Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 25, Evidence - February 4, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 4, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), met this day at 4:16 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good day and welcome colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We are here today to begin our deliberations on Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), which proposes to give greater discretion to the Parole Board of Canada with respect to the time between parole and statutory release hearings for certain violent offenders. The bill also proposes to allow the Parole Board to cancel hearings in certain circumstances.
Bill C-479 was originally introduced in the House of Commons in February 2013 by David Sweet, Member of Parliament for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale in Ontario. The bill was reinstated by the house at the start of the current session. This is our first meeting on Bill C-479.
As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also available via webcast on the www.parl.gc.ca website. You can find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under "Senate Committees."
For our first panel today, please welcome the sponsor of the bill, David Sweet, Member of Parliament for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale. Mr. Sweet, welcome to the committee. The floor is yours for opening comments.
David Sweet, M.P., Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough— Westdale, sponsor of the bill: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, members of the committee. It's my pleasure to be here with you today to discuss Bill C-479, An Act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders.
I think it's all the more poignant that our committee meeting is today. I guess if you're over here, you can still say the other place. I know when we're in the house, we say the other place. Being debated in the house today is the Victims Bill of Rights, so it's most appropriate that we're talking about Bill C-479 as well.
Before I get into my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to acknowledge the work you did as Solicitor General, Minister of Correctional Services and Minister of Public Safety and Security in the Government of Ontario. Your record as a strong and compassionate voice for victims of crime is very commendable. It's an honour for me to be here to present on my bill in front of you.
I'd also like to recognize the honourable senator representing Lasalle, Quebec, Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu. The honourable senator has been an invaluable house resource and a friend to me in bringing forward this bill. That's because he knows first-hand the tragic pain and suffering that victims and their families feel when living through their ordeals and dealing with the Canadian criminal justice system. I thank him for his advice, support and for shepherding the bill through the Senate.
I'd also like to thank Mona Lee, who is with me today. This is her second trip here. Of course, she has experienced tragedy that she will testify to on the second panel. I appreciate her taking this time out of her life to travel here and give testimony.
Of course, as to our victims' ombudswoman, I'd better not start on too much because I'll be so overflowing that I'll just take up all of my time, but I'm so thankful for the great work that she has done and the assistance that she gave me.
As well, my former legislative assistant, who is behind me to my right, Stephan Rose, really shepherded this bill and did a lot of the work through a number of its iterations.
Thank you to all members of this committee for your interest in this legislation. I know some senators spoke to Bill C-479 during second reading in the upper chamber, and I look forward to your questions, comments and reflections this afternoon.
Mr. Chair, over the past five years in which I have been working on this bill, I've had hundreds of conversations, including many with some of the witnesses that you will hear from this afternoon, and they have taught me a lot along the way. But, as always, I must start with the circumstances that led me to bring forth this legislation in its current form. It was back in the summer of 2010, when a well-respected couple in the community that I represent contacted me and asked me to attend a Parole Board hearing with them. They wanted their federal representative to see firsthand what the process was like and the voice given to victims and their families.
So I travelled with them to Gravenhurst, Ontario, to attend the Parole Board hearing of my constituent's brother-in-law, who, in a very violent and heinous act, murdered his wife and his two young children. The bodies of the mother and the daughter were found by local police in the waterways of the Welland Canal, but, to this day, the body of the murderer's son and my constituent's nephew has never been found. It was a violent and brutal crime.
Mr. Chair, when I agreed to attend, I knew it would be an emotional experience. I trusted that it would also be educational, and it was both.
Having said that, Mr. Chair, as long as I live, I'll never forget that day and some very specific details of it. I think you can imagine the raw emotion within the room. The tears began before the familiar words of the victim impact statement came out. The memories of a crime committed over 30 years previously came flooding back, and the tears did not stop.
Mr. Chair, even though my constituent had attended the Parole Board hearings dutifully over the years, she couldn't help the overwhelming feeling of being re-victimized again and again. While those of us who have not gone through such an experience can't fully understand the pain, we can certainly empathize. Having to deliver the statement year after year is cruel, frustrating and, frankly — one of the reasons I brought forth the bill — in many cases, unnecessary. I watched the family endure the same process again in 2011 and again in 2013. My constituent's statement asked the same questions of the convicted murderer each time: Why did you kill your family? What did you do with your son?
Sadly, she never gets a response to that. The offender just sits there without expression on his face. It's because he feels no remorse. This is something that the Parole Board noted carefully in their last decision to deny him full parole again in 2013.
Watching it in person, I can tell you that it's a tragically dramatic example of re-victimization. I know, in researching this bill, that there are far worse examples. It's as if the worst of these violent offenders get some perverse enjoyment out of watching the victims and their families suffer. The very worst are those offenders who wait until the very last minute to withdraw from the process without explanation — with the victims and family already there, emotionally drained in preparation for the hearing, having their bags packed — as if to mock the system and inflict more pain on the victims. Mr. Chair, that's why the crux of Bill C-479 is to give the Parole Board of Canada the discretion to do what's right, the tools to ensure that the parole process is as fair to victims and their families as it is to offenders.
