:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 63 and according to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 24, 2014, we're dealing today with Bill , an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).
We have the sponsor of the bill with us today and just before we get started and I introduce the rest of the guests, I'll let committee members know what has happened thus far.
Jean-François and I, but mostly Jean-François, worked on getting the witnesses set up for today and for Wednesday. Two sets of witnesses could not appear either today or on Wednesday. I don't know whose witnesses they were, but it doesn't really matter, as we thought it was important to have them for this bill, so I made the executive decision to move them to the Monday when we get back after the break week next week. They will be coming on the Monday. In that Monday meeting we will deal with the witnesses in the first hour, and clause-by-clause study of the few clauses that are in this bill in the second hour.
That leaves us open on Wednesday and at this particular moment there's nothing on the schedule. We've cancelled the meeting for Wednesday, but I'm open to any discussion of what we could do on Wednesday, if you want to proceed. It's a little tight to have witnesses, to be honest with you, but otherwise....
Mr. Dechert.
:
Has it been two sleeps?
Mr. Bob Dechert: We did it on Friday.
The Chair: Can we deal with it, if we have time, at the end of the meeting?
Mr. Bob Dechert: Sure.
The Chair: Today, we have Mr. Colin Mayes, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap. I'll have to go there some day.
Also, as an individual, we have Susan Ashley. By video conference all the way from Phoenix, Arizona, we have Sharon Rosenfeldt, president of the Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children.
We're going to let Mr. Mayes set off the discussion of the bill that he is sponsoring, Bill . The floor is yours, Colin.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak to my private member's bill, Bill . I also thank you for securing a time extension so that this bill could receive review by your committee.
This bill is a continuation of Bill which was previously introduced by in the first session of this 41st Parliament. Although Mr. Bezan's bill was read twice in the House and referred to this committee, it was withdrawn after Mr. Bezan was appointed to the role of parliamentary secretary, a position that precludes him from carrying a private member's bill forward.
I also thank the witnesses who are joining us today, particularly Sharon Rosenfeldt and Susan Ashley who have lost loved ones to unspeakable actions perpetrated by violent offenders. Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley represent more than themselves, their families, and the loved ones who were taken from them. They represent the community of Canadians that spans our nation, the community of Canadians whose lives have been changed forever by violent offenders.
Despite the tragic losses experienced by Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley, they have found the strength and courage to advocate on behalf of those whose lives were stolen away and also the thousands of Canadians who face the challenges of moving on with life after experiencing trauma which the majority of Canadians thankfully have never experienced.
As members of Parliament I believe it is our duty to demonstrate solidarity with this particular community of Canadians and support their advocacy with our own work in legislating towards a society that values victims' rights. As members of Parliament it is our duty to identify and address points of our legal regimen that require improvement. Specifically to this bill, I believe we must not only examine but reform the state of existing laws governing the removal from society and long-term incarceration of violent offenders who have abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered victims.
This bill is modelled on Bill , which was passed in 2011, which allows judges to set consecutive rather than concurrent periods of parole ineligibility in sentencing those convicted of multiple murders. This bill would empower judges and juries to give stronger sentences.
In the same way that Bill now allows judges to acknowledge additional degrees of blameworthiness on an offence when a conviction of multiple murders has been established, this bill seeks to provide judges the ability to extend the period of parole ineligibility to likewise acknowledge accompanying offences of abduction and sexual assault.
All parties worked together and passed Bill and it is my hope that this bill will likewise benefit from input and support from all sides.
As members of the committee are likely aware, section 745 of the Criminal Code provides for life imprisonment for convicted murderers, subject to varying periods during which they are ineligible for parole. For first degree murder the minimum ineligibility period is 25 years. For second degree murder it varies from 10 to 25 years.
While all convicted murderers are morally blameworthy, first and second degree murders are distinguished from each other by the higher degree of moral blameworthiness associated with the first degree murder that justifies the current mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.
While some may believe that the current thresholds for parole represent an appropriate period of incarceration for a violent offender who abducted, raped, and murdered their victim, many Canadians consider this to be insufficient in instances of extreme violence and murder. As we all know, perhaps none more than our witnesses, the investigation and prosecution of cases involving multiple offences such as abduction, sexual assault, and murder combined can take years. The time that it takes to arrive at a conviction and then sentencing for a violent offender is excruciating for survivors, family, and loved ones. Regardless, as painful as it is, it is essential to a sound carriage of justice.
