JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

Â

1230

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC)

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo--Wellington, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Â

1240

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Â

1245

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 080

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

  (1230)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Order.

    I would ask Mr. MacKay, for the record, to read his motion and perhaps introduce his opening comments.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The motion you have before you is that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights call as witnesses the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Chairman of the National Parole Board to answer questions on the conditional release of Mr. Bryan Riches and the subsequent assault on Mr. Jeffrey Hearn on November 30, 1998. Mr. Hearn still suffers serious injuries from that assault, and there has never been a proper review of the release and supervision of offender Riches.

    The motion is quite self-explanatory. It would allow this justice committee to look into the circumstances of that individual case.

    I would suggest as well that there are lessons to be learned from it, as is often true when we delve into situations such as this. Some of the shortcomings and slip-ups that may have occurred would give us insight into ways in which we could improve our system—not the least of which might include revisiting this issue of statutory release and the conditions that do or do not attach to the release of individuals. We might revisit whether they are required by law to conduct investigations, as is supposed to be the case with the commissioner's directive 41, with respect to incident investigations into death or serious injuries. It appears that these investigations are for incidents that occur within the federal penitentiary system. Yet when a victim is assaulted by a federal inmate on release, statutory or otherwise, there is no similar requirement that an investigation take place. So if another inmate is assaulted and seriously hurt or killed, an investigation has to happen. Yet if an innocent citizen in a community is assaulted, an investigation doesn't necessarily have to happen. Discretion is exercised in that case.

    There are also serious concerns about victim notification. As it currently stands, my reading of the legislation is that only when a report is going to be made public is there an obligation to notify victims. If the report is not going to be made public, then victims, such as Mr. Hearn, are not necessarily notified as to whether there will be a full investigation. There is a cascading number of options available to CSC: there can be an incident review, or a file review, but no full investigation.

    Just to underscore the circumstances of this particular case from 1998, I want to give you just a little bit of background on what happened to Mr. Jeffrey Hearn. He was in his own home. He and his girlfriend knew Mr. Riches in a very superficial way. There was an attempted robbery while he and his girlfriend were home. Mr. Hearn was hit in the head by a claw hammer with dozens of blows, fracturing his skull; lacerating his face and scalp; severing his jaw muscle; displacing an eyeball; mangling both his arms while he attempted to block the blows; dislocating his ring finger; and injuring his internal organs. He lost four pints of blood from the cuts and gashes to his head, and it took over a hundred staples to close them.

    Mr. Hearn, to this day, suffers from chronic pain in his hands, fingers, back, head, and arms. He has three plates and three screws in one arm, and two wires to keep his eyeball in place. His vision is permanently impaired. He's prone to mental blackouts and emotional outbursts. He cannot work, and is living a hand-to-mouth existence with his wife Crystal, on welfare or disability pensions. He also has suffered the loss of a child to Children's Aid because of his inability to care for his 18-month-old daughter. This has had a profound and lasting impact on his life.

    There has never been a full inquiry into the circumstances that led to why Mr. Riches was out on parole and why he wasn't under what I would consider to be proper supervision.

    To that end, I'd like to inform the committee of some of the circumstances just prior to Mr. Riches' release on statutory release. He had violated the terms of his statutory release numerous times. The National Parole Board had to appeal his release just weeks before this attack, yet it reversed its decision three days later and let him out.

    The parole records show he had failed to show up for community-based substance abuse classes; tested positive for drugs while on statutory release; failed to return to the community residential centre and had been deemed unlawfully at large; misused a student loan; and applied for welfare using false documentation. The Parole Board members knew that Riches' adult crime career was launched the day he turned 19. One of the Parole Board panel members said, and I quote: “You appear to have deeply entrenched criminal values and attitudes, poor academic achievement, and very little employment history”. That was noted in the report.

