:
Good afternoon, colleagues. We will call to order meeting number 16 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Today we will be dealing with Bill , an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, escorted temporary absence, put forward by the member of Parliament for Oxford, Dave MacKenzie.
Before I start with that, colleagues, as chair I would like to thank you for having your witness lists in to the clerk on time. We've been able to proceed with everything all in favour, both for today and Thursday, so I very much appreciate the cooperation.
I will also make note that just at the very end of today's meeting, we will take about a minute or two to consider a request for budget approval for witnesses on this particular bill. I'll be asking for your consideration on that for approval.
Today's meeting is televised, and this is great. I thank all the representatives of all parties for their cooperation and concurrence in having this meeting televised today. In future, of course, it would certainly be good to know a day or two before so that we can potentially avoid any maybe last-minute expenses that come along with the last-minute decision. I thank you for your cooperation in allaying that possibility today.
In the second hour today, we will hear from Sue O'Sullivan, from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; and Mr. Harvey Cenaiko, from the Parole Board of Canada.
At this particular point, we will turn to our first witness, Mr. Dave MacKenzie, member of Parliament.
You have 10 minutes for your opening address.
I am pleased to be here with you today to discuss private member's Bill. I firmly believe this bill provides a good balance between the need to reintegrate prisoners into the community and the need to do everything in our power to keep the Canadian public safe from harm.
Even if we have not been personally affected by crime, it is not hard to imagine the relief a victim of violent crime or their family feel when a criminal is removed from the community and is safely behind bars, or the comfort they must take in knowing this particular prisoner cannot seek out the victim and commit another act of violence. It's also not hard to imagine the stress and concern that same victim feels when they find out the prisoner has been granted an escorted temporary absence from the penitentiary. Even for a temporary absence in which the prisoner is under escort for the entire time, the mere thought of the prisoner being back in the community is extremely difficult.
Regardless of the reason, Canadians want assurances that all possible measures are taken to ensure their safety when a prisoner is out in the community. These safeguards are contained within the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which outlines the necessary controls and criteria that must be met for each type of absence and that are deemed necessary for each individual prisoner.
Escorted temporary absences can be divided into two main categories: those that are obligatory or necessary, such as for court proceedings or medical treatment; and those that are for rehabilitative purposes, such as for community-based correctional programs. There is no question that there are some circumstances in which a prisoner must leave a penitentiary for obligatory reasons, such as for court appearances. In these cases the releasing authority determines and applies the proper security escort up to and including the use of physical restraints when necessary. These decisions are straightforward; even the highest risk prisoner needs to be taken to a court date if he faces new charges.
It is when we get into discretionary absences, in other words those that are more for rehabilitation, that victims become more concerned about how the decisions are made to allow the prisoner to be absent from the penitentiary. The decision to send a prisoner outside penitentiary walls for correctional programming reasons is made using greater discretion, taking into consideration the prisoner's engagement in the correctional plan and the risk they pose to society. Today decisions on escorted temporary absences for rehabilitative purposes for those serving life sentences are made by either the penitentiary warden or the Parole Board of Canada, based on a scheme outlined in the Criminal Code.
That formula is as follows. For prisoners serving life sentences, the Parole Board is the releasing authority from start of sentence up until three years prior to full parole eligibility. Once a prisoner is within three years of full parole eligibility, Correctional Service Canada takes over as the releasing authority.
For those prisoners who committed murder before they turned 18, the Parole Board is the releasing authority from start of sentence up until expiration of all but one-fifth of the specified number of years the offender is to serve without eligibility. Once the prisoner reaches the one-fifth mark, Correctional Service Canada becomes the releasing authority.
This switch in releasing authority from the Parole Board to the wardens is what concerns victims of crime and many other Canadians. They want to know why the Parole Board isn't the releasing authority for the entire length of a prisoner's sentence. They want to know why they as victims and families are suddenly shut out of the decision-making process for the final years of the offender's sentence. They want to know why an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat is replacing someone appointed by the crown as a decision-maker. It is easy to understand their concerns.
Over the past several years our government has made a number of legislative changes that place more discretion and authority upon members of the Parole Board of Canada and that give victims a larger role in the conditional release system. For example, in 2011 the Abolition of Early Parole Act gave the Parole Board more authority when deciding if a white-collar criminal is eligible for parole, allowing it to consider an individual's risk of committing a new offence before the end of their sentence. In 2012, the Safe Streets and Communities Act included measures that now enshrine in law the right of victims to attend Parole Board hearings and make a statement, and it expanded the definition of who can be considered a victim.