This bill seeks to provide greater certainty, and therein relief, for the families and loved ones in that once sentencing is completed, the sentencing judge would be given the judicial discretion to waive parole ineligibility for a period of 25 to 40 years, again at the discretion of the judge. If parole is to be considered for violent offenders who abduct, sexually assault, and then murder their victims, it should not occur before at least 25 years have been served.
The toll a parole hearing takes on the family members and loved ones of a victim is excruciating as they await the hearing date, when the violent offender who took their loved one presents his or her case. Why should the offender be awarded parole while family members and loved ones need to mobilize to keep the violent offender behind bars? This amounts to a system where Canadians who have already suffered tragic loss and endured years of judicial proceedings are subjected to a system that requires continued mobilization and pressure to keep violent offenders behind bars.
This bill would add three new provisions to the Criminal Code, mandating a 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period for anyone convicted of an offence under each of the following offence categories in respect of one victim: number one, a kidnapping or abduction offence, sections 279 to 283; number two, a sexual offence, sections 151 to 153.1 and sections 271 to 273; and number three, murder. The bill would also provide a judge with the discretionary prerogative to replace that 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years, based on the character of the offender, the nature of the circumstances of the murder, and any jury recommendation in this regard.
Mr. Chair, I would like to respond to inputs made by members of opposition parties in the House during the second reading debate on May 30, 2014.
During second reading debate, the question was raised as to whether or not this bill complies with the provisions of the Charter of Rights. This is an important question, and I appreciated it. I sought and received an opinion from the Library of Parliament's legal affairs and national security section. The bill seeks to provide a sentencing judge the discretion to increase the period of parole ineligibility and as such uphold the principle of a judicial discretion which provides a safeguard of the Charter of Rights. I believe this is an important strength of the bill, expanding the discretionary prerogatives of the judge with a broader range of judicial discretion rather than imposing on whole charter provisions automatic periods of ineligibility beyond 25.
Second reading debate also raised a question of the amendments proposed to the bill that would interact with the Rome Statute. It is important to note that article 5 of the Rome Statute establishes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the following four offences: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.
Therefore, the Rome Statute does not directly apply to Bill for the following two reasons. First, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code, which is under the jurisdiction of Canadian courts. The Rome Statute only applies to proceedings of the International Criminal Court. Second, the four offences in article 5 of the Rome Statute are not included in this bill.
In closing, Mr. Chair, I would again thank you and the members of committee for reviewing my private member's bill.
I also thank the witnesses here today who have come to provide their perspectives, experiences, and pleas.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you today. I'm here with a very difficult but important task of representing my family.
My mother and father were made to endure every parent's worst nightmare. In 1978 Donald Armstrong abducted, raped and murdered 16-year-old Linda Bright, my sister.
Linda was at the Frontenac Mall when she disappeared. Her body was found on a rural road the next day. There were binding marks around her wrists and a deep red ring around her neck where a ligature had been squeezed. She had been dumped on the side of the road like garbage.
Armstrong was convicted of the vicious rape and murder of Linda. At trial a leading psychiatrist described him as a dangerous psychopath. Armstrong's own mother testified that his anti-social behaviour began at the age of five and never stopped. As a youth he set fire to his family home and on another occasion stabbed his sister. Armstrong's mother described him as impulsive, with no feelings of remorse or guilt, and with an extreme anti-social personality.
In 1973 he kidnapped a woman in Halifax where he held a knife to her two-month-old baby and threatened to kill the child. Armstrong was also charged with the 1977 murder of Glenna Fox. Ms. Fox was stabbed repeatedly in the chest with a chisel in the parking lot of a shopping mall. At the time he was out of prison on a temporary pass.
Armstrong was charged with the abduction, kidnapping, and forceable confinement of a 31-year-old woman in Winnipeg in 1977. He held a screwdriver to her face and tied her wrists. Fortunately she escaped with her life.
Also in 1977, Armstrong stabbed a woman named Rita Bayer with a screwdriver as she sat in her car in a parking lot. He was convicted of attempted murder.
So, like other notorious killers, you now know Donald Armstrong.