    All of this is to say that we have an opportunity as a committee to hear from the commissioner, Lucie McClung, who was not the commissioner—I want to put on record—when this decision was made. Yet I know she has been contacted by the president of the victims' advocacy group, Steve Sullivan. We should also hear from the Parole Board on some of the circumstances and why, in the name of heaven, we wouldn't have had a full investigation into a case as aggravated and as severe as this.

    If this isn't the type of scenario that results in an investigation by corrections and conditional release, I can't think of a system that wouldn't respond to these circumstances. So I would ask for the support of members of this committee to proceed with this.

    I'm not suggesting it should interfere with any of the other work we have in this committee. I realize it's a very busy agenda, yet I would suggest that in the interests of improving the system and bringing some semblance of justice to Mr. Hearn, we should look into having those individuals who are directly responsible for the administration of our corrections system and our parole board come before us and speak on the specifics of this case, and the generalities and shortcomings that appear to be there.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacKay.

    Does anyone else wish to comment? I think it's pretty straightforward.

    Mr. Myers.

    Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo--Wellington, Lib.): When Ms. McClung was here on February 20, I think Mr. MacKay had some chance at that point to ask some questions, and some information was shared.

    As you know, the commissioner and the chairperson of the National Parole Board are coming here with the minister on April 25, and I anticipate there will be questions there as well. But I would caution the committee that to begin to go down this path there are huge privacy issues. We're really not in a position to get into those privacy issues and talk in detail about specific cases. Moreover, even the commissioner and the chairperson are in that position.

    These are all horrific circumstances, and the one you've outlined, Mr. MacKay, underscores that terrible things happen. But I don't think we need to go down this road of calling an inquiry into this kind of thing, because where would you stop and where would you start? All kinds of people could potentially come and make legitimate requests in similar ways.

    I want to reiterate that it would be very dangerous and very tough under the Privacy Act. I don't think we want to get into that because it would be not beneficial to justice, overall.

    The Chair: Mr. Hill.

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, Canadian Alliance): I'm speaking in favour of the motion. I think Mr. MacKay laid it out quite well, in the sense that there are generalities that go far beyond this particular individual case. I agree with Mr. Myers that there would be the danger of setting a precedent. Are we going to call officials before us every time there's an individual case that, on the surface, certainly seems to warrant further investigation?

    While I respect that, I suggest that at some point it is incumbent upon this committee to try to hold officials or the system accountable for what appears to be a wrongful decision. Somebody made a decision against—as Mr. MacKay has put forward--a mountain of evidence that this individual should not have been released, yet he was. He went on to commit what all of us on this committee, and indeed all Canadians, would agree was a horrific crime.

    At some time it is incumbent upon us—if not us, who?—to hold the system to account, so there's less chance... It's never going to be a perfect system, and all of us recognize that, but to just say it's a horrific thing and there are privacy issues, so we shouldn't look into this, is a disservice to the reason why this committee is here.

    The Chair: Peter.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: To further reiterate that and respond directly to Mr. Myers' question of where do we start, well, we start where we find problems. And yes, it may open the door to other issues.

    Look, if the system itself, which appears to be self-monitoring and there appears to be so much discretion to overlook a case such as this... There's clearly something wrong. It has been brought to our attention by virtue of this motion. I know there are some who are here as opposition motion assassins, but I say it goes beyond that.

    This is an issue that clearly has to be addressed by someone. It's not being addressed internally. We have the ability to hear from the commissioner and the National Parole Board chair. Why would we abdicate that responsibility? Why would we completely drop it—because it might lead to more problems? That's perverse logic. That's to suggest that every time you find a problem that might lead to more problems, you shouldn't address it. I fundamentally disagree with any suggestion that we might uncover more problems and therefore we shouldn't go down this road.

    The Chair: John McKay.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I wonder whether the mover would entertain a friendly motion to postpone the consideration of this motion, pending the appearance of the commissioner.