Measures like these have contributed to a greater public understanding of the conditional release decision-making process. It only stands to reason that victims of crime want every opportunity to use their newly enshrined rights. To this end, they want the Parole Board to remain the releasing authority for all discretionary absences, regardless of the number of years left in an offender's sentence. We may not be able to fully understand the pain and loss that friends and families of a murder victim may experience, but we can certainly appreciate their desire to want to play as large a role as possible in decisions that may allow prisoners to be conditionally released into the community.
This is really the underlying push behind my Bill . Shifting the authority for rehabilitative escorted temporary absences completely to the Parole Board gives victims the opportunity to be part of all of these types of decisions, thereby further empowering them. This is a pledge that our Conservative government has made to victims of crime and to all Canadians year after year, that we will do everything we can to safeguard families and communities. I believe this legislation will help us in these efforts by addressing victims' concerns and providing assurances that their safety comes first and foremost.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am now happy to take any questions you may have.
:
Thank you for the question.
The big issue here, primarily, is police officers and prison guards who are murdered in the line of duty and those who are sentenced to the maximum sentence of life in prison. In particular, my interest in this was raised a great deal by a victim, a police officer's widow. You'll hear from the widow in her words. I think it's important that you hear her.
Kim Hancox's husband was murdered in Toronto in 1997 by two women. Kim is a very astute woman, and you'll hear in her words exactly what that means. She has been through the process with the national parole board. She understands that process and appreciates the opportunity she has to present her feelings to the national parole board. But what happened in this case in particular is that the national parole board said that these people, one of them in particular, should not be released. Then the system, in that last three years, it ends up that this goes to the prison warden, and the prison warden decided that there should be a release.
I think she found that it just wasn't right, that it didn't feel right. I agree with her. For that reason, we have this bill.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. MacKenzie, for being with us today.
Certainly on our side we understand the concerns that the victims of very serious crimes have, but we have several times expressed our concern that we've had a lot of private members’ bills that amend various parts of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We've become very concerned about unintended consequences of the various things that are happening here.
Something you said in your opening statement, which is a bit technical, I want to go back to. From reading the text of the bill as submitted, it's not clear to me that this only applies to rehabilitative temporary escorted absences. Certainly the summary of the bill does not say that, and certainly none of the sections the bill as presented say that. It makes an exception for medical absences, but this bill as presented makes no reference to things like the court appearances.
Maybe it requires a more complex reading of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to see that, but I cannot see that in the bill as presented.
:
You will get to hear her on Thursday, I believe. She will be here.
The whole incident, this murder, is pretty bizarre, pretty heinous. It was a thrill killing, if you will, by two women who murdered this police officer, stabbed him in the cruiser. He was left to die on the street.
You can see the emotions of the victim here, his spouse. She was expecting a child at the time, who was born after that. So she's gone through all of those things, and then to deal with national parole. I don't want to put words in her testimony, but I think you'll find that she understood that process, and then was somewhat surprised, if not shocked, to find that one of these women was turned down by national parole and not very long after that was released by the warden.
Now as I said, the warden didn't do anything wrong. The warden has the authority to do it and had her own reasons for making that release. All I would say is that the system is wrong that grants that opportunity for these people to be out.
I wasn't involved in policing when Detective Hancox was murdered, but I'm certainly aware of the circumstances. It's been an issue that has been out there for quite a while. I think in this case it's a release that just continues to make Ms. Hancox a victim.
Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie, for bringing forward your remarks on this particular bill.
I do say in beginning, Mr. Chair, that I have somewhat the same concern as expressed by Mr. Garrison about the number of private member's bills that are coming forward by backbench Conservative members that all have an impact on either the Criminal Code or the corrections act. Sometimes I think they're in contradiction.
The last bill we had, , was actually a bill designed to reduce the number of Parole Board hearings, and we didn't hear from the Parole Board in that case. We should have. This one increases the number of Parole Board hearings.
I just think from a government member's perspective, it would make more sense to tie all this stuff together, all these conditions that people are looking for private member's bills on and bring them forward in a comprehensive way. The last two private member's bills we studied had more amendments than clauses. I submit that for the last one——I think we actually amended it so that we changed the intent of the bill. That's a concern I have, just so that you're aware.