Our family began attending parole hearings in 1997 when we attended Armstrong's section 745 faint hope clause hearing. The initial shock was unimaginable. We were told at the time of conviction we would never see him again. Fifteen years later preparing for our first hearing, we felt very much betrayed. We have been called upon since 2007 to prepare ourselves for other parole hearings. Every two years I receive a notification of hearing. Fortunately for us, Armstrong has continuously postponed hearing after hearing. We did not have to continually attend hearings; however, the emotional preparation in itself year after year is very painful.
Having a loved one taken in such a horrific manner causes a lifetime of reoccurring grief and emotional devastation. Having to relive such pain over and over and deal with the fear of the possibility of his release and physically facing him in person is simply cruel and terrifying This pain and fear runs so deep it is unimaginable to those who have not experienced it. Allow us to keep this pain tucked away deep for it never heals; it is just managed. It is extremely emotionally and physically exhausting.
My parents are aging. They can no longer bear the turmoil that these hearings create. Sharing a victim impact statement revealing your raw pain and memories is unimaginable.
To spare my parents' suffering, I take the responsibility to speak on behalf of my family. This in turn creates guilt for my parents as the burden is now mine. I am 51 years old. Armstrong is 59 years old. Can you imagine how many years, how many hearings, how many court appearances there will be and will amount to be? When I can no longer do this, then I will suffer the guilt of having to say “no more”.
Bill will not affect my family. We will continue to be called upon for hearing after hearing with many delays in between. We have nothing to gain.
I speak to you today to hopefully save other families from having to endure the cruelty of reliving their horror and continued re-victimization. And I urge you to pass Bill . This bill is intended for the notorious criminals who commit the most horrific crimes, the monsters. This bill is for those who should never be allowed to have access to the people of this country. Most important, this bill is for the poor family members of the victims who will fall prey to these predators.
These hearings cause nothing less than a lifetime of victimization. There is hearing after hearing.
Had this bill existed in 1982, my family would have been spared so much unnecessary pain. We would have been able to maintain the faith we originally had in the courts and lived for many more years without having such a burden to bear. You cannot make any changes that will help my family, but you can protect many future families from so much unnecessary suffering.
Thank you for this opportunity.
:
Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as well as Mr. Mayes and Susan Ashley.
I wish to thank the committee for inviting our organization, Victims of Violence, to present our views on Bill an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).
As president of Victims of Violence, I will be speaking in support of this bill.
The enactment of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a victim in respect of the same event or series of events will be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury. We support this bill for a number of reasons.
Today we are talking about the threat posed by violent, dangerous criminals. We are talking about the worst of the worst offenders. We are talking about a classification of criminal who could essentially never be released, who goes out hunting for human beings, many of them children, as their prey to commit the most egregious acts upon them. We are talking about a classification of criminal who creates havoc within our respectful justice system. By that I mean that the Canadian public has consistently expressed concerns on this classification of criminal who impacts directly on their confidence in our criminal justice system.
We also support this bill from the lens of a victim's family who also received a life sentence. The judicial branch of government should always be neutral, but neutrality does not mean that one side is forgotten. The prevailing notion that a crime is against the state fails to recognize the victim.
On a personal note, it was not the state who was abducted, raped, and murdered; it was my child. It was my son. As his mom, I will always be there to represent him.
There is no mythical closure for us, at 25 years or even at 40 years; however, this bill will help in our not having to attend parole hearings every two years, which once again opens old wounds and scars that never heal, even though we try to move forward and build a new life after the violent murder of our loved one.
The degree of trauma the victim's family suffers depends on the nature of the crime and the extent to which he or she can tolerate post-traumatic stress.
We support this bill because it includes three crimes. Currently this classification of criminal is sentenced for one crime, that of first degree murder, and many victims feel the abduction and sexual assault are thrown in as freebies. This bill will rectify that issue.
We support this bill because, although we have a dangerous offender designation for a certain classification of offenders, in the case of murder, with a life sentence, the dangerous offender designation is rarely used even when the offender is found guilty of particular grievous offences.
In closing, the public rightfully expects and trusts that governments will do everything in their power to protect our children, our families, our communities, and that is what this bill is about. That is why our organization, Victims of Violence, supports it.
Thank you.
[English]
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
You are right, Ms. Ashley and Ms. Rosenfeldt; we probably cannot even come close to understanding what you've lived, so I won't even try to imply that I do. We don't. We can do it in an intellectual way, but definitely not with the same amount of emotion and hurt that you must feel. It gives me shivers just hearing what happened to your sister and to all the cases you were talking about. There is nothing worse than that.