    I don't know whether this individual situation, which seems to be a horrific set of facts, is in fact a systemic issue or whether it is an individual issue. Certainly, as Mr. Myers has indicated, the commissioner is appearing here on May 25. I think that is the date you put forward. I would like to be able to make up my mind after that opportunity for you to cross-examine the commissioner. I'd even go a little further and offer the mover more time to focus on that issue, because it is a general issue. That would be number one.

    On the privacy issues, I don't know, frankly, what privacy issues are involved, but I agree with Mr. Myers' instincts that this will open up potential issues, and I think we need to be very careful.

    Again, would you entertain a friendly motion to postpone this motion pending the appearance of the commissioner?

  (1240)  

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Faced with the overwhelming numbers and the sense of where this is going if I don't, I certainly think it is a very sensible friendly amendment, and I take it in that spirit.

    The Chair: Peter, before you answer this, John offered more time. It's generous, but he can't do that; the committee can. So if the committee wants to... And the record has shown that John has included that in his comments. I want the record to be quite clear that he doesn't have the power to do that.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I don't know if this is a point of order, but it's a point of clarification perhaps. I heard the date of May 25. Is it tomorrow, April 25, or is it May 25?

    The Chair: It's April 25. It's Thursday.

    Mr. Jay Hill: So we wouldn't be postponing it very long, in other words. I want to be clear on that before the mover puts the motion.

    The Chair: John McKay is suggesting that we wait to table the motion until after the appearance of the Solicitor General and the agency heads on April 25, so we'll push it back on our order paper.

    Peter.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: That is acceptable to the mover of the motion, the other Mr. McKay on this committee.

    The Chair: I need some indication of support for that on the committee. Does anyone object?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): I'm not sure if there is an objection here. Is Ms. McClung coming by herself, or who else is coming with her on Thursday?

    The Chair: Mr. Myers introduced the evidence in this case, so perhaps he could tell the committee who is coming.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: It will, of course, be the Solicitor General, as well as the commissioner, Ms. McClung, and the chairperson of the National Parole Board.

    The Chair: So the parties named will be here on the 25th.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Are we going to be discussing on Thursday the subject matter that has been brought before us today? Is that the intent?

    The Chair: I think it's important for everybody to understand there are certain things that are not within the control of the committee to decide today. You can't decide for each other what you're going to discuss. The reality is that they're appearing on main estimates on Thursday.

    Mr. McKay has suggested that perhaps Mr. Peter MacKay would have the opportunity on Thursday to put questions that would inform us a little more about what this is about before he makes his decision. I think Mr. Peter MacKay has accepted that as a reasonable compromise, rather than face the numbers he faces today.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, Mr. Chair.

    I want it to be clear and on the record that I reserve the right to revisit this motion after having heard from those witnesses on Thursday.

    We can ask them anything. We can ask them about this. This isn't to restrict the line of questioning from any member of the committee. They can ask them what colour underwear they have on.

    The Chair: I may challenge that.

    Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: My reason for asking that question was that we're dealing with a very specific case here, and to expect the commissioner or the Solicitor General to have the pertinent information for that is very different from what he's going to want later on.

  (1245)  

    Mr. John McKay: We're counting on the good offices of Mr. Myers to do an adequate briefing.

    The Chair: My sense, Mr. Sorenson, is that if the Solicitor General and the other officials do not wish to return in response to Mr. MacKay's motion, they will be advised of this discussion today and they will want to answer it fully so that Mr. MacKay will not see fit to reintroduce his motion. That would be their objective, I would suggest, on Thursday. So I think they'll be prepared to discuss this.

    I'm seeing a consensus that Peter will pull back the motion for the time being.

    For the committee's edification and Peter's in particular, given the fact that there's some question as to whether it will be reintroduced, I would consider it necessary for you to give notice again, because at this moment it's sort of in abeyance.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I can give notice right now.

    The Chair: Okay. We understand the situation, then.

    The meeting is adjourned.