Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 10 - Evidence - June 17, 2010
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act, and Bill S-2 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, met this day at 10:33 to give consideration to these bills.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We are pursuing our study of Bill S-6, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and other Acts.
[English]
This morning, we have a special panel of witnesses: From the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Krista Gray-Donald, Director of Advocacy and Awareness; and, as individuals, Ms. Theresa McCuaig and Mr. Ed Teague. Welcome to you all. I cannot say that we look forward exactly, but we are anxious to hear from you. I believe you will begin, Ms. Gray-Donald.
Krista Gray-Donald, Director of Advocacy and Awareness, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, CRCVC, is a national, non-profit advocacy group for victims and survivors of serious, violent crime. We provide direct assistance and support to victims across the country, as well as advocating for more services and rights for crime victims and for increased public safety.
The CRCVC is pleased to appear today before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to take part in the debate over Bill S-6, the "Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act," to amend the Criminal Code and another act.
On a daily basis, we assist Canadians whose lives have been affected by serious, violent crime. The vast majority of these victims have been impacted by homicide. Homicide is perhaps the most atrocious crime that exists. It has devastating consequences for the families, the loss is felt forever and the effects never go away. Family members may eventually learn to live with the horrors of the crime, but a void will always exist.
The intense anguish felt by homicide survivors is aggravated by the provisions in our law that allow for offenders of first- or second-degree murder to seek, and in most cases be granted, a reprieve on their parole eligibility periods. Consider the following example: An offender is held in custody for three years awaiting trial for a murder. He is convicted, but has several appeals that drag through the courts for an additional seven years. By the time the court process is finally finished, the family is subject to the prospect of a section 745 hearing just five years later. Even if the offender does not apply immediately, it hangs over the family's head, wondering if he will apply.
The judicial review process is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment for homicide survivors, who lose their faith in a criminal justice system that removes from them the small measure of justice they thought they had won on behalf of their loved one. Section 745 of the Criminal Code is contradictory. Offenders convicted of first- or second-degree murder should serve the time the court intends them to before being eligible to apply for parole. The changes put forward in this legislation will lessen the suffering that these families feel by further restricting access to judicial reviews and eventually eliminating the process for all murders.
The CRCVC has long advocated for the abolition of the faint hope clause. It is our belief that an offender who is convicted of murder and sentenced in a court of law to life imprisonment without parole for more than 15 years should serve the time the court intended before parole eligibility. First-degree murder convictions are difficult to obtain, as are second-degree murder sentences with a parole ineligibility period of over 15 years. A discretionary parole eligibility decision is made at the time of sentencing in the case of second-degree murder. The decisions that are made that result in these convictions and sentences are not taken lightly. Victims place trust in the judicial process that convicts and sentences the offenders who harm their families, and the section 745 provisions not only destroy this trust but force the victims to be re-victimized as they go through the faint hope process. The committee heard from the Department of Justice Canada officials that supports are in place to assist victims who participate in the judicial review. These supports do not change the fact that this is a terrible process for victims to go through.
There are two distinct aims of this legislation: to remove the faint hope possibility for any future murderers and to restrict the ability of current offenders to be granted a reprieve on their parole eligibility. We know, from the families we work with, that there are some offenders who are truly evil, who feel no remorse and whose actions serve only themselves. These are the offenders who apply for a section 745 hearing every two years even though they have not done anything to demonstrate that they are working toward release. The offenders only seek to continue to harm their victims.
The judicial review process harms the victims. Victims who chose to attend section 745 hearings are forced to relive the events and emotions surrounding the homicide; they may be asked to update their victim impact statements for the court. It is also particularly difficult and offensive for victims to sit in court and listen to the offender describe his accomplishments and aspirations. He or she is described as a wonderful person who has earned the chance to apply for early eligibility, and sometimes family members are shocked by the information that is presented at the hearing to support this. For example, frequently they hear of numerous escorted passes into the community that they were not made aware of earlier. Victims are often unaware if the offender has or will make an application for early release and may not be notified if an application has been made. They are forced to face the offenders much sooner than anticipated, to relive the details of the crime committed by the offender, to travel to hearings at great personal and monetary cost, despite some financial assistance from the federal government, and they face the prospect of the release of the offender, something that hurts and terrifies many victims.
The potential repeal of section 745 is an important achievement for victims and their advocates, but Bill S-6 does not remove the right of current offenders to apply for judicial review. It does, however, impose limits that make it more difficult for offenders to be given a hearing. These limits, such as the increased burden of substantial likelihood, the strict window of 90 days to apply after they first become eligible and the five-year wait period between applications, will help victims, but many offenders currently in the present system will still have the opportunity to re-victimize their victims' families by initiating the section 745 process.
Representatives from the National Parole Board maintain that the judicial review process is independent of the hearings that determine whether an offender is granted parole. This is true, but the statistics show us that approximately 93 per cent of those offenders who are granted the right to apply for parole before their eligibility date are granted parole shortly thereafter. It has been our experience that this is a release rate that is much higher than that for murderers who apply at their original eligibility date. The board maintains this is because the offenders have a lower risk of recidivism. Unfortunately, we must rely on the statistics here, and they can only capture acts of recidivism that are caught by police. Perceived rates aside, we cannot ignore the fact that this process takes those offenders deemed to be the worst offenders and grants them an opportunity to avoid the sentence imposed upon them. Victims of these crimes feel this is a contradiction that must be eliminated.
The elimination of the faint hope clause has been debated for many years. The movement began in the 1990s, when hearings began to occur more frequently. Several bills have been introduced that sought to eliminate the provisions, but they have, for a variety of reasons, failed to succeed. Some recent amendments have limited access to the process and removed multiple murderers from eligibility, but this is not enough to ensure public safety. This bill aims to remedy that. The CRCVC strongly urges that the committee support this bill and ensure its speedy passage.
Ed Teague, as an individual: Many of you are not from Ottawa. You are from other jurisdictions, so I will tell you the story of my daughter.
About five years ago, on September 8, I received a phone call. My daughter had gone missing on her way home from a late-night job at Wendy's. I received the call on the Thursday, and my sons were out looking for her. Friday morning, my wife and I began a very detailed search for my daughter.
At that point in time, we did not know if she had gone off with some of her friends to party, but it was totally outside of what she normally did. She had called her mother and asked her to lay out her clothes and that she would be home shortly. Of course her mother laid out her clothes, but she did not show.
It was not until 10 days later, after an exhaustive search by the community, by the police, by volunteers from all over, that they found a body that was identified as my daughter.
From day one, when police became involved, it was treated as a major crime. To say that those 10 days was devastating would be putting it lightly. I mean it was more than devastating. I am not so sure that any of us have really recovered from it yet.
To make a long story short, what happened is, about a year later, a young man ran naked down the street in Barrhaven saying, "I killed Jennifer Teague." However, because he was under the influence of magic mushrooms, nothing he said could be taken as fact and the police could not question him.
A couple of weeks later, he walked into a liquor store, approached a gentlemen and said, "I killed Jennifer Teague." The person he approached was an off-duty police officer who immediately knew what to do. He took him into custody, and the saga began.
They got a confession from him. He got an attorney and went through the whole process: "I think I will fire my attorney and get a new one. I think I will hire that first attorney. I think I will fire that attorney again and get another one." The process started over and over again with each change. This went back and forth until the prosecutor went to the judge and asked for a court date.
We got a court date. None of us were actually able to attend that court date because it was a pretrial. They did not want me or my wife there, but my oldest son had to go to that courtroom and see pictures of his sister that are still up here.
Eventually, this gentleman decided to plead guilty, which is not very common for first-degree murder. He decided to plead guilty, and he came up with all sorts of things: "I am a born-again Christian; I have seen the light; take pity on me." When we went to court for the sentencing, he had the audacity to sit there as we listened to what he had done to her, how he had sexually molested her and strangled her to death. We had to listen to him sit there and say, "I am just a normal 24-year-old."
I have been around quite a while, and I do not know too many normal 24-year-olds who decide to go out one night specifically to kill a girl, and then carry it through, but that is what he did.
At the time of his sentencing the judge said that it is the most heinous crime. She basically said that she had to let him know about this faint hope clause. Yes, in 15 years, he can apply for a second chance. Where is my daughter's second chance? There is no second chance for her.
He was sentenced to life in prison, and we had to sit and wait. Hopefully, this bill will pass, and he will have to go through the burden of proving himself worthy of a second chance. Looking into his eyes through that sentencing, I did not find the man was worthy, but that will be for a body of people to decide at some other time.
As Ms. Gray-Donald said, we learn to live with it, and there is a void. Do you really learn to live with it? I know I have not learned to live with it. I handle it, and I move on, but I have not learned to live with it.
I just want that man to serve his full 25 years. If they decide at that time that he is not worthy of parole, another 25 years, for me, is just fine. Life is life. He took a life, he should forfeit a life. He did not take a life in a fit of rage. He took a life through planning and a desire. When he went out that night, he took with him restraints, a knife and tape to muffle her. That is what he set out to do. He set out that night to kill a girl. He said that it did not matter who it was. My daughter just happened to be walking in the direction that he was going, so he took her life.
I was really disturbed in those past 10 days when, in Bells Corners, in the Bruce Pit area, a 17-year-old youth was stalking women who out walking their dogs, and maybe even their small children. In his possession was a knife, restraints and tape to gag them. Where did he learn that? He is 17 years old.
I feel very strongly that if you took a life, you forfeit a life. Second chances are great, but second chances are something you earn through serving your sentence. If 25 years is your sentence, serve your sentence, and then your second chance starts. If he gets out after 25 years, he will still be in his 40s. Many people in this day and age have to restart their lives in their late 40s. Maybe the economy has gone sour, so they have to start all over again. As I said, my daughter will never have that chance.
Theresa McCuaig, as an individual: I am the grandmother of Sylvain Leduc who, in 1995, was kidnapped from his home, along with his two little cousins and a friend.