In terms of the specifics of this bill, can you tell us how many cases across Canada this would actually apply to?
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill , an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
I would like to begin by providing you with a very brief overview of our office's mandate. The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007 to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims, by promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime, by providing information and referrals, by promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime, also by raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims, and by identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact on victims of crime.
Bill seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to shift the authority of the warden to authorize the escorted temporary absence, or ETA, of an offender convicted of first- or second-degree murder within three years of full parole eligibility to the Parole Board of Canada. At its core, this bill aims to bring a more transparent and inclusive process to victims of crime. I fully support this shift and the benefits it brings to victims.
I think it is also important to acknowledge that Bill specifically proposes to remove granting authority from one organization and give it to another. In doing so one might question which of the two authorities is in the best position to decide on the offender's progress and ability to reintegrate into the community. My remarks today do not in any way reflect any judgments or suggestions that one of these authorities has a greater capacity to make these decisions. This is not my area of expertise, and I will not speculate on that aspect of this suggested amendment.
Instead, what does concern me, and what I do see as a clear advantage of the amendments proposed in this bill, is the benefit to victims of ultimately having a more transparent, informative, and inclusive process. It is within these parameters that I will provide my comments.
Through our work we have generally found that at a minimum, victims of crime want to be informed, considered, protected, and supported. Given this, it would not be surprising for you to learn that we have heard from a number of victims who are frustrated by the lack of transparency in the warden's process. They find it difficult to understand why someone who has committed a serious crime such as murder could be granted any type of release without a process that informs or involves the victim.
In contrast to parole hearings, victims have little to no role in a warden's board process. To be more specific, parole hearings are a much more informative and inclusive process for victims. Victims have a right to be informed in advance of a pending parole hearing, as well as the option to apply to attend that hearing. Those victims who do attend a hearing are able to bear witness to a reasonably fulsome account of the offender's progress and rehabilitation. Even victims who are unable to attend the hearing still have access to the decision registry, which, while not providing full information about the offender's progress, does outline the reasons why a particular decision to grant or deny parole was taken.
Victims are more fully considered in the parole process in that they are given the opportunity to update their impact statement to respond to and reflect the specific release decision being made. Without this opportunity, wardens' boards may potentially review an outdated and/or less relevant earlier version of their statement. Additionally, within the parole hearing process, victims are able to present, not just submit, an impact statement outlining the harm they have suffered as a result of the crime. While not all victims choose this option, victims who we have spoken to describe this opportunity to share the impact directly with the offender as an important part of their healing journey. Finally, in addition, there are funding supports available to help victims cover some of the expenses associated with attending the hearing.
None of these same channels of information, consideration, and support are available to victims in the case of a warden's board. As such, I would support the amendments in Bill that require a more transparent, open, and inclusive process for victims.
That being said, while I am pleased to see these enhancements being made for victims of those serving life sentences, Bill does not address the need for information and meaningful participation for victims where offenders are serving all other types of federal sentences. In these cases, the warden remains the granting authority for ETAs, including non-medical or court-related; unescorted temporary absences; voluntary transfers; and work releases. In practical terms, this means that these important enhancements will only apply to approximately 18% of the offenders currently in the federal system, leaving the victims of the remaining 82% of offenders with a process that does not sufficiently inform or include them.
While it is my job to encourage the Government of Canada to ensure its laws and policies better meet the needs and concerns of victims of crime, I am also aware that the practical implications of broadening Bill to apply to all federal offenders and not just those serving life sentences would undoubtedly be of concern for the Parole Board of Canada and would need to be examined and addressed.
To address this issue, I would recommend that in amending the bill, the committee consider making all authorities responsible for release decisions accountable for providing a transparent and inclusive process for victims, one that ensures the same opportunities and supports that currently exist for victims attending parole hearings.
These changes are important not only as a means of addressing victims' concerns but in strengthening the system overall. We know that procedural fairness is crucial to increasing and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system, which means we need a system whereby all participants feel respected, informed, and heard.
In conclusion, I support Bill in its move to enhance the release-granting process in order to better meet the needs of victims of crime. I also recommend that these amendments should apply to all victims of offenders currently in the federal system, ensuring that all victims are equally able to access a system that better informs, considers, protects, and supports them.