We have a job to do, which is to look into legislation and see what we can do with it.
My questions will be mostly for Mr. Mayes, not because I don't understand your feelings. Ms. Ashley, if this legislation were in force right now you would probably be preparing to go in front of the parole board for the first time. I'm sure it would probably be as fresh in your mind as if it were yesterday. It's something that you never forget, I'm pretty sure.
Mr. Mayes, you said you obtained some legal advice, but you talked about the Library of Parliament. The Library of Parliament, and correct me if I'm wrong, does a legislative analysis but they do not give legal opinions. I think we asked you during debate at second reading in the House if you went further than that. Either through the Department of Justice or the Minister of Justice, did you get some analysis on what, let's say, a judge would impose? The jury would have said that this is such a disgusting case the person first of all will get life and will probably [Technical Difficulty—Editor] for ever, and thank God for that, but here's the 40 years before.
Do you have some legal analysis on the constitutional grounds? Aren't you afraid that type of decision might be thrown out of court based on section 12 of the Charter of Rights?
Do you have anything to add to what you obtained from the Library of Parliament in the way of legal advice?
I agree with you. The fact that they said “discretion” in a sense defeats the purpose of what the witnesses are saying, because they're hoping that it will be the case. Aren't you afraid that they might never apply it because of that discretion? It's a catch-22. If you had put it as an obligation of the court to impose, we definitely would be seeing that case in the Supreme Court of Canada, but the fact that it's a discretion doesn't mean that if a judge imposes it, the decision will not be sent to the courts.
That's why I think it's so important to get that legal advice that would say, based on the jurisprudence, the specific cases that are in the purview of this bill. The fact that they're horrible crimes, not just any petty crime. It's people like, to use the words of Ms. Ashley, a dangerous psychopath. We think of Bernardo. We think of these people. I still say there's that aspect that is still very questionable in the file on that basis.
I'm afraid the jury might say that this is such a disgusting individual there's no possibility of parole for 40 years, and the judge will say he's afraid it will be contested and just go on with the 25 years. So we're doing it for nothing.
Do you have statistics on the number of cases your bill could apply to?
:
I actually thank you for mentioning that, because a lot of people don't understand that for a family, when such a horrific crime occurs, it's their first exposure to the courts. This is not something we do every day. This is new to us. You're only as good as the person sitting next to you, who might be able to help guide you through this.
When we went to that court appearance, I would have been in my teens. I'm 51, so I was 19 when I sat in court and watched the judge say, “Guilty, no parole, convicted. Guilty, life in prison.” So first of all, as Canadians, my family sat there thinking that they were putting him away forever and that nobody else would ever, ever, ever have to be a victim of this. That was the first time we believed that he was going away forever. The judge said that he was going away forever. The police and everybody told us he would be going away forever.
Fifteen years, which may seem a lot to some, goes by really fast. When that first phone call came, it was such a shock. We kept saying, “No, no, no, you're wrong”, because we were told he was going away for life. What boggles my mind is that in all the years I've been doing this, when I tell this story, the people of this country, Canadian citizens, do not know what the reality is, which is that when the section 745 hearings existed, nobody knew. We didn't know.
I remember reading an article about Clifford Olson's section 745 hearing. Not a word of a lie, but a month later I remember thinking to myself, “Thank God that doesn't apply to us.” A month later, we got the phone call. I said, “No, that's not what the court said.” The betrayal was unbelievable, because you can't go back and say, “That's not what you said.”
:
Thank you to all our witnesses. Your testimony is certainly very helpful, and certainly, you have our deepest sympathies on your plight, Ms. Ashley.
I think you've captured the essence of this bill. One of the salient features of what this bill is trying to do is basically to reduce the number of parole hearings that one would have to attend. That in itself can be a complete trauma. It's thought that maybe making people ineligible for parole for 40 years could save families as many as eight parole hearings, and I think one alone would probably be sufficient to satisfy the test of what this bill is trying to do.
Thank you for presenting it, Mr. Mayes.
Some time ago, back in 2012, in the London Free Press, there was a quote from you, Ms. Ashley. I have it here, and if you don't mind, I'll read it out loud:
If they let him out he will be somebody's neighbour, he will [have to] live by somebody's child's school. He will walk the streets of somebody's town. I can't bring my sister back, but I can certainly warn the public. We don't want this to happen again.