Twelve people were involved in this horrible crime. There was an organized youth street gang called the Ace Crew. I know you will hear from many other people, other than life victims — criminologists, social workers, The John Howard Society of Canada, you name it. These people will come to convince you that everyone deserves a second chance, and you will hear from very few victims.
These criminologists and psychiatrists who decide sentencing and so forth, they are not in the courtroom listening to the horror. They are not in the home when the police come to say, "Your child has been murdered, sorry." They are not there to feel our pain and learn the history of the offenders. They sit down and, with academic minds, figure out that 15 years is long enough to rehabilitate someone, without even knowing what is behind these people and where their history comes from. That blows me away.
I spoke one time to a youth criminologist who decided two years was long enough to turn around a young offender who had committed manslaughter. After he listened to my story, he was actually crying. He needed a drink and needed to rethink what he had recommended, now that he had the backgrounds, the pain and so on. I am asking you to really listen to us today because we were there. We are the affected ones.
As I say, my little niece was in a gang, and for a while she thought it was lots of fun, until they started possessing her, controlling her, honing her, beating her and making her sell drugs on the streets while they kept the money. They put her out front to take the risk of being arrested so that they could run. They also subjected her to prostitution and so on. They lit a lighter until it became red hot, turned it around and branded her. It formed an A. They told her, "You are now an Ace Crew bitch. You belong to us. You are my bitch, and you will do what I say." To disobey means punishment. Once you are part of the gang, you share sex with every gang member and refusal will bring on another beating.
She was in the gang from July to September. By September she had had enough of being controlled. They even had a beeper on her, and if she did not report when they beeped her, they would come after her and beat her up again. She had enough of being dominated and needed a place to hide, but did not tell our family what was happening. She went to my grandson Sylvain at school and asked him to coax his mom to let her move in. Sylvain's mom — my daughter — knew the girl was wayward. She thought she could help turn her around because no one wanted her anymore. She was too difficult to manage.
My daughter Carole took her in. Of course she shared all her tales of Ace Crew with my two grandsons, Sylvain and Daniel. Sylvain was 17, almost 18, and Daniel was 16. They listened and sympathized and, of course, worried about her. When Ace Crew found out where she was living, they called. In the gang, the threat was always that if you crossed the gang the penalty was to have your arm, with the branded A, cut off. That may sound like childish fun to you — just stupidity — but it was true. It was a real fact. That was the real threat.
They did call and threaten to cut off her arm. Of course she told her cousins, who were very worried. They set up a rendezvous to cut her arm off, and the cousins followed from afar with other friends to defend them. Ace Crew did not show up. They called again and made another appointment with her to cut her arm off. She went to the appointment and was able to convince them that she had not left them but was trying to straighten out her life, staying low-key with her new rules, et cetera, and they bought it.
During that week, within three days, they were back again demanding that she meet them or else. Sylvain told her, if you do not call the police, me and my friends will handle this. She went to that appointment, and the leader did not show up. They told her to return home and wait there for his call.
They did call, and made arrangements to meet them on the street corner. Two of the little nieces went down there, and they kidnapped one of them. They threw her in a van and put her in the back compartment of it. She did not know what was happening. They took her to this building, up three flights of stairs and stuck her into a closet. They put a gun to her head, asking questions. She did not know what was happening, why they were mad at her and did not know what they wanted. They put a gun to her head and, as I said, stuck her into this closet with a blindfold over her eyes, a gag in her mouth and her hands tied behind her back. She did not have the answers they wanted, so they decided to pick up the other niece who was living at Sylvain's house.
They left her in the closet and drove to Vanier; they were not quite sure where Sylvain lived. They knew the street but not the house, so they called the house. Sylvain answered the phone and told them that Nathalie was sleeping. They coaxed him into waking her up, which he did. She did not want to talk to them, and he went back and gave the message, but they did not buy that. They convinced him to wake her up again. Sylvain did that.
She made the horrible mistake of grabbing the phone, opening the patio door and stepping out on the balcony. The minute she did that they knew which house they wanted. They drove their van into my grandson's driveway and made threats to her over the phone. They said that Sylvain was a liar, she was not sleeping, she was in her pyjamas and they were going to beat him.
She came downstairs to meet them to avoid them hurting Sylvain. The moment she opened the door of the car, they forced her into the car, took a gun and kept hitting her on the shoulder to tell them who was in the house. It was unfortunate because the parents were gone for the evening, and Sylvain was babysitting. He was almost 18 years old.
They stormed the house. They took Sylvain, his friend and Nathalie. They took him so fast that he only had time to put on one shoe. They put them in the back of the Jimmy van, threatening them, telling them, "You're next. We're going to beat you, we're going to burn you and we're going to have fun with you. We're going to beat you so bad that people in Ottawa will be afraid to walk the streets. We're going to beat you and kill you and put your bodies in garbage bags so that no one will find your bodies."
Sylvain was petrified, crying, and did not know what was happening. When he asked my niece, "What have you done, what have you gotten me into?" they hit him over the head with a gun. They kept loading and unloading guns over their heads. They had pulled a compartment over their heads. The kids were crouched and could hardly move. There was nowhere to escape, no windows, no buttons to push.
When they arrived at the location, they brought them in one by one. As they entered the building, seven other gang members were waiting for them. As they entered the door, they were immediately blindfolded, their hands tied behind their backs, tied at their ankles and tied around their necks with electrical cords.
Sylvain's friend was the first to be brought in. Meanwhile, when they took the kids and put them in the trunk, they called the apartment to say, "We have them, get the place ready for the torture." There were girls involved — 12 people, 5 young offenders, the rest were adults. They put drapes over the windows so that no one could see in.
They took Melanie out of the closet. They lined the closet with garbage bags on the floor and the walls as far as they could go. They told her that it was to put her dead body into after they blew her brains out so that they did not dirty the apartment. They put her back in there and then, of course, the others arrived. They put Sylvain's little friend in the closet with Natalie. They took Sylvain to the master bedroom, and they took Natalie to the master bedroom.
From the testimony of Melanie in the closet, they beat on Sylvain, two at a time, sometimes three at a time. She heard her cousin scream in horrible pain. While some were beating Sylvain, the others were raping Natalie. They had a red hot curling iron set on high and burned her on the backs of her legs and her back. They flipped her around, cut the cords off her feet, removed her jeans, two people held her legs apart and they raped her with this horrible curling iron. While they were doing that, she heard Sylvain, not able to breathe; he was dying. They were kicking him, jumping on him, and he was yelling, "I have not done anything. Natalie, tell them; please, please don't let them kill me. I haven't done anything." They stomped on his chest. They had towels around his head and a jacket over his head so that when they jumped on his chest he could not breathe, and so he asphyxiated. He died at the scene.
A neighbour had looked through the crack of his drapes and saw the kids being brought in at gunpoint and heard, "Do not try running because we will shoot you right here." He ran and hid in his shower and called 911. By the time the officers arrived, which would have been 18 to 20 minutes later, Sylvain was dead; the girl was raped, but they had not finished with her as they were about to pull up her sweater to do some more torturing; and they had brought Sylvain's friend out of the closet and were stomping on him. He was yelling, "I do not want to die" because he had just heard his best friend die. Can you imagine Melanie in the closet hearing all this? Every time they would open the door, she would smell the burning flesh and hear her two little cousins scream in terror. It was a night of horror.
When the police arrived, everyone ran, of course. Five were arrested at the scene. I would like to mainly speak to you about John Richardson. John Richardson was 25 years old. He was with the kids because he is an asshole who does not have much education. He has a learning disability and has been in trouble since the age of 12. His kick was to hang around with kids. They would go out, commit crimes, and keep the money in the same kitty. He had no home, no car and no job. He lived off crime, prostitution and extortion and wanted to be the leader of these little kids.
He was really showing off for them that night, showing how you deal with people you are angry with. He led the group that night. He was the one who suggested that the bags be put in the closet. He was the one who called from the car to tell them to put the drapes up and turn off the lights, and so on. He was the one who had the gun in his bag. John Richardson's history is that, from the age of 13, he was trouble with the law. However, as a youth, he always got probation; not jail. Once, a Crown attorney applied to have him transferred as an adult, and the judge said, "Well, I see a little spark of hope in his eyes."
How many chances did John Richardson get? You would not believe his record. They let him go and gave him probation. He never showed up for court; they had to go to get him. Probation was a pain in the ass, and he went when he felt like it. When he did go to jail and then make parole, he would not report. How many chances do you give this guy?
In 1993, he hurt people terribly. He followed a man home, and with the pole of a barbell, he beat that man until he gave him his PIN number. He even told him that if the PIN number was not right, he would come back and kill him. Meanwhile, have a nice day.
He was charged a second time: One young lad owed someone $500, and he went to collect it for the person. He went to the boy's home and, in front of his mom, beat that boy black and blue with a broom handle. The mother panicked and called the priest at the corner to ask for $500 to save her son's life. He said, "Yes, come and get it." When they went to pick up the money from the priest, they found that the priest was smart and called the police. Richardson was arrested, but the boy would not testify because he was too scared. Richardson had beaten on prostitutes with gun butts to get money from them. He was charged with that, but the prostitutes would not testify because they were too afraid of him. Everyone was really afraid of him.
A deal was made. He pleaded guilty to these three horrible charges. The judge said that he would like to give him five years, but he was sentenced to 36 months. When he got to jail, he had the right to ask for parole after serving one third of the sentence. The parole board said, no, because, according to his record, every time he commits a crime, it gets worse and worse. They said, "By the end of this sentence, you will commit murder." Six months later, he applied again.
The parole board has a test where the accused fills out "yes" or "no" to questions to see if he is a candidate to reoffend. They go by whatever the score is to know whether he is likely to reoffend. He had a very bad score, so they did not give him parole.