Thank you very much for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
It's a privilege to appear today before this committee to speak to , an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I'll briefly provide an opening statement and an overview of the bill's effects on Parole Board of Canada operations. Afterwards, I'd be pleased to take questions.
As the honourable members of the committee are aware, the Parole Board of Canada is an independent administrative tribunal with exclusive authority under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, to make day and full parole decisions for federal offenders. The board also makes record suspension decisions and clemency recommendations. However, since this bill does not affect the Criminal Records Act, I will confine my remarks to conditional release and to escorted temporary absences, or ETAs, in particular.
All of the board's decisions are made in accordance with criteria set in legislation and are based on a thorough and careful assessment of the risk an offender may pose to the public if released under supervision in the community. The paramount consideration in every decision is the protection of society. In this regard, the Parole Board of Canada works closely with Correctional Service Canada, or CSC.
As you know, this bill would transfer the authority to approve ETAs to the board for certain offenders. In my view, it is important to understand how ETAs fit within the corrections and conditional release regime to understand how this bill might affect the board. The corrections and conditional release regime is designed to be a graduated and supervised movement toward increased liberty for an offender, with public safety as the paramount consideration. Its objective is to protect Canadians by returning offenders to society as lawful citizens.
ETAs are short-term releases during which the offender is supervised at all times by Correctional Service Canada, or a person approved by the warden of the institution. At present, CSC has the legislative authority under section 17 of the CCRA to authorize ETAs for all offenders. However, for offenders sentenced to life, including those convicted of first- and second-degree murder, this authorization is subject to board approval until the offender reaches day parole eligibility under section 746.1 of the Criminal Code. In all other cases, CSC has the authority to authorize ETAs.
In addition, all ETAs for medical reasons or to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest are also authorized by CSC.
So, for example, to put that more concretely, for an offender who is serving a life sentence with a parole eligibility of 25 years, the board would be the decision-making authority for most ETAs for the first 22 years of the sentence. After this, CSC becomes the authority for ETAs for this offender.
There are, if you will, two categories of ETAs. There are ETAs that might be broadly described as rehabilitative. The first category of ETAs may be approved for community service, family contact, parental responsibilities, and personal development for rehabilitative purposes. They may also be approved for compassionate reasons. There are also ETAs that are more administrative, such as those for court appearances or medical care, as previously mentioned. Under law, offenders may apply for ETAs at any time throughout their sentence.
An offender serving a life sentence might start with an ETA and then, if all goes well, that offender could move to unescorted temporary absences and work releases. Next, if the offender's risk is deemed to be manageable in the community, the offender may move on to day parole and possibly to full parole. Offenders serving life sentences, as you know, are either incarcerated or under supervision for the remainder of their lives.
The first time the board reviews a rehabilitative ETA application from an offender serving a life sentence, a hearing is set and two board members review the application. The board considers the reports and recommendations prepared by CSC, as well as all other documentation on the offender's file, including any victim statements or information.
Registered victims would be alerted that a review is scheduled. Observers and victims may attend the hearing, and registered victims may provide and present a statement, if they wish to. Board members must take into consideration the criteria of undue risk to society. The ETA must fit within the framework of the offender's correction plan. It must be structured and include specific objectives to be achieved by the offender.
In approving the ETA, the board must be aware of the nature of the proposed escort, board members may impose any conditions considered reasonable and necessary to protect society, and each ETA is approved on a case-by-case basis on its merits. Following this first hearing and a successful ETA, subsequent reviews are typically conducted in office by two board members.
ETA reviews for compassionate reasons are handled differently. They require two board members and are typically conducted in office. The board works in this way because compassionate ETAs are often requested for unforeseen reasons, such as attending a funeral of a close relative, so decisions are required quickly. According to the law in its current form, registered victims will receive notification from the board that an offender has been authorized for an ETA, and CSC will inform them of the date and destination. This is our current system.
Bill would amend the CCRA to grant the board almost exclusive decision-making authority for ETAs for offenders serving life sentences for first- and second-degree murder. Under this bill, CSC will retain authority only for ETAs for medical emergencies for these offenders. Over the last five years, under the current law, the board conducted an average of 119 ETA reviews per year. Operationally, if Bill passes, because the board's authority for ETA decision-making will expand, the number of ETA reviews the board conducts will significantly increase. It is also important to note that the Parole Board of Canada will continue to consider all information provided by victims in statements about the harm done to them. For those victims who wish to provide their statements to the board, there will be more occasions to do so. In addition, registered victims will be notified of all board ETA decisions, as well as the date and location of the temporary absence, if approved.