It's clear that one of your motivations, and I think it's a very solid one, is to keep the offenders behind bars, because in walking the streets they're an absolute danger. I mean, they're the stuff that the Stephen King movies are made of. Right? We know that in some instances these people will be released. This is not retroactive. Some offenders who are guilty of similar crimes, as horrific as that is, will eventually be out.
Do you see any value in perhaps warning the public, in publishing the names of these high-risk offenders on some sort of registry, so that communities can in fact, despite the fact that they're walking our streets, have some warning of what danger they present and where they would be? Would that bring any kind of comfort despite the fact that these monsters are walking about in our communities?
:
It's not an option, because they cannot be cured. They cannot go into prison for 25, 40, or 100 years and be fixed. There are no courses to fix these people, because you're talking about such a small minority of criminals: the Olsons, the Bernardos, the Armstrongs, the psychopathic ones who are predators looking for their victims. They can't be fixed, so I don't think there's anything we can do to protect people of this country.
Even putting a sign on them is not going to protect the public. They shouldn't be there in the first place and have access to people. That's the whole point of our government keeping them in custody for life. That's what the courts are saying: it's life. Then they talk about 15 years and about 25 years. At what point...when is “life” life? What do they have to do to justify a life sentence?
You cannot give your empathy and your sympathies to the offenders. That's not fair. We're paying the price every day of our lives. I am so tired after all these years of being spoken to by people from Corrections Canada and other government agencies like I'm the bad person, because I'm making it so difficult for him and I'm causing him so much grief. I have to get the story to the public so that the people in the government, I feel, have to really watch what they're doing. I make sure that the public is watching the government and what you're doing, because if we don't do what we're doing.... The faith in Corrections Canada is minimal as well.
When you say that you're going to protect us from these animals, then do it. Keep them locked up, for Pete's sake. Twenty-five years is nothing. They can't be fixed.
Please stop giving your sympathies to them. I've been told how much grief I've caused Donald Armstrong. I'm sorry, but I've watched my parents, since 1978. You have no idea what it's like for these families and what they're dealing with. Then to be told that we're causing them grief? I don't care.
On your comment about the jail guards, my husband is a jail guard, and I can honestly tell you that he would not question this bill, because if they're going to be bad in prison at 25 years, they're going to be bad at 20, 30, or 35 years. You can't just put a number on it. If you're not going to make life true life, at least give the courts the opportunity to give them 40, so we can walk out and say that for 40 years we don't have to look back.
This is not what we want to live and breathe. This is not our world. We want to do what you do and have families and raise children.
Thank you to our witnesses.
We're going to suspend for a few minutes because the next panel is also by video conference. I want to thank—
A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]
The Chair: Not in this panel, but maybe in the next one.
Mr. Mayes, thank you very much.
Ms. Ashley and Ms. Rosenfeldt, thank you very much for your presentations.
We'll be dealing with this, as you heard, in the second hour. Two weeks from today, we'll be doing clause-by-clause study.
We'll suspend for two minutes.
:
Ladies and gentlemen, we're having some technical difficulties connecting with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association by video conference. While we're waiting for that, if you don't mind, we could deal with some other committee items. Then we won't have to deal with them at the end.
First of all, I don't know if committee members have noticed how depressed I've been this last week. There are no supplementary estimates (C), which means there is no supplementary meeting happening here. It's very depressing for me.
An hon. member: We're all depressed.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: It means proper budgeting by the justice committee, I guess.
At any rate, a notice of motion has been put forward by Mr. Dechert. Let me read it:
That, in regard to the motion adopted by the House of Commons on November 26th mandating that the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights undertake a study on the topic of fetal alcohol syndrome, up to ten members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be authorized to travel to the Yukon, during the week of March 1–7 or the week of March 15–21, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
Before I turn to you, Mr. Dechert, March 1 to 7 is way too tight, so we'll have to drop that one to start with. It is a break week.
The floor is yours, sir.
:
Thank God I had the weekend; if I'd talked to you right away, it might not have been as nice as what I will say right now in a very gentle voice.
Thank God you corrected yourself. It's not the only place. The Yukon is not the only place. I look at past experiences with our committee and all the studies we've done. I look at the langues officielles section that we had to analyze. I look at the situation of this bill, an important bill that we had voiced our support for and our willingness to adopt really fast, like in one day. Instead, now we have a full study.