By what miracle, three months later, ladies and gentlemen, does he make parole? By that time, they had sent him from the minimum security jail to a supermax facility because he was unmanageable and uncontrollable. In jail, he was abusive to inmates and guards, and he trafficked in drugs. They put him in supermax in segregation. From segregation, they released him on parole.
As victims, we ask, "Why did you do that?" However, we are not allowed to know. That is confidential information. We are not allowed to know, so we sued them. That process has been going on for 12 years.
My questions to you are the following: Why would he deserve a second chance? How many chances has he been given along the way? How much money in legal aid have we taxpayers paid for him? Offenders think it is their God- given right to have legal aid.
He and his two buddies who committed these horrific crimes were sentenced to life. This year, in October, they will have the right to apply for the section 745 hearing. If they are successful, my daughter and I will be sitting at three court hearings for these guys. Given their habit of not reporting and the breaches and so on, I can see them being good for 15 years in jail. However, I am told by jail employees that usually in their thirteenth year or twelfth year, they start turning their little lives around. They start being good and abiding by the rules. They become model prisoners because they know section 745 is coming up. Some judge will look at the jail record and say, "Wow, look at this; in the last two years, he has turned his life around. Look at that. He deserves a second chance."
How do we really know? How do we really know if he is sincerely rehabilitated or if he is putting you on, taking all the right courses and doing all the right things in jail? What happens once he is loose again?
For me, the hard part is that he will ask a judge for permission to ask a jury. If that happens, and the jury says that, yes, it is alright for him to ask, then the parole board has the final decision. Will they let us down again? Will they not do their homework? That is what is happening; they did not do their homework on his history, so they let him go. We have to trust these people again to see if they will release him.
The victim, the one who was burned, was in the hospital for three months. Believe me, she went through hell. Doctors had to form a special team; they had never seen a wound like that before. I do not want to make you sick, but they designed a dilator to put in this poor girl's vagina so that the flesh would not heal together so that she could have babies and intercourse and so on later on in life. That treatment was very painful for her. They had to remove that every day and put it back in. She had that for three months, and then another six months walking around with this thing inside her body, plus the psychological damage. The girl who was in the closet is still, today, seeing psychiatrists because she is afraid to walk the streets.
Sylvain's friend was hospitalized for a couple of months because of the horror he experienced and the loss of his friend. When he was released, he got two pit bulls; he walked around with two pit bulls to protect himself. This is how it affects us. Never mind the loss of your child; there is also the fear of walking the streets.
I am not being racist now; I am just giving you the facts: These people were all Black. They had these little curls, and you know how they wear the pants down to the crotch. When I walk on the street and I see one dressed like that, I stop; I shake, and I cross the street. It stays with you. We are talking 16 years later here. It does stay with you, and you worry.
These victims do not know about section 745 because I have not told them. Maybe the offenders will not make section 745, so why scare them? I am waiting to see what will happen; but if by chance they do, these kids will be totally freaked out. They are not kids anymore; they are parents now and they worry about their little ones. They are so afraid to meet these people face-to-face in the streets all the time. They live through that.
My daughter lives through the loss of her son. The shock of losing her son caused her to have fibromyalgia, just like that. She now lives on a small disability cheque in a subsidized section with lower class. Sylvain's brother, to deal with his pain, turned to drugs, so we have lost him. We have lost two boys.
These people who committed these crimes have a right to a second chance. Where is our second chance? Where is our help? When all this happened, we wanted a lawyer to sue these people, but you cannot sue young offenders. Did you know that? Also, who the hell has the money to pay a lawyer to sue?
We were lucky, sort of. One lawyer decided he would help us with no charge, no fee; but as I said, it has been dragging on for 12 years, and we have not heard from him for two years. This is what happens to victims — they are secondary. I will leave you to think on that, and you decide whether these people should have a second chance.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri had a bill that would allow a judge to sentence an offender — the worst of the worst, like these people — to no parole for 30 years or 35 years. I think that is the most reasonable proposition I have ever heard.
From my understanding, the law says that if you kill one person, you get life; if you kill two, three or four people all in the same day, it does not matter — as long as you kill them all on the same day, you may also apply for section 745. How can you justify that?
Last summer, a man, his son and his new common-law wife put two young, beautiful girls, their real mom and a friend in a car and threw them in the Kingston canal and drowned them all. That is four lives.
The Chair: That case, I believe, has not yet been decided by the courts.
Ms. McCuaig: No, that has not gone to court yet; but my goal is to tell you that even if they get life, if they are found guilty and they get life, as the law stands today, they would be allowed to apply for section 745 — four lives for the same price as one. I leave you with that.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you all, but particularly Mr. Teague and Ms. McCuaig. We do have some questions for you. It is important for me to say that we do appreciate how very difficult it must be for you to come here and tell your stories, but it is important for us to hear them, and we are very grateful to you.
I would just add before I go to the questioners, you suggested, Ms. McCuaig, that what happens to the victims is secondary. Do not ever believe that anyone around this table thinks that. Do not ever think that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have no further questions, Madam Chair. I simply wish to thank our witnesses for having shared their experiences with such generosity. I am unable to ask any questions.
Senator Boisvenu: I understand your rage and your scepticism with regard to justice. I lived through it. My daughter was she too assassinated by a repeat offender to whom not one, but three chances were given. Three! I also tell myself that the criminal is not the only one responsible for my daughter's death; the system is it too responsible.
When a young girl is kidnapped, assaulted, raped and killed, the justice system dwells on the most serious crime, that of murder. All the rest falls by the wayside: the rape, the sequestration, the kidnapping. The criminal will never be punished for those crimes.
Here is my question: What impression of Canadian justice are you left with vis-à-vis murders that are this serious and this heinous? What are your impressions in this regard?
Ms. McCuaig: I am enraged because the guilty parties faced 85 charges, but they are only serving out a sentence for murder. All of the rest is put aside. What enraged us further is that they did the same thing the previous day to another young boy. They kidnapped him, beat him and shot him, but the little boy did not die. For that, they were handed an additional sentence of 50 years. And that does not take into account all of the other crimes they had previously committed. The sentence they were handed will serve to pay for all of the crimes at one and the same time.
According to my calculations, they should be serving a sentence of 123 years, but no. . . They are concurrent. If he escapes from prison, kills someone else and is brought back to jail, his sentence will be concurrent because one can only serve one life sentence. Unbelievable! It does not hold water.
[English]
Senator Boisvenu: My daughter was murdered by a recidivist. We gave this criminal two chances before he killed my daughter. He kidnapped her, raped her and beat her, but when he arrived in front of the justice, he was only charged with one crime, which was murder. It is like she was never raped or kidnapped. What are your thoughts when such a criminal is punished like a person who shoots someone on the street?
Mr. Teague: When you look at it, there is a kidnapping, which is a crime. There is forcible confinement, which is a crime. There is sexual molestation, which is a crime. There is murder, which is a crime. The final indignity that was committed on my daughter is that she was dumped in the woods like a piece of garbage. To me, those are five separate crimes, but he went to jail only for first-degree murder and he got 25 years.
I am not knowledgeable about the justice system, but if you were to try these criminals for each one of those crimes and add all those years together, which would be a concurrent sentence, I am sure they would be in jail until they are 70 years old. I do not agree with this idea of just one sentence for all crimes committed. Stack them up: 25 years, 15 years, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Gray-Donald, I read your report attentively. I sense that you are somewhat sceptical with regard to the National Parole Board statistics. What is your impression of these statistics?
[English]
Ms. Gray-Donald: We have to take the statistics that are given to us at face value. Looking at recidivism rates, for example, they only capture what is caught by the police. It has long been my belief that there are most likely offences being committed by offenders who are out on parole and that are not being captured, which speaks to a number of factors. One could be even just the case loads for parole officers. One cannot watch someone 24 hours a day. There are crimes that go undetected.
When low recidivism rates are used as an excuse for allowing a 745 hearing or for encouraging the process, we have to be cautious in using those statistics because it is very likely that they under-report.
Senator Lang: I would like to direct a question to Ms. Gray-Donald. It has to do with the process. After 15 years, the offender can apply through the faint hope clause. If they are turned down, I understand that they can apply every second year. You refer to this in your presentation.
Ms. Gray-Donald: That is how it is currently written.
Senator Lang: Do you have any statistics on how often that happens with individual offenders? Perhaps you can tell us your direct experience with this type of repeat application for offenders who are consistently turned down.
Ms. Gray-Donald: I do not have at my disposal right now statistics that would capture how many try again in successive years. We have worked with cases where that has happened, and I know I have heard cases in the media. I cannot pinpoint one off the top of my head right now. It is not a significant number of cases, but there are not a significant number of people who are eligible for this process, either. We tend to look more toward the impacts on family members, and that is where the significance rests. It is not the number of cases; it is how they impact the loved ones who have to go through this process again. There are horrible offenders who know they will not get out but who, for whatever reason, tend to taunt and torment the family members. We see that quite often.
Senator Lang: I am trying to get it clear in my mind how this works. The offender applies through the faint hope clause to see whether or not he or she can go through the process and be granted early parole. When they first apply and go through the first step, is the family notified that an application has been made and that it is being considered?
Ms. Gray-Donald: Not necessarily. Sometimes it is covered in the media and that is how they find out; sometimes they maintain contact within the jurisdiction. However, nothing stipulates that they have to be notified.
Senator Lang: Are they notified at the second stage?
Ms. Gray-Donald: If it goes to a hearing with a jury?
Senator Lang: Yes.
Ms. Gray-Donald: No, they are not notified there, either. It is not mandated that they be notified. They would be notified if they were given a reprieve and if it went to the National Parole Board.
Senator Lang: I want to thank the witnesses for sharing their experiences. One can hardly imagine the grief and the consequences that took place when the events happened and how they are affecting you today. Of course, that is why we are here today — to look at the legislation and see whether there should be appropriate changes to recognize the rights of the victims versus those of the offenders.