Currently, ETAs have a more than 99% success rate. This is no surprise given the strict risk-assessment criteria and the condition that the offender be accompanied at all times while outside the penitentiary. ETAs are an important element in the corrections and conditional release regime, which serves public safety. When public safety is protected, we serve victims and all Canadians.
I thank the committee for its time and attention, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today. My first question will be to Ms. O'Sullivan.
I know in your former life you were a police officer. I wonder if you would agree with me on the following concepts. First, in order for a member of society to appreciate the law, they should have at least a basic understanding of the law and why it is in place the way it is in order for them to be able to properly comply with social order. Second, to extrapolate on that, in order for victims to understand and appreciate the court system, they should, when there's a finding of guilt, understand the system surrounding the offender's life in prison and their part of it—in other words, the parole process and the temporary absence process.
Would you say that both are somewhat synonymous? In other words, the victim needs to appreciate why the system is in place the way it is—and in this case we're dealing with people who have committed a serious crime, such as the murder of a police officer or a prison guard—and the victim, who is serving a full life sentence until they die, needs to be included in the process. Would you say this particular piece of legislation is one more step down that path of including the victim in the process?
:
I think you've touched on several key points for victims.
First of all, you touched on the criminal justice system. I've been before this committee and you've heard me talk about how complex and complicated things are for a victim. One of their basic needs is for information to understand their role within that criminal justice system. They need to understand what their rights are, and they need information about the offender who harmed them.
The two other words you hear me use all the time when I speak about victims are “choice” and “options”. Their choice to be involved should be respected, but in order to make those choices and choose those options, they need to be informed as to what is available to them.
In my opening comments I mentioned—and this speaks to your final comments on this—how important it is for victims to have information, to have an opportunity for input into that process, to have an opportunity to update their victim impact statement, and to be informed, at all points along that process, about their ability to participate. Our key points for the agency that's going to have responsibility for this process are that they should ensure that it's transparent, that it's inclusive, that there's an opportunity for victims to participate, and that they're informed.
:
Yes, and I think what we're talking about here is to set up at all stages along the continuum, if you will, that they have opportunities to be informed, to be considered, and to ensure...I use the word “protected”. In many cases, victims want to know that the governing authorities are considering their safety issues, particularly when it comes to different types of conditional release. So they need to understand that the people who have these authorities to make that are...and one way is through the victim's statement.
I also think that when you look at the role of victims in the criminal justice system—you touched on legislation—well, an agency can only give information that the legislation says it can to a victim. That's why it's so important that we allow them to have a transparent process so they can give input. In my comments when I talk about a decision made by the warden's board, there's no written documentation. At the very least, although you've heard me also say we'd like more, a decision registry allows them at least to have some information around that. It's a closed process if they don't.
If you were to ask me, in terms of recommendations, they need to be informed in advance of a hearing process that allows for their participation, they need to be able to present statements, they need to be able to be informed of their offender's progress, because when you're making these decisions on release, that's what they want to know—that you're considering their safety. They want to ensure that they're allowed to update their impact statement. As we talked about, through the process, they're allowed to do that. Also, as I said, they want access to information as to why these decisions are made.
I will also say that whatever the decision is on the process in terms of this legislation, they should also be financially supported in being able to participate in that.
I appreciate you both being here today with your perspectives on this piece of legislation. Certainly I want to add my voice to commend Mr. MacKenzie for doing something to try to improve safety and to try to better accommodate victims in their part of the process.
I'd like to start on that vein with you, Mr. Cenaiko, in terms of the Parole Board. Anyone who sits on this committee has heard enough testimony from victims to understand how difficult it has to be to go through that very painful process of a parole hearing or any type of a hearing they're dealing with where they have to relive maybe the murder of a family member or whatever it might be, a very tragic circumstance. I'm sure it must be terrible to have to relive that.
To go through that process and have the offender be denied parole and then to hear only a short time later, in the kinds of instances we're talking about today, that through a really secretive process, I guess you could say, this murderer has then been granted access to leave the institution, it must be incredibly painful and difficult for a victim and their family.
Could you make any comment?
