracy.
To be candid, I haven't detected any public concern as to what we are doing as a government, and in fact I hear quite the opposite. I would like to hear why you would make that statement. I don't detect anyone being confused.
Ms. Campbell: I do speak from my background, and so it is my perception. I feel that I've been privileged to have worked as a public servant since late 1984, so I've worked through three different governments, all of which were different in their own way.
I guess I became used to a process whereby, if you go back and look, at any given time there might have been four or five criminal justice bills on the go, and private members' bills were fairly restricted in terms of volume and subject matter.
I think what we've seen in recent years is a dramatic increase. I had done a count in the summer and counted 30 bills before Parliament that affected criminal justice, and 30 at any given time is obviously a huge increase from 5 or 6.
I appreciate that the process may not seem rushed, but I'm also used to a process whereby sometimes one takes a bigger view of things. In this case one might say, ''Well, let's look at all of the short forms of release, such as temporary absence and work release, so that we make sure they are compatible and we're not changing one and creating an anomaly with the other.'' So the thing about work release, which Ms. Hancox had referenced, will continue, and that strikes me as an anomaly.
I guess my plea at the outset was to say we should perhaps take a broader view sometimes of related issues, because rarely does one take the time to then add up what is happening in all these 30-odd bills and how they interrelate.
The Chair: I'm going to have to stop you there and move to a final question from Senator Batters.
Senator Batters: Ms. Campbell, I just want to point you to something that our Library of Parliament researcher brought up to us in discussing the purpose of the private member's bill we're looking at today.
The researcher indicated that the institutional head conserves the right to authorize a temporary absence for medical emergencies or for inmates to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest. Yet earlier today you used the example of divorce proceedings as something that would be subject to this particular bill, but I would say that judicial proceedings would encompass divorce proceedings. So are you saying that that particular point made by our researcher is not correct, or were you mistaken?
Ms. Campbell: No, because in my head I had the notion of criminal court proceedings as opposed to divorce proceedings, which don't always necessarily have a more urgent deadline. On that point of law, I would certainly defer to the judgment of a researcher who has some expertise. As I say, I was thinking of criminal court proceedings.
Senator Batters: But certainly ''judicial'' would be any type of court proceedings.
Ms. Campbell: Sure.
Senator Batters: All right, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses. We very much appreciate your attendance here this evening and your testimony. It has been helpful.
Senators, we will adjourn and resume our consideration of this legislation tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)