Senator Joyal: Could you inform us of the kind of assistance you might have received either from a provincial government program or from any private group that assists victims? Did you have access to that in your own situation, or were you left to your own means and resources with respect to going through what you have described to us?
Mr. Teague: For myself, we were treated excellently by all the resources that were available to us, both provincially as well as through the City of Ottawa. I can honestly say that their support was excellent. We had access to victims' rights people who worked with the police. We also had the provincial people. At no time were we treated unjustly or adversely in that manner. It was an excellent process that we went through.
Senator Joyal: Could you describe it to us, if it is not too painful for you? We are not aware of how this works in practice.
Mr. Teague: One thing that came about relates to a fund. When criminals have ill-gotten gains, it goes to the police and is used to assist victims. That fund paid for my daughter's funeral.
As far as any recompense to ourselves, we never applied for that. We all worked. My boss told me to take as much time off as I needed; I was still on the payroll. They just continued to pay. My ex-wife was treated the same way.
The City of Ottawa was there right from day one. There was a counsellor there to assist us. The police got involved, which was a lot quicker than normal. My daughter was 18 years old and there is a set period of time they have to wait, but we had a friend who had a friend who made a phone call. The case was not even going to get looked at until Monday, but the police command centre was on site Saturday morning. We were treated excellently that way.
All through the process, counsellors were there if we needed them. They would ask, "Are you eating, taking your medication? Do you have your medication?" I can find no fault in that process at all.
Senator Joyal: Do you feel the level of assistance that was made available to you was at the level you had expected from what I would call a civilized society?
Mr. Teague: For me, yes. I cannot speak for all victims because I have heard so many different stories.
As a matter of fact, we were able to help another couple whose daughter had been murdered by her husband by showing them the people to go to. It worked.
Senator Joyal: You were lucky to have the right information available so you could access it immediately. We were told by a witness yesterday that the most important period is the immediate aftermath, not to wait a year or six months. That is why I wanted to hear from your experience the key moment when you expected and received support.
Mr. Teague: To be honest, I did not know what to expect in the way of support. It just showed up. I had my minister's support, my church's support, but outside of that I do not think it enters into your mind because you are dealing with so much. The help just knocks on the door and it is there. That was through the City of Ottawa. They took us through the process for every other aspect with respect to help.
Senator Joyal: Thank you.
Ms. McCuaig?
Ms. McCuaig: We are backing up to 1995. At the time, no one knew what resources were available. The night this horrible crime happened, my daughter was called to the hospital on behalf of Nathalie, who had been burned terribly. My daughter ran over there. Of course, when my daughter came home, the children were missing, and she immediately started making calls. It was 1:30 in the morning and she could not find the children. Of course she was making calls. Then the hospital called, so she rushed down there and there was a police officer guarding the door. She asked the police officer what happened. She said she was looking for her son, and he would not tell her anything.
People from the police victims' services, VCARS, heard about the crime on their radio and were waiting for the call to tell them to go assist this mom. The call was never made. I do not know. The detectives happened to come to the hospital to pick up Nathalie's clothes and accidently walked into Sylvain Leduc's mom. She asked them if they knew anything about her son. They sat her down and told her, "Your son died tonight."
They left her there, alone. They did not call me, her mom, or anybody to be with her. She picked up the phone and called her friend, who came down to be with her. There was no assistance after that. She was sent home to deal with funeral expenses that she could not afford.
No one told her about a booklet or to call the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and that they would pay for the funeral. No one told her that. No one told us anything. I went home and opened the phone book under "Victims," and I found Victims of Violence in Ottawa, and I found a victims' resource centre.
Victims of Violence was very helpful. They helped us fill out the application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the funeral costs, and so on. It took them three years — three years — to compensate my daughter for the funeral expenses incurred, but nothing for her pain and suffering.
Senator Joyal: Did she have any assistance from professional people trained to help a person psychologically and keep contact with a person?
Ms. McCuaig: We, of course, went to psychologists at the Montfort Hospital, who immediately said they would provide treatment for grief but would not fill out any papers for victims of criminal injuries and to not bother them with that.
Anyway, the appointments were in the daytime and, rather than go there, we were at the courthouse. We wanted to know who these people were and why Sylvain was killed. He did not know any of them, and we wanted to know all the information. We were at the courthouse for three years. That was our therapy.
One source that was very helpful was Max Keeping from CJOH Ottawa. He found out about Sylvain's brother, and he helps youth. The brother said his mom needed help to go to court. It costs a lot of money to go to court — the parking, your sandwiches. It was very expensive. We did that for three years. Max Keeping helped her for about six months. He helped her with money to go to court, which was much appreciated. However, from the other sources: a three-year wait and the bare minimum.
You see other cases where they were given $100,000 for their pain and suffering, but this mother gets nothing because she did not go to the hospital. If you do not go into what they call nervous shock, you are not given any money for your pain and suffering.
Senator Joyal: You had no compensation to go through that difficult period, if you stopped working for instance.
Ms. McCuaig: No. After we lived through all this and I found out that there was no help, I started to raise hell. I started getting victims out of the closet. Every time there was a new victim, we would run to the funeral home and tell them what to do. We raised the bar and made people aware of what was and was not there. Many changes came about, which were there for Mr. Teague.
Senator Joyal: Ms. Gray-Donald, when you are made aware of a situation, could you describe what your resource centre does and the process that you follow?
Ms. Gray-Donald: Can I comment on what was just explained? They basically represent the two ends of the spectrum, which varies greatly across jurisdictions and provinces. Most municipalities have police-based victims' services and court-based victims' services, which do reach out to most victims. There are some gaps and some fall through, but the end of the court process is generally where the assistance falls off. There are no government-funded victims' services.
Senator Joyal: There is no follow-up once the trial is over?
Ms. Gray-Donald: If there is no trial, they do not fall under the court-based victims' services, so there definitely are gaps in our system. That is, in part, where our agency comes in.
We work a lot with families who have finished the trial portion and the offender is incarcerated. We do liaise with the National Parole Board or the Correctional Service of Canada for them. We provide information for them and go to parole hearings on their behalf. We will also help with criminal injuries applications.
If we cannot refer a victim to a service in their municipality, because we are a national organization, we will try and fill that gap for them. We are a small agency, but we will fill in the gaps.
Two of the huge gaps are with the criminal injuries process because it varies by province and is confusing in every province. We also assist with post-trial support in terms of awareness of hearings, awareness of passes, knowing what their rights are in terms of providing an impact statement for parole purposes, knowing how to write an impact statement, and the logistics of getting to a parole hearing or having someone attend a hearing for them.
Senator Joyal: You mentioned that there are differences among the support plans in various provinces. Would you explain those differences?
Ms. Gray-Donald: The territories and Newfoundland do not have compensation available to victims of crime, so if a crime is committed in those jurisdictions, victims do not have any opportunity for compensation. Some of the other provinces have limited compensation.
The Province of Nova Scotia has just a couple of thousands of dollars available for counselling, and that is all you can access. In the case of homicide, costs for a funeral, which can be substantial, would not be covered under.
The Province of Ontario offers a cap of $25,000 per person applying for compensation, and there are certain limits. Only a certain amount applies to counselling or pain and suffering.
The Province of Alberta uses a schedule. It is a predetermined amount. If there is a homicide, you get a certain amount of money, and it ranges from a couple hundred dollars up to approximately $126,000. It is over 100,000.
Information about available compensation and how to apply for it and where to go and who to talk to is not made available to victims across the country when they are victimized.
Senator Joyal: On the basis of your experience, could you suggest to us a fair way to approach that issue to ensure that Canadians have equal access wherever they live in Canada and the same or a comparable measure of support?
My other question is this: How much money is involved? For instance, in your own assessment of those programs, what do they represent in terms of the magnitude of money involved?
Ms. Gray-Donald: I do not have the figures.
Senator Joyal: I asked the first question, and maybe I should have waited to ask the second one.
Ms. Gray-Donald: The solution in my mind would be that the federal government has to take responsibility for the compensation of victims of crime. That is the only way we can ensure that there is equal access for Canadians who are victimized in Canada.
The Chair: I am sorry, but time is starting to get a little short. Ms. McCuaig wanted to respond.
Ms. McCuaig: I have been wanting this since day one. When the police officer comes to you and says your child has been murdered, or your loved one has been murdered, they could say, "Here is a booklet, and here is who you call," with key numbers, such as her office, Victims of Violence, whomever. That would start the ball rolling and the victim would know where to go. However, they do not have that. It is a simple little thing that would cost peanuts. It could even be a memo. We were not told until two weeks later by the Crown office, "Here is little booklet for criminal injuries compensation." Well, the funeral is gone, over, and it is too late now.
Senator Joyal: Could you respond to the second question, quickly?
Ms. Gray-Donald: About what the cost would be?
Senator Joyal: What amount of money is represented by all those groups that assist victims, and how much more should be invested to maintain a decent program across Canada?
Ms. Gray-Donald: I could tell you how much money we would like to have.
Those are two separate questions. Providing compensation to victims of crime is separate from providing services to victims of crime, and both need to be analyzed. More money should be put into services for victims of crime who do not go through the traditional justice system if no one is identified as an offender in their case. They never have access to any of those services that these two families fortunately — said with a grain of salt — had available to them. We need to look at that, and I could not conceive of a number.
Senator Joyal: What is your budget?
Ms. Gray-Donald: We are one and a half staff members. We operate nationally, and we essentially can get by on a budget of $120,000. That is roughly the cost of incarcerating one offender for a year.
Senator Wallace: As with Senator Carignan, I find it difficult to ask you any questions. I almost have a sense of overwhelming emptiness and helplessness when I listen to what you have gone through and obviously our personal inability to do anything to change what has happened. I know all of us would, if we could, but this is life. We are trying here, though, to improve the system. As you know, the way we hope that will happen is through Bill S-6.