I open it up to you as well, Ms. O'Sullivan, if you have any comment on this.
Mr. Cenaiko, could you comment on that and whether you've had any experiences with similar kinds of situations through your time on the Parole Board. I know you obviously have previous experiences both as an officer and legislator in this area. Maybe you could comment on any previous experiences you have had with a similar kind of situation and how you would feel about the bill and how you feel the board would see that.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Richards and Mr. Chair.
The Parole Board of Canada has done additional work these last years in relation to ensuring there is a balance between offenders' rights and victims' rights. We work looking closely at what other agencies are doing, both nationally and internationally, throughout Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand. We work closely with our partners regarding parole, regarding other work they're doing with victims. We want to, again, be leaders internationally in relation to ensuring the protection of Canadians and society, but as well, ensuring that victims are provided with the services they require and the services they need, ensuring, again, that there is a balance under law in relation to an offender's rights in an institution and the victim's rights to attend a hearing and/or provide information.
In doing the research behind this and preparing for this presentation, I noted that at present there are 1,782 offenders serving an indeterminate or life sentence and there are 4,062 victims registered with the board for those lifers. Our total number of registered victims at the board is 7,585. It shows you that two-thirds of the victims registered with the Parole Board of Canada are for 1,782 offenders, when we have 15,000 offenders in institutions across the country and another 8,000 offenders on conditional release in the community.
:
I can't answer to how CSC makes their administrative decisions.
I can tell you that the Parole Board of Canada will review the file from start to finish. That file would include the background history of the offender and any societal issues he may have grown up with through his life. It would look at his criminogenic behaviour and criminal activity throughout his life. It would include the judge's comments at sentencing each time, or just the one occurrence when the offender was sentenced. Our board members would review the police reports in relation to the offence and look at the whole picture of the individual—how he got into the institution, the crime, and the nature and gravity of the offence he created.
Then they look at psychological assessments, psychiatric assessments, while in the institution; his institutional behaviour while he is in there; the conduct in relation to the successful or unsuccessful programming that he is taking in the institution. Then they look at his community release plan. It's legislated in the CCRA that there has to be a correctional release plan provided for that, which he in fact has to work on. This is to ensure the protection of society in a gradual, monitored, supervised release back into the community.
So that's how we assess risk, but I can't answer for—
:
I appreciate that. I don't have much time left, and I want to really quickly get one last question in.
I'd like to quote back to you a couple of sentences from your opening statement. First, you said, for those victims who wish to, there will be more occasions to provide their statements to the board. That's what you're talking about with this change. As well, “In addition, registered victims will be notified of all board ETA decisions, as well as the date and location of the temporary absence”.
Obviously, given that, given the fact that your look at this, as a board, would certainly be more open and accessible to victims than obviously that of CSC's when they're doing that, could you maybe just comment on that? I think what that tells me is that this is the more open and accessible process for victims, and that would probably make this a good move in terms of ensuring victims have better access to the hearings. So if we're looking at this, that would be an aspect that should be considered as well.
Both of you could comment, if you'd like.
:
I would certainly defer to the Parole Board of Canada and to CSC as to what kind of an administrative...as to how that will proceed. My understanding is that the warden.... For everything other than murder and indeterminates, right now the Parole Board has all of that and does that. I would defer to them to speak to what challenges they may face. That's really an administrative process, that there has been a legal need for them to appear before or to go back to a court process. On the functioning of that, I would defer to those agencies.
I would like to reiterate that for whatever that process is, for whatever decision is made, here we have an opportunity for whoever holds that process for the three-year period, which is that they make it a transparent process, they make it available in a written format, and they have it so that victims can have input into this. When you ask us about it, I think this is about an opportunity here to be more inclusive of victims in getting their voices heard, in being respected, and in being able to input.
Being notified ahead of time that this is actually taking place, because we hear from victims.... They may be on an escorted temporary access pass, but if you're not aware that they're coming into your community and you come across them, whether they're escorted or not.... I mean, we're talking about I think some basic rights for victims: to be able to be informed, to be able to update and participate, and to be able to, if they can't participate or choose not to, get this information in a written format. That's about accountability. That's about whoever is making the decision being accountable for that decision process.
We tried to find the data around how many wardens' boards.... That was unavailable. How many boards do they actually hold? Again, when you look at accountability and transparency, I think whoever has it would need to have that.