I look at the big study that was already done on l'alcoolisation foetale in 2006. Mind you, it was maybe more on the angle of health, but still, we know this touches
[Translation]
inmates in federal penitentiaries and some communities across Canada.
[English]
There's also the cost. We're good at what we do here in Ottawa. People who know me know that I object personally, not for political reasons but simply on the basis of funding. It's the public purse. To do a trip with 10 MPs, plus
[Translation]
everyone involved, the staff, the interpreters, the clerks, the Library of Parliament employees who prepare everything for a single item.
If we want to undertake a major study and go to several places, we could think about it. However, it has the air of electioneering orchestrated by the Conservatives to compensate for the fact that you forced one of your members to put his bill on hold. Anyone following the matter knows that this is creating a few waves in his area. I think that we should not start playing political games because this is too serious an issue. We could do the study here and have witnesses come here or speak to them by video conference
I take pride in saying that our committee's expenses are reasonable, but that this would be an excessive expenditure. It would cost almost $50,000, when we could have passed a bill. The study would have been very advanced in less than one month.
Seriously, I see no reason to go there. In my opinion, the motion is an affront, and I am saying that as gently as I can.
:
I also do not think that we need to go to four or five places. I am simply saying that we cannot focus only on the Yukon.
Just imagine that we are in the Yukon doing this study and that people from Toronto want to come and speak on this subject. Witnesses from all over will be asked to participate in this study. In that case, would we go to Toronto? Would we make them come to the Yukon? We have conducted all our studies here. I do not want to change the habits of people who are not used to coming to Ottawa. We have used means such as video conferencing before.
I think that it is so telegraphed. It is definitely in order to create enthusiasm for a private member's bill that had to be put on hold. It was transformed into a more vague study so that it takes more time.
The cost would be astronomical. Mr. Chair, do you have any idea of how much it would cost just to get to the Yukon? I did some research on the weekend and it would cost at least $40,000 to $50,000.
With that money, we could tour all the courts and all francophone communities. Mr. Goguen, we did a study on the Criminal Code, which was mandatory. However, we were able to do a serious study from Ottawa. I believe that we can do a serious study of the bill in question, which has morphed into a study.
:
Okay. The item has been moved by Mr. Dechert. I think there's been a thorough discussion on it.
All those in favour of the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: What happens next? I've never had a travel one before.
We'll have a discussion on dates; we'll present a budget, which will have to go to liaison committee, and at liaison committee they will decide whether or not we're able to travel...?
A voice: After the House.
The Chair: After it goes to the House for assent.
A voice: It needs unanimous consent in the House.
The Chair: So it looks like we might not go anywhere. At any rate, it's an option.
Thank you very much for that, Mr. Dechert. I'm sure you're packing.
Let's get back to the issues of the day.
Today we are dealing with the order of reference of Wednesday, September 24. We're dealing with Bill .
For our second pane, we welcome Mr. Krongold, a director with the Criminal Lawyers' Association, and by video conference from Vancouver, British Columbia, we have Mr. Paterson, executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
Mr. Paterson, can you hear us okay?
:
To start, let me thank you, as always, for inviting the Criminal Lawyers' Association to speak to you about this bill.
Defence lawyers rarely face the kinds of cases that this bill relates to, and one rarely relishes representing people charged with these kinds of crimes. It's one of the hardest things one can do as a professional. Defence lawyers are human beings, of course, and we find these cases difficult to deal with, professionally and personally, just like anybody would. We certainly learn from the inside out of the cruelty and gruesomeness that occurs in a lot of the crimes of the sort that this bill relates to. I think nobody would want to understate the heinousness of the sorts of offences that this bill generally relates to.
However, I hope there is still room at the table for a voice of reasoned moderation, even when looking at a bill that deals with such serious offences for such serious offenders. I think the starting point is to perhaps look a little at where we've come from legally in the current regime we have in sentencing for murder.
When capital punishment was abolished in the 1970s, part of the compromise struck by Parliament was to impose an extraordinarily harsh and exemplary sentence for the worst of the worst offenders: individuals convicted of first-degree murder. That exemplary sentence was life without parole for 25 years.
Even though that sentence was intended to be harsh and exemplary, it was widely viewed as being so crushing as to put the hope of release too far out of sight. As a result, Parliament introduced the faint hope regime, the view being that a sentence that precluded any possibility of release for even more than 15 years would undermine our belief in the possibility of reform and rehabilitation. There were also concerns expressed about endangering corrections staff and other inmates by putting offenders in a situation where they had no chance of release, potentially for the rest of their natural lives.