Mr. Teague and Ms. McCuaig, in what you have said to us, you have touched on different elements of what is in Bill S-6. We do want to improve the system. We do want to make changes. We want to minimize others going through what you have gone through over all of these years. Do either of you have any other comments to make specifically about the changes that Bill S-6 would bring, if it were passed, and if there are any other thoughts you might have about how the system could be improved as it relates to those issues?
Ms. McCuaig: As I said before, each case is different. Each murder is different. You could commit first degree murder and say, "He stole my girlfriend and I will get my gun out tonight and shoot him," and bang. I am not lessening the crime. This is murder. When you have a crime with torture, deliberate, well planned, no pity for the victims whatsoever, and a history of crime, that changes it, right? The judge who hears each different case knows who is the vicious one, the really bad one, the incorrigible one. He knows. He would be allowed to say, "No parole for you for 15 years or 20 years or 25 or 30." I think that would be most fair.
Senator, we come here to speak with you, and it is difficult, yes, but it is salve to us. It is soothing because someone is listening and someone is willing to possibly make changes. That for us is salve. Our kids did not die in vain because we are here today.
Mr. Teague: As Ms. McCuaig said, each murder is different, and all the factors have to be taken into account, but the end result is the same. A life has been taken. In her case, and actually in my daughter's case, I think there could have been more charges laid, but the ultimate crime was the murder. For that purpose, the young man was sent to jail for life.
I would like to see "life" increased. I would like to see the definition of a life sentence increased. If it is 35 or 40 years, then increase it to 35 or 40 years. Make the person pay for the crime they have committed. They took a life. My daughter was 18. I will never see her walk down the aisle. I will never see my grandchildren. When he gets out of jail, if he gets out, he will be able to get married and have a family, but he took that away from my daughter. I think that is where we have to go.
I think we are on the right track, and I know it sounds like something you hear on TV, but we have a system, and it is the only one we have. I think it is one of the best in the world, but we can improve on it. You, as a committee, have a chance to get it right.
The Chair: Thank you all very much. As I said, it is extremely important for us to hear from you, and we are very grateful.
We have the privilege of now welcoming, as witnesses, Mr. Rick Sauvé, who will be speaking as an individual, and Ms. Nathalie Des Rosiers, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Mr. Sauvé, please proceed.
Rick Sauvé, as an individual: I am pleased to be here today. I feel fortunate because without the faint hope clause, I probably would not have been here. I am one of the people that this bill would affect. I spent 17 years in prison. I was convicted of first degree murder in 1994. I applied to go back to the courts, back to my home community and be tried by the community again. After a week of trial, the people from my community decided that I should be released immediately on parole.
It did not happen. It took another year before I was eventually granted parole. Since that time, I have been living in the community on parole. I am here to show you who this bill would apply to.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sauvé.
[Translation]
Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association: I thank the committee for welcoming the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It is always difficult to provide all of the arguments. Those who are personally touched by tragedies affect us all.
I will be outlining four points in order to present the views of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association regarding the bill and the repeal of section 745.6 of the Criminal Code.
The first point I would like to underscore is the rehabilitation role of the Canadian system; my second point pertains to the role of international best practices and the lessons we should draw from them; the third point relates to the perspective of the victims with a view to reconciling it within this context; and, lastly, I will discuss the role of the public's trust in the system.
The first principle is a reflection on the role of rehabilitation within the Canadian criminal process and as an essential value of that process. During the previous session, it was well explained that each murder is different. Obviously, all offenders are different. One of the essential values of the Canadian system is the recognition of the interest of society to believe in rehabilitation, not naively but in a reasoned way, based on the need to invest and to reflect upon the role of rehabilitation, not only for the protection of prison guards, the protection of the human dignity of prisoners, but also in the interest of society. Rehabilitation is a collective responsibility that falls upon each and every one of us. It asks of us that we clarify the challenges so as to not make mistakes because of the desire to respond quickly to certain incentives that are not there.
The first point I want to make is that it is important to not forget to what extent the rehabilitation role is essential to the establishment and the structure of the system.
In this context, section 745.6 of the Criminal Code brings an important element of discretion into the system, allowing, as a minimum, the possibility of an assessment of the offender and of the progress he or she has made after 15 years.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, that has been in existence since 1964, has always insisted on the role of discretion and its continuous exercise in dealing with criminals, with a view to better protecting society. One must determine if this will continue to improve the system or if, on the contrary, it destroys it or makes the lives of victims more difficult.
The repeal of this section does not seem to fit with international best practices or at least the way we see Canada's position compared with other democratic societies. Since 1999, with regard to eligibility for parole, studies have shown that the Canadian prison system imposes an average of 28.4 years in custody, compared with 18.5 years in the United States, 14.8 in Australia, 11.2 in Scotland and 11 in New Zealand. These statistics run counter to the impression people have that the Canadian system is more eager to respond to the needs of offenders than to those of victims. On the contrary, we could be concerned by the fact that, contrary to other democratic societies, we seem to keep people behind bars for longer.
Incarceration is but one part of the sentence given an offender. The sentence lasts a lifetime. When a person is convicted, it is not just the imprisonment part that matters, but also the process through which the offender is invited to rethink his or her contribution to society and to make progress.
As the statistics show, very few offenders use the opportunity to come forward and very few offenders then obtain the right to present themselves and ask for parole before the National Parole Board. The system already has sufficient safeguards that allow individuals to define themselves within the context of the system.
We suspect that the existence of this section has an influence on the behaviour of prisoners at the various stages of the process they go through and that it can even contribute to a less harmful and less dangerous environment for prison guards. It is therefore interesting to note that, despite this idea that our system is generous towards offenders, international statistics do not seem to support this view.
[English]
Third, I want to speak to the idea that rehabilitation is not necessarily an anti-victim statement. There is certainly a societal interest in expressing outrage when one hears of terrible crimes like we have heard about today or that we read about in the newspapers. There is also a societal interest in expressing outrage at the conduct of one of its members and expressing compassion for victims and their families who are affected by terrible actions. The victims' perspective is crucial here. The victims' movement is very diverse, and some view the faint hope clause as a process of revictimization, particularly because it seems to have an absence of transparency.
However, it is probably not completely appropriate to equate compassion and respect for victims with a diminished commitment to the rehabilitation principle. Indeed, that is not what victims often say. In our research, when we ask victims what they need, they say that they want respect and acknowledgement and access to services. The large gaps that are identified in victims' services are very important. It is interesting for a civil libertarian to say this, but if we are to continue to have a constitutional law system that is devoted to the presumption of innocence, we must invest in an adequate response to victims. They go hand in hand. You cannot have the public engage and respect the presumption of innocence, with all the cost that has for victims, without engaging fully with their needs.
I invite the committee to reflect on this necessity. My own work has been to try to raise the profile of victims' rights to a constitutional right so that it would have the same value and the same constitutional recognition.
A victim's right may be to have his or her needs met, which may be access to therapy, compensation and information, and participatory rights. In that context, we have made a bit of progress in Canada in the last 10 years, although the lack of funding of some programs is unacceptable. It is just as unacceptable as not continuing to support the principles of rehabilitation.
It would be dangerous to equate the loss to offenders of the faint hope clause with a gain to victims, because that is not always the case. Many victims would insist that what they want more than anything is that it not happen to them again and not happen to anyone else. Their commitment is that they continue to think that the goal of rehabilitation, both individual deterrence and general deterrence, is important. The goal of rehabilitation is to ensure a decrease of crime in society.
There is no hope for a crime-free society without a strong commitment to rehabilitation. People will come out of jail, and if we do not invest in rehabilitation, we will not be further ahead.
Any suggestion that the repeal of the faint hope clause will greatly enhance victims' rights has to be tempered. It must be recognized that it would be far better to invest in increasing our commitment to victims' services.
Finally, I will address the issue of public confidence. It has been argued here that the confidence of the public would be enhanced by the repeal of the faint hope clause. I would caution the committee not to take this at face value because it eliminates the only possibility now in the system of having a jury participate in parole decisions. Public participation in the system through the jury process is one of the most important aspects of increasing public knowledge and public engagement in the system. I am sure that every juror is intimidated at the thought of being on a jury. Most jurors, after the fact, are pleased for several reasons. First, they have contributed to society and have been honoured to have made that contribution. Second, they understand the system better once they have been here. This is particularly important because the process envisages a unanimous jury, as one of the many steps. As you know, many steps are required for the process to even offer the possibility of parole.
If there is a message to society at this time, it is to not exclude them further from the justice mechanism. One of the values of this is that it provides for jury input. We talk about symbolic messages. Certainly, when you look at the statistics on how many offenders we are talking about, you find that very few of them take advantage of this and very few of them are successful. It is probably the symbolic value that we are managing and that is being applied for. One concern is: In removing a jury from this process, we are going in the wrong direction. We want more public participation in the justice system, not less.
We think that the removal of the faint hope clause is incompatible with our continued commitment to rehabilitation. We understand that it does not affect many people. We are not talking about a second chance; we are talking about recognizing the promise of rehabilitation. Some people have proven that they are able to rise to the challenge and contribute. It is important not to assume that all offenders are the same or that all murderers are the same.
That is my submission.
The Chair: Thank you very much indeed. I will go back to you, Mr. Sauvé, because you were admirably modest or laconic in your opening statement.
In reading your biography, I noticed that in prison you did not simply take the odd rehabilitation program; you, among many other things, completed your high school education and went on to get degrees in psychology and criminology, which must have been a lot of work. Now, you work for something called LifeLine In-Reach. Before I go to Senator Carignan for the first real question, would you give us a little description of LifeLine In-Reach?
Mr. Sauvé: After the abolition of capital punishment in 1976 and with the introduction of first and second degree murder offences, prisoners were staying in prison many, many years longer. Senator Earl Hastings, among other people, talked with correction services people and asked how they would deal with individuals staying in prison possibly for decades longer. They thought to send a paroled prisoner, a lifer, back into the prisons to talk to men and women who were serving life sentences, initially to give them hope but also to work with them toward rehabilitation, to encourage them to stay on the path of rehabilitation, and to walk with them back into the community. After an individual has spent 15 to 30 years in prison, going back into the community is very difficult.
The LifeLine concept was developed as a tripartite agreement between St. Leonard's Society, of Windsor, Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board. After I had been released from prison on parole, I got a call about three or four years later from Skip Graham who asked if I would be one of the LifeLine In-Reach workers to go back into prisons.
For the past 12 years I have considered myself on night parole because I spend five days a week inside prisons. I see prisoners at all levels. Some prisoners I know will never get out. Many people I have worked with inside prisons, lifers, have died while they are in there. I have gone to the parole board. I have been at probably over 300 parole hearings. I have assisted at parole hearings. I have taken men out on their first passes into the community. We see it as public safety. If someone from Nunavut is serving a life sentence in Ontario and has never been to a city before, how will he find his way? That is the kind of thing we help with. We take them back in.
There are some prisoners I have worked with that I hope never get out. I believe in the institutions that we have in place — the National Parole Board and the correctional system — or I would not be doing what I am doing. I know how difficult it is to achieve parole. I know those people will not get back into the community.
LifeLine workers go back into the prisons. We also do lots of public speaking. I talk to youth groups. I was a child and youth worker after I got out of prison. I created a program for troubled youth while I was inside prison. I have never hidden the fact that I am serving a life sentence. Not once has anyone ever said that it was a mistake for me to get out. I have been embraced by my home community. Before I got out, I spoke at the Chamber of Commerce of my home community. I have never once been told it was a mistake for me to get out or that I was a threat to the community.
LifeLine workers are living examples of men and women who come out of prison and then go back into prison to bring some hope to prisoners and to participate in public safety.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Sauvé. I would like you to talk to us about what motivated you during your incarceration. You could perhaps tell us about the beginning of your imprisonment. What process did you follow? What motivated you to get training during your incarceration?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: No one in my family had ever been to jail before. No one had served time in prison. This is my first conviction. When I went to prison, it was a scary, dangerous place. I was in Millhaven Institution, which is a maximum security prison. There were no rehabilitation programs at that time. The prisoners were kept separate from the guards. I knew that I did not fit the mould of that lifestyle. I was still a son to my parents, and I wanted to do something so I would not become entrenched in the prison system. That is why I started taking education programs.
When I quit school, I had just finished Grade 9. My teachers told me I was stupid and that I should quit school because I would never finish school. For me to get involved with education in prison was a kind of sanctuary that let me be something other than a prisoner. I saw a sense of loss in there and wanted to do something better. That is why I engaged in education.
Eventually, I transferred to a medium security facility, which was when I first met Senator Hastings. He came to visit me at Collins Bay Institution. I started a lifers' group there. He came and sat in on the lifers' group so he could understand what the prison system was about. He visited many times before he passed away.
Something he said to me one time was: "You can always do better. Try not to be a prisoner, always." That is what I did while I was inside. You can focus on the negative or you can start thinking about the positive.
When I started the lifers' group, I listened to the stories of many of the men who had committed horrible crimes — and I am not trying to minimize that — but I was listening to the lifestyle they had lived prior to coming to prison, and it was so similar. That is when I started looking outwards. My philosophy has always been that you get out of prison before you leave, because if you do not, you will come back.
I started thinking of things outside of prison; that I was still a member of the community, that I still had family in the community, that I still had an investment in the community, and even though I did not have the freedom to be in the community, I was able to be an active participant in the community. If I was ever to win my judicial review, I knew I would have to demonstrate that to my home community and see if they would accept me back.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Mr. Sauvé, I do not know your story; you were charged with murder, but I do not know who the victim was. The victim most certainly had relatives, family. I would like to know if you have been in touch with the victim's entourage: have you had any exchanges with these people? If so, how did they view your release from prison?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: Our case was unusual. Eight of us were charged with first degree murder. Six of us eventually got convicted of murder, two for first degree murder and four for second degree murder. I never killed anyone, but I was convicted of first degree murder. That is evidence in court.
Bill Matiyek is the man who was killed in a shooting at a bar in Port Hope. We were related by marriage. My brother's wife and Bill's brother's wife are sisters. It happened in a small town, so they were well aware. It created a lot of difficulty in the community.
One of my parole conditions is that I am not able to have any contact with Bill's family, indirectly or directly. They will never get over the loss of their son. They will never get over the loss of their brother.
They were at my judicial review. They did not testify. They did not come to my parole hearing and they did not offer any statements. I have never heard them wish ill on me. I am sorry for their loss. There is nothing that could ever bring their son back and there is no making sense of any of it.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My next question is for Ms. Des Rosiers. Thank you for your presentation. Given all that we heard previously, you spoke with great sensitivity and respect. It is much appreciated.
You stated that we suspect that the "faint hope clause" has had an effect. From what we have retained of Mr. Sauvé's statement, it has perhaps had an effect, but it is not clear, because we see that he is an individual who worked on himself and who had quite a strong will. I am not so sure that that was the trigger. There are other things that triggered what happened.
Do you have statistics? When one "suspects" something, it is that one is not very convinced, but has some indication and there is something — What makes you simply say that you "suspect" something, instead of making a more affirmative statement?
Ms. Des Rosiers: It is one of two things. There are very few prisoners who invoke this clause. It cannot be the trigger for everyone. The reason put forward by other offenders than Mr. Sauvé is that, in fact, this clause gave them a horizon for improving their outlook and making a stronger commitment to their program.
There will never be any guarantee that this will transform a person. And so we put the idea forward modestly, stating that we have heard this testimony, and we have also heard guards tell us that, in their view, this has an impact. In fact, our position is simply that it is a difficult and exceptional process, as well as a discretionary one. In some cases, for certain individuals who are able to take advantage of this clause, there have been positive effects for our society. Why then deprive ourselves of this? And, certainly, if there are negative effects for other groups, then we should delve into the matter and try to minimize these effects even further.
The other aspect is that if a person can be rehabilitated and can accomplish this within 15 years rather than 25, then there is probably a certain advantage for society to invest sooner in the person's social reintegration, taking into account the monetary costs, but also the social costs. It is in this context that we suspect that this clause has had the effect we outlined.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I would like to come back to one aspect Ms. Des Rosiers has raised. Maybe Mr. Sauvé could comment. We have not heard any testimony on this, but you said that the clause helped to create a less dangerous environment for the guards or the prison personnel.
Ms. Des Rosiers: That was one of the arguments when it was passed. When we do our research, people call us with their testimony; we do not come up with these positions without doing some research and consulting lawyers and some of the people on our board who are in contact with guards, and so on. Telling someone that not engaging in positive behaviour will diminish their chances gives them a certain power over ensuring that they comply. People need to have hope to comply with orders and with the system. That is the way they framed it. It created an additional way in which you could say to someone, "If you do not do this and do not participate, then you will have even less hope than you had before." It is in that context that these comments were made.
If you look at the literature, this theme has been explored; it is difficult to quantify exactly how many. We are talking about a small number of people here, who all probably have exceptional circumstances. It is difficult to draw any firm conclusion. We are presenting it with the limits of the data.
Senator Joyal: Given your activities with the LifeLine program, you say that you more or less live your life with prisoners. What is the psychology of a prisoner in relation to the faint hope clause if they desire to apply?
Mr. Sauvé: Like Ms. Des Rosiers said, there are very few people who actually apply for the faint hope clause. There are over 1,000 prisoners in Ontario serving life sentences. Not all of them are eligible for judicial review, but of the ones who are, the majority of them throughout their sentence say they will apply for the faint hope clause. They keep that dangling hope in front of them until they get to their 15-year review. Their behaviour inside the institution is much better than that of those who have no intention of ever trying to rehabilitate themselves.
I did some studies on this when I was doing research for my master's thesis and working inside the prison. Once prisoners gets up to the 15-year mark, they sit back and say they do not want to put their family and the victims through this again. They have a big chunk of time in before they can start to look at release down the road. In another seven years, they will be eligible to apply for the first time to the National Parole Board for an unescorted pass. They will continue on this path of rehabilitation.
We are a resource not only for the prisoners but also for the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board. As I said, I have been present at over 300 hearings. Most of the prisoners who are eligible to apply for judicial reviews will sit down at some point with us or with a parole officer and say, "I have decided I will not proceed with this."
It is up to the prisoner to make the application to apply for a judicial review. It is not always granted, which is a very difficult process, but they weigh the balance. "Do I really want to expose myself back to the courts? Do I really want to expose my family to this?" There is always media attention and the thought that, " I think I can make it now."
Even though most people do not apply for it, the faint hope clause keeps them in balance. They will refer to the judicial review process in their meetings with their institutional parole officer or their case workers: "I am behaving; I am working toward this." As they then get closer to that date, there is a more self-reflection; they really do not want to go through this again.
Very few people do apply, but it gives them the hope to maintain a sense of balance inside prison.
Senator Joyal: The code provides a number of factors for the judge and the jury to appraise and look into and be satisfied with, because, as you know and as Ms. Des Rosiers has mentioned in her brief, the jury must be unanimous. The bar is rather high. Moreover, the Crown always has the capacity to appeal if it disagrees with the decision rendered by the judge to allow for the meeting of a jury. There are many steps before we come to the unanimous jury decision.
Among those factors that have to be balanced or considered is this: What weight should be given to the attitude of the prisoner in relation to the victims?