We know that faint hope has been gone since about 2011, so we've gone from a situation where we viewed 15 years as much of a sentence as anybody could reasonably be expected to take, to 25 years. Here we are with a bill that would take us a step even further, adding from that 10-year increase another potential 15-year increase to the period of parole ineligibility. That, I should say, is a sentence that except for all but the youngest offenders will be a sentence of life without parole.
I think no one disputes that this bill is trying to target some of the worst of the worst offenders. It may be that few of these individuals will ever warrant release during their lives, but that's a difficult thing to know. I think we can be confident in that because we can look at something like the dangerous offenders context, for example. In the context of dangerous offender applications, we have individuals who have been convicted of a series of extremely serious offences. They are viewed as posing a pressing risk to the public. Yet, we have hearings, and we often learn that these individuals, despite their antecedents, may have a possibility of being treated in the community ultimately. It's for that reason we have hearings to determine whether or not they should receive an indeterminate sentence or a long-term offender designation.
Even then, for those who have already been determined to be extremely dangerous, who have committed repeated offences, the parole board maintains jurisdiction to decide that if things change, the person can perhaps be released.
It bears consideration that we should maintain our belief in the possibility of rehabilitation, the possibility that the corrections system can correct individual behaviour and treat potentially even very dangerous individuals, with the hope that one day, after 25 years or more, as the parole board sees fit, they can again be released into the community.
I'd suggest that we should at least be prepared to entertain the possibility that after 25 years we really can't know how a person is going to fare. We know that life without parole for 25 years is a very long time. The people in that situation will receive extensive treatment over the course of a good part of their lives. We ought not to preclude the chance that people in that situation, no matter how serious the crime they have committed, may have a possibility of reform.
It's my submission that life without parole for 25 years is already a lengthy and very harsh punishment and that it is unnecessary to go further.
:
Thank you very much for having the BCCLA here.
I listened to the really moving remarks by the member for Okanagan—Shuswap in debate in the House. I actually went and watched the video. It's clear to see the goodwill with which the member has brought this forward and the desire to give comfort and relief to families whose loved ones have been victimized in the truly heinous ways referred to in this bill.
I wish to say to the member, through you, Chair, that I have nothing but respect for his efforts and the perspective that he brings on this issue. I too have known people who have died through homicide, and have some small understanding, although nowhere near a true understanding, of what it would be like to be part of a family like that.
However, I've been asked here today to talk about the proposal contained in the bill from the perspective of what makes appropriate and just sentencing policy and law, based on evidence. It's with that in mind that I come in front of you today to bring some criticism to this proposal.
In Canada, we've spent a lot of time over the last century—and some of it's been referred to by my friend who just spoke—adjusting the penalties in our criminal justice system as the criminal law has become more complex. We've taken into account the multiple different goals of sentencing, specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, reparation, and denunciation, as well as promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders. In general, not one of those is valued more highly by the law than any other.
A key principle that is recognized by Parliament and the courts is that principle of proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility by the offender. It's been recognized as well by courts and Parliament that the best way of achieving that kind of proportionality and of getting that balance right in the long run is through a system that has individualized decision-making, and regard to the personal circumstances of the individual concerned as well as the circumstances of the crime.
As we know, this bill may in some cases increase minimum sentences and will permit an increase in the length of time before parole eligibility may be determined. Murder already has the highest sentence known in the criminal law, and murder committed in conjunction with sexual assault is already treated as first-degree murder and can have that penalty attending to it. The aim here is to make it possible for judges to add 15 years in which there would be no assessment whatsoever for parole.
For us it's difficult to understand what will be added that isn't achieved by the current dangerous offender and long-term offender designations.
By the way, the BCCLA testified before this committee in the nineties in support of both of those designations. Although we had some amendments that we proposed at the time, we did not oppose them in principle. In fact, we supported them in principle.
It has been said that this law is about the families and not about the offenders. Indeed, I can feel intuitively why we would want to spare families from having to go through parole hearings. However, the parole hearing is central to the whole system of punishment and rehabilitation in the country. It is the valve that allows the government to determine whether it has any reason to continue to hold someone.