Mr. Sauvé: There is a great deal of weight given to it. Many of the men and women I have talked to have said, "I do not want to put the victims through this again." It has got them to that point. It is a trial of your whole life again. It is not just about — and I do not mean to minimize it — the crime. It is about your whole life. They look at your character at the time of the offence. They look at your character now and how you served your time. It is a lengthy process. When you go in front of a jury, the hearings can take a week or two weeks. It is not like a parole hearing where you go in front of the parole board for three or four hours. This is a lengthy process where your whole life is re-evaluated and the victims testify at the hearing.
It gives a more complete picture. It gives the community a sense of who it is who has the potential of coming back into the community. For those men and women who are turned down, it also gives them a sense of self-reflection whereby they can look at their lives once again, while they are in prison: "What more can I do to show that I have changed?" Even if someone is turned down, there is more of a chance for self-reflection.
Senator Joyal: Suppose you are at a friend's house and you break a cup or something that people value. Your first reaction is to say, "I will compensate you; I will buy a new one, so do not be worried." It is the natural feeling or reaction of a human being to try to be fair. Can we conclude that this idea of being fair in life is a determining factor of the jury when they have to determine if a prisoner has that humane sentiment of fairness in life?
Mr. Sauvé: I am not sure whether it is a case of fairness. There is no fairness. There is no way of balancing what someone has done when they have taken a life. There is no way of balancing that out.
The jury must look at the individual and ask, "Has he done enough to have the potential to return to my community? Am I going to feel safe? I am speaking on behalf of my community." It does not guarantee that they will get out. There is still a long process involved. There is the misconception that prisoners will return to the community after 15 years on the faint hope clause. Not one person has ever returned at the 15-year mark, not one.
It is a long process. I do not know that it is fairness that the jurors are looking for. They are looking at whether their community will be safe. As well, do they have faith in the institutions, including the jury system? Our criminal justice system is based on the jury system. They may say, "Yes, this is a guilty person, but I feel that this person could apply to come back to my community, and now I know exactly who they are." The jurors get to see the whole person, not just the offence.
Senator Carstairs: Thank you for mentioning Senator Earl Hastings. He was a member of this chamber for over 30 years. He was appointed in 1965 and was a close, personal friend of my husband and me. I like to think I see legislation through his lens. I also know how proud he would be of you.
My concern is twofold. First is the 90-day rule that they seek to impose in this legislation. They are not making it retroactive. No one in the future will receive it, but those now eligible will have this 90-day rule imposed.
In your experience with the system, is 90 days possible to make it work?
Mr. Sauvé: I do not think 90 days is sufficient. Again, I can only look at what is taking place currently. I do not think there has been one judicial review hearing in Ontario this year. Some people applied and had it put off.
Rehabilitation is a life-long process. Parole is for life. I could go back to prison tomorrow. If they were to abolish parole in Canada, I would go back to prison.
I question whether this legislation is necessary because we are saying that there is no hope. I do not see that 90 days would make a difference.
Senator Carstairs: My second question has to do with the information presented here that some offenders in our prisons like the faint hope clause for no other reason than to continually victimize their victims. They make one application, and, as soon as they are eligible, they make another application even though they will probably never have those applications approved.
Is that your experience? If it is, what numbers are we talking about?
Mr. Sauvé: A select few individuals in prison are psychopaths, and they thrive on attention. Not only do they re- victimize the victims, but they re-victimize the community and the whole country. What they do is abhorrent, but they will never get out of prison. They will die in prison.
As I said, there are some men who I hope will never get out of prison and know they will not. There is no way to get away from that, but as the legislation is now, they cannot continually apply for judicial review. They are eligible to apply for parole. If you commit a particularly heinous crime, you will never get out of prison, nor should you. I think sometimes the media plays a disservice to the country as a whole by highlighting and feeding into their psychopathy.
Ms. Des Rosiers: The process is as follows: A judge evaluates the possibility an application will be heard. We know judges will recognize these patterns that Mr. Sauvé defined. We know psychopaths exist within the prison system. That is safeguarded in the bill. Some victims groups want to be notified every time an application is made. In my view, notification is important when it goes to the jury.
An Hon. Senator: That requirement is in the Criminal Code anyway.
Ms. Des Rosiers: Notifying the victim at the time that another ridiculous application is in front of a judge possibly should be taken for what it is — part of a self-gratifying process. It may not be necessary to continue to present that the possibility even exists. There is a sense here that the judge is a safeguard to prevent this from happening. As you know, there are few of them.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have sought information on the number of people who reapply. It is fairly low. We will distribute that information to committee members as soon as the paper has been translated, which I expect will be later today.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Sauvé, allow me first to congratulate you, because I believe that the efforts you have made warrant it. This must be underscored. At what point, during your 17 years in prison, did you obtain your diploma in criminology and psychology?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: I graduated with my Bachelor of Arts in psychology in 1987. I finished my honours degree in criminology two or three years later. I finished almost all of my requirements for my master's degree in criminology just before I was released from prison. I have not defended my master's thesis; I could not return to that.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I understand that during this period you really got to know yourself well and to understand what led you to the situation in which you found yourself. In what way did your studies in psychology and criminology prepare you for this judicial review after 15 years?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: I am not sure that they helped me to prepare for my judicial review, but they prepared me for my life after prison. I knew if I was successful with my judicial review, I would have to take skills back into the community with me. I knew it would be extremely difficult to integrate back into the community. How was I to explain where I was for 17 years? Therefore, I was honest with employees. I never prepared for my judicial review; I prepared for my life in prison and after prison.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I am going to ask you a final and very difficult question. I would ask that you answer as honestly as possible. You very quickly embarked upon a rehabilitation process when you went to prison. Had there not been a judicial review process and had you had to spend another six or seven years in prison, given the inner strength you have, would you have fallen back into crime?
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: No, I would not have.
Senator Lang: I want to go through the process of judicial review again. Either witness may answer.
My understanding is that, if I am an offender, I apply to the judge. The judge reviews my application. He or she can then make a decision to go the next step if it is positive. My understanding is that no one at that stage is notified publicly of that application; am I correct?
Ms. Des Rosiers: The Correctional Service of Canada and others would know, but my understanding is the same as yours. It could be changed, but at this stage that is not the process.
Senator Lang: This legislation is here because of the victimization of the victims later on as individuals apply through the faint hope clause. It appears to me that sometimes this becomes public information at the stage when an initial application is made to the judge. Could either of you could comment on that, because I do not believe it is supposed to be public at that stage.
Mr. Sauvé: One of the fellows I was working with had made an application two years ago for his judicial review. The Crown attorney and the police contacted the victims and said that the individual would be making an application to the judge to apply for the judicial review. They gave victim impact statements. At that point, the judge said a jury would not have merit in granting the application. That fellow never got to go through the process.
I do not know if that answers your question, but that was a case where victims were contacted and provided victim impact statements that went to the judge prior to the application itself.
The Chair: Is it your understanding that this is the standard process: An application goes before the judge, and the victims are notified so they can make victim impact statements to that judge at the very first stage of the screening?
Mr. Sauvé: I do not think it is standard.
Ms. Des Rosiers: Our understanding is that it is not mandatory, and I think it depends on the circumstances. It is often the discretion of the Crown to decide whether the victim's statement must be updated.
I know who could provide you with further information. We have someone who has done a study.
Senator Joyal: My question is on the very point made by Senator Lang and relates to paragraph 745.63(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. It provides that the first judge take into account "any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of the sentence . . . ." In other words, the judge would go back to what was said or the representations made by the victim's attorney or representative. The paragraph goes on to state, ". . . or at the time of the hearing under this section." In other words, the victim would be invited to testify when there is a jury hearing, not when the first judge looks into the case. That is exactly what the code says. We can have that confirmed by Ms. Des Rosiers, but that is how the Criminal Code is set out. I am not the witness here.
Senator Lang: For the sake of today, I will make the assumption that most victims at this stage, then, are contacted.
Senator Joyal: At the jury stage.
The Chair: We will make the assumption for the purpose of your questions. We do not know whether it is factual, but it will affect your line of questioning.
Senator Lang: This is where we get into the issue of the victims being notified and becoming part of the process. They have to start reliving the very horror and loss of what they have gone through.
Perhaps I could direct the question to Mr. Sauvé. In your personal experience, I think you said that the parents of the victim were at your judicial review.
Mr. Sauvé: They were, but they did not testify.
Senator Lang: Obviously they were notified at that stage and could appear.
The Chair: That was at the stage where the judge and jury were present, was it?
Mr. Sauvé: Yes.
The way the parole system works is that victims are now notified if you transfer from one institution to another. If you are going out on passes, there is victim notification of that, as well.
Senator Lang: I want to get it clear in my mind how the process works and when the various people become involved.
Earlier today we heard two witnesses who told of two situations that were so grievous and heartfelt that it was very hard to ask them questions. I just could not imagine what they have been through.
You have referred to psychopaths or individuals who have no possibility of being rehabilitated. I would like to ask either one of you respond. In cases of terrible crimes, should those individuals have the right to access a faint hope clause? If they have violated individuals and caused so much damage to the community, should they have that option?
At least one of the witnesses indicated that different situations develop and, in this case, murder occurs. When I heard those descriptions, I had to say to myself that those individuals should never have the right to be on the street again. That is me talking, but I would like to hear your observations about a situation such as that.
Ms. Des Rosiers: We know that the system works in such a way that in all likelihood they will not.
One of the submissions here is that the bill in front of us removes the faint hope clause for everyone. I think it is on that basis that we continue to think that discretion, after sentence, has the merit of allowing people to be heard who have the potential to prove to society that they can make a contribution. It is consistent with a belief in rehabilitation that is at the core of our Criminal Code provisions. It is an important principle of human dignity and how we function in society. It is a collective responsibility to think that rehabilitation is everyone's responsibility.
It is in that context that this bill has been analyzed. There are already provisions and tools in the Criminal Code that allow for individuals to be declared dangerous offenders. It is not as though our system is completely impotent when faced with crimes such as these. It does not diminish the tragedy or the sense of anguish. However, I think there are tools to handle that.
Senator Wallace: Ms. Des Rosiers, there was something in your written presentation that raised a thought in my mind in relation to your association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and your view on one particular aspect of what we are discussing today.
In your presentation, you point out that the faint hope clause brings an important element of discretion into what is otherwise a mandatory minimum sentencing regime. For first-degree murder, the mandatory minimum would be 15 years. The effect of Bill S-6 would be to increase that to 25 years.
You then go on to say that your association has long opposed mandatory minimum sentences. Do I take from that that your association would not be supportive even of the existing 15-year mandatory minimums? Should there be no mandatory minimums, but simply leave all sentencing to judicial discretion and the jury?
Ms. Des Rosiers: That is not the position we take in general, but we think there is some danger in the general idea of adding to the minimum sentences. We have continued to think that the exercise of discretion is important in a system because of the possibility of unfairness. It is important to have the ability to consider cases individually, and we should not lose this. It costs a lot of money to have a judicial system. You should have the people in it take responsibility and continue to involve themselves in making decisions.
If you remove all discretion, you are creating an automaton. It is incompatible, and you can create real unfairness. Our position is that before you decide to have minimum sentences, the evidence must be clear that there is no other way of accomplishing your goals.
In the case of murder, it was essential, for the removal of the death penalty, to distinguish between second- and first- degree murder and to make distinctions that would make it compatible with the way people want to express their outrage. However, in other circumstances, we worry a lot about the impact that minimum sentences have on the way the system will carry on and on the removal of discretion by judges generally.
Senator Wallace: Would you not agree that in addition to rehabilitation of the offenders, one of the principles of sentencing — and it is set out in the code — is denunciation of unlawful conduct? That is an important principle that is supposedly to represent societal views as to right and wrong: The more serious the crime, the more severe the penalty. In our society, those principles are important.
Would you not agree it is as a result of that principle that minimum sentencing originated — that there is a minimum penalty — and it is important that our society understand that because it represents, as much as you can, the line between right and wrong?
Ms. Des Rosiers: In our view, when a judge exercises his or her judgment in imposing a sentence, he or she must look at all the factors. Rehabilitation is one, and deterrence, both individual and societal, is also there. For us, it is important that the judge articulate this publicly. That is the process.
Having a minimum sentence prevents that articulation. It is not true that judges do not consider this or deterrence in imposing a sentence. They must and they do, and they do spell it out in the courtroom. When they exercise their discretion, in our view that is the way the system should work. You want the identification in the courtroom: This was an outrageous act and therefore I value the deterrence more than your process of rehabilitation.
When you impose a minimum sentence, you remove that process of identification. It becomes more of an automaton. I think that is the loss. The loss is this process.
In my previous life, I did a lot of work for sexual abuse victims; that was my work. The process of recognizing officially, publicly, why this is serious was important. It is the affirmation of what is important.
It is not only the result that matters; it is also what goes on. The way it is expressed, the way society acknowledges what has gone on is an important part. People may disagree about the long-term impact of minimum sentences, but certainly the loss of this discretion by judges, in our view, is a real loss for us collectively. It is in that context that we have put it forward. It does create some unfairness in the system at times, and it is in this context that we have continued to study the problem.
Senator Wallace: In reality, discretion in the system as we have it today does not exist, in the case of first-degree murder, up to 15 years. It is a mandatory minimum because society has said that is the minimum penalty. To me, the issue before us is whether it is appropriate then to extend that mandatory minimum from 15 to 25 years. In other words, is that now a more appropriate and fair denunciation of the crime than is 15 years?
Ms. Des Rosiers: Our view is no. In a sense, there are too many differences between offenders. There are too many different crimes, and it is important for society to continue to have a belief in rehabilitation.
Senator Wallace: From the viewpoint of offenders that makes sense. On the other side, victims seem to say a 25-year minimum is, for our society, a more appropriate denunciation of first-degree murder than 15 years. There are two perspectives.
Ms. Des Rosiers: Certainly.
Senator Raine: Sitting here reflecting on what we have heard today, I think it is obvious that Mr. Sauvé is on one end of the spectrum and a psychopath is on the other end of the spectrum. We have heard about the impacts on victims — their fears and the trauma they go through knowing these faint hope clauses will introduce uncertainty for them.
Mr. Sauvé, you talked about how difficult it was for you to prepare for an application for the faint hope clause. Have ever really thought about how difficult it is on the other side for the victims to know that this may come up again and again?
I would like to ask you two things. First, you said in the beginning that you did not kill anyone, and yet you were convicted of first-degree murder. If I take you at your word, you are not a murderer, so you do not necessarily look at the situation the way someone who has accepted that he or she is a murderer would. Could you comment on that? How might that have impacted how you went through your process of rehabilitation? I commend you on that; I think it is marvellous what have you done.
Mr. Sauvé: I should not be commended on —
Senator Raine: Not the act, but the rehabilitation, yes.
Mr. Sauvé: I think about that every day. I saw Bill get shot. I have nightmares about it. I think about it every day. It is an indelible mark on my memory and will never go away.
One of the things that I like to think I have done — and other people as well — to show some respect to Bill and to his family is to do better. That is why I talk to so many young people in the community. That is why I became a child and youth worker and worked with inner-city kids, to hopefully share my experiences and talk about what happened. That is why I was willing to come here today and expose myself. It is why I do media presentations and say, "I was convicted of first-degree murder." It is something that I live with every day and will for the rest of my life.
Senator Raine: This is a question I ask to both of you: Do you think there would be any value in the system's having at the front end of the application for parole an obligation to seek forgiveness from the victims before you appear before the judge? I do not know how it could be done, but I think there are many cases where forgiveness is very healing. There are other cases where the pain is so deep that you should respect that they cannot go through the process.
Ms. Des Rosiers: A lot of work has been done about restorative justice. Many programs do actually work well. It is too bad that we always focus on the failures of our system and rarely insist on what the successes are and why indeed at times the investment we have made in these systems of rehabilitation have produced something.
Not everyone wants to be involved. Some victims decide not to participate. Having moved on, they have decided something else. It depends. Everyone heals differently, and we should respect that process.
It is not what we had in mind. It is difficult to imagine exactly how it would work. I would want to study what is going on now in the Correctional Service of Canada and all the ways victim-offender mediation has occurred and what the result of it is.
Mr. Sauvé: My wife ran a victim-offender mediation program, a restorative justice program in Toronto, in the Jane- Finch area. In one of her training sessions, she went to Texas and met with a group of people. One woman there was a survivor of a violent crime; a family member of hers was murdered, and the person who killed her family member and attacked her was executed. She disclosed at this training session that there was no sense of closure for her, and she now campaigns against the death penalty.
We all hope that people can forgive. We all hope that people can move on with their lives, but there will never be that sense of closure for people. There is a feeling of loss that will always be present.
To ask a victim to come forward and ask whether they are willing to forgive is in a sense revictimizing them. Now we are imposing our hope that they will heal. I have talked to victims' groups. It is difficult to stand up in front of a group of people who have had loved ones murdered and say, "I am a convicted murder; I was convicted of first-degree murder," and then ask, "Would you forgive me?" It is difficult to impose that on people. They may never come to terms. I do not know whether they would want to. I have sat in on parole hearings where the victim has gotten up and hugged the perpetrator afterwards. It is one of those things where it is a journey, not a destination, and some people may never achieve that.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: You talked about the unfairness of the system that would be brought about with the repeal of the "faint hope clause." But is the "faint hope clause" not also somewhat unfair towards the victims? Those involved will for 15 years keep wondering if the offender will apply or not under the "faint hope clause.' Some offenders decide to not apply so as to avoid having the victims appear. Others do apply and the victims are thus placed before the following choice: they either testify and relive the crime, or they do not testify, thus increasing the chances of the convicted offender of obtaining early parole. It seems that in some cases they decide, even though they are present, to not testify. Do you not find that is also somewhat unfair to the victim?
Ms. Des Rosiers: Each person is placed in a different situation. The same process comes into play after 25 years. The same process will therefore in any event be followed. There is always the possibility that the individual will apply for parole after 25 years. So you are saying that there are ten more years of hoping. The issue is that the process does not have an effect on each and every victim. There are victims for which the process is in the past and it is over, thanks to mediation or something else again.
In our view, the discretion that exists within the system certainly has consequences, but it perhaps invites us to reaffirm our confidence or at least our commitment towards rehabilitation. It is difficult to see things this way, but it is a matter of placing one's trust in human dignity, recognizing the possibility that some people will change and become good citizens.
I believe that one of the difficulties lies in attempting to decide ahead of time what the response of a normal victim or of a typical inmate will be. I believe it is very difficult to do so and that one can only speculate. Our point here is simply that, in a way, we are going to require that 130 individuals, who have benefited from the "faint hope clause," remain in prison for another ten years, and we will therefore have to pay for these people during that period. That is the issue.
The Chair: Unfortunately, that is all the time we have. Thank you very much.
[English]
A very quick point of information from Senator Joyal.
Senator Joyal: In answer to some of Senator Lang's inquiries about dangerous offenders, section 753 of the code says quite clearly that if the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. In other words, a person can get more than 25 years for first-degree murder if the court is convinced it is a case where, as Mr. Sauvé said, a psychopath is involved, someone who is so psychologically disturbed and has no hope of recovery. The court can make that decision at the moment of sentencing, if the Crown would apply.
Ms. Des Rosiers: It is important to refer to the international data, though. I understand the point that maybe now 25 years is a more appropriate sentence —
The Chair: We do have that information, and it has been referred to a number of times in our hearings. I am not cutting you off on something that the senators do not know about.
Thank you both so much. Colleagues, this has been a truly instructive morning. We shall meet again next Wednesday in this room, and we shall probably be seeking permission from the Senate to meet outside our normal sitting time, which is to say at 12:30 next Wednesday.
(The committee adjourned.)