In 1915, a hundred years ago, the minister of justice at the time, C.J. Doherty, said that the right to imprison someone depends on the necessity of punishing that person to protect society. He said, and I quote, “When the necessity for punishment will have disappeared, the right to imprison will have disappeared also.”
The question here is not so much about the preference of the families, but what the government has the right to do in these kinds of circumstances. Once there is no need to imprison someone because they are deemed to be at a low risk of reoffence and because they have been punished and served their debt to society, we see no reason why they should not be released through a parole hearing.
In the case of someone designated as a dangerous offender, we understand that release date may never come.
Indeed, the crown attorney in the Colonel Russell Williams case said that in that particular instance, the record was so clear they didn't even feel the need to seek a dangerous offender designation, because the parole board would have such a record before it of the danger at which he could put society that he would likely remain in prison for the rest of his life. That assessment by the parole board is key to the justice of our prison system. It's the only way we can determine, in an ongoing way, after that mandatory minimum for murder is served, whether or not it remains just, whether it remains effective, and whether it remains a good idea to continue to hold someone in custody.
My five minutes are up, but I expect there will be some further questions.
:
I can think of a range of different possibilities.
We have to remember, to begin with, that where a 25-year minimum sentence has been imposed, there's a quarter of a century since the trial, never mind when the offence was committed. I can't say for any individual family what's going to feel right to them. Some families won't have a problem with parole hearings starting a quarter century later and for others it will be re-traumatizing; there's no question about it.
It's really hard to prescribe an alternative solution. We know that these parole hearings perform an important function. Even though the chances of people, for example, who are designated as dangerous offenders will be very unlikely to be granted parole, that's actually a functioning of the system.
That's the system working in those cases, when they come to that kind of a decision. It is a necessary thing for government to have to go through and for the community to have to go through, in our justice system where we've given up the approach of a century ago of simply throwing away the key.
That would be my answer to that. I recognize that that won't be satisfying, necessarily, to some families who have gone through trauma and who would like to avoid having these parole hearings.
:
That's a bit regrettable, because I will refer to it.
Mr. Casey seemed to say that the only salient point of this bill was basically to nullify re-victimization towards reappearing at parole hearings. Ms. Ashley went on to testify to the effect that, and I'm paraphrasing, the prospect of release into a community and of meeting the perpetrator was absolutely horrific; the chance of that meeting maybe even after 25 years was absolutely crippling for the victim. She argued, to paraphrase, that the government has not only a duty to protect one's physical being, but also a duty to protect one's psyche. If the offender is in jail for a longer period of time and there's not the reappearance before the parole hearing periodically, there's not the necessity to prepare, and there's a knowledge that the person is there for a very lengthy period of time, then it seemed to be her conclusion that this reinforced the confidence in the justice system and, in fact, gave confidence to the public, reinforced their psyche with the thought that they're not going to meet such and such a person for a very long period of time. The parole system does away with that, and the common person does not know.
I would argue that certainly this is something that does give some additional strength to this bill. But you're saying in your brief, which was very interesting, that this didn't nullify at all the prospects of re-victimization. Yet for the reinforcing of confidence in the system, and the reinforcing of a healthy psyche, it seemed to be Ms. Ashley's firm conviction that this is something that would work. And as for everything else about being released, it's a Stephen King movie.
Your brief was interesting. You had seven recommendations and you seemed to have drawn very closely from , an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights. There's a lot in there that mirrors what is in the victims bill of rights, which we're very proud of as a government, of course. The definition of victim, providing education about the criminal justice system, providing timely information to victims, affording victims the opportunity to get involved, restitution, compensation; it's pretty much the four pillars of Bill C-32. That's victims focused and your brief seems to be victims focused, yet you're opposed to this bill.
It's all a question of balance. I talked about the Allan Legere case. He was basically released from a super-maximum security prison to a maximum security prison. The people of the Miramichi in my province absolutely protested, although he's 63 years of age and moved further away, to Edmonton. That's the psyche aspect. I'm talking about protecting the victim by keeping them longer.
Knowing that there's a balance in the system, you've got to balance the rights of the accused versus the rights of the victims. Knowing that there's a very small number of accused who would even be subject to this, and bearing in mind that this imposition is discretionary, shouldn't the rights of the victims in this case be the ones that we're going to bat for versus the rights of the accused who would be small in number, and for whom the prospect of rehabilitation when they don't have to follow any courses.... Shouldn't we be on the side of the victims in this case?