By extending mandatory review periods for parole, the Parole Board of Canada, whose job it is to make a decision based on sound judgment and consideration of all appropriate facts, will have more options.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, you will hear from witnesses tomorrow who will say that this is punitive and that it costs too much. Please allow me to quickly touch on those points in my opening statement. Of course, I welcome further discussion when we get to the questions.
I will respectfully disagree with those who say that the provisions of Bill C-479 are punitive. To me, it's about common decency. It's about common respect and fairness for victims, and it's about common sense.
In Bill C-479, we are giving the Parole Board of Canada tools to do their job in the most violent cases. That is all. Nothing precludes the Parole Board of Canada from shorter review periods. They would still have the discretion to make that judgment. That is what we trust them to do.
Mr. Chair, in terms of the cost implications, there are a lot of assumptions that would mean that the most violent offenders would be incarcerated too long. I think a fact check is in order here. For context, there are over 13,000 inmates in federal custody. That figure was 13,758 in 2010-11. The majority are not there for violent offences. So these changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act would not apply to them.
But beyond the statistics, let's ask ourselves realistically: Would Clifford Olson have been paroled at all, let alone sooner? Would the triple murderer of my constituent's family have been granted parole in 2010 or 2011 or 2013? Would the murderer of Mona Lee's sister?
Mr. Chair, the other criticism that has been raised about Bill C-479 is that victims should not have access to the degree and detail of information about the offender that this bill would allow them. If critics are saying that victims should not have the right to information on the dates, condition of release and whether the offender will be travelling to a destination in the vicinity of the victim, then I, again, respectfully and strongly disagree.
If this were your son, daughter, husband or wife, would you not want to know that the offender was going to be in your community and when? This is only fair and reasonable.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, there is much more that I could say on the Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders. However, in the interests of time, I will defer to your questions and comments.
Please allow me to conclude my statement this afternoon by asking you to bear in mind three key points as you listen to the testimony and consider Bill C-479.
First, as I have noted again today, this bill is about giving the Parole Board of Canada the discretion they need when it comes to violent offenders. It offers discretion for extended review periods, not a prescription.
Second, I would note that Bill C-479 passed in the House of Commons unanimously. That is, all members of the House supported this bill, representing all walks of life, from every region of this country, many with backgrounds as lawyers, many who have served as ministers of the Crown at the provincial and federal level and, of course, those who do so today, each with the independence of thought, resources and capabilities to give due consideration to the provisions of this bill, each having understood the recommendations that the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has made and that victims groups have advocated for decades. I think this speaks volumes about the consensus that victims and their families need to be treated fairly. It speaks volumes about the consensus on the need to act and act now.
Third, I must continue to emphasize that this bill is about violent offenders. It's about the worst crimes committed against Canadians. These are real stories, real lives that have been turned upside down and real action that needs to be taken now.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, victims have waited long enough. Please help bring Bill C-479 to fruition and offer those victims a modicum of fairness, peace and comfort.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sweet. We will begin questions with the Deputy Chair, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: I wish to thank David Sweet, who has been vigorously trying to enact this legislation or similar legislation now for years. As he pointed out, it unanimously passed in the House of Commons. It was unanimous in votes and during the House of Commons' committee hearings as well.
Mr. Sweet, you're at the final stages now for the passage of the legislation. There were many portions of the bill that were changed by amendment, both in the committee and at report stage in the House of Commons. As with other private members' bills that have gotten to this committee, amendments are sometimes made to legislation that you did not initiate but that were initiated by the committee and by the committee members, which sometimes gives some people problems with the legislation.
I wonder: Could somebody pass along to Mr. Sweet this section of the standing committee in which an amendment was made? I'll just read a portion of the amendment that was made and is now in your bill.
Clause 7(3) of the bill relates to certain subsections of the bill that:
. . . apply in respect of an offender even if they were sentenced, committed or transferred to a penitentiary before the day on which this section comes into force.
I forwarded to you the reasoning given for the moving of that amendment. I want to just read it into the record. The reason for this amendment, that offenders currently serving a sentence will be covered by the bill; as the bill was drafted, it would only apply to offenders who had not yet been sentenced at the time the law was changed. And, in fact, we wouldn't see the results of this particular bill until many years into the future.
You didn't comment on this section, and I don't think any other member referenced it because it wasn't perhaps examined thoroughly after it was passed.
Senator Joyal is asking who proposed the amendment. It was Ms. Roxanne James. Mr. Sweet, isn't she the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice?
Mr. Sweet: Public Safety.
Senator Baker: Public Safety. What is your opinion on this section and what she said the intent of this clause of your bill is, that as the bill was constructed, it would only apply to offenders who had not yet been sentenced at the time the law was changed and in fact we would not see the fruits of this particular bill until many years into the future? What do you think of the intent of that particular amendment?
Mr. Sweet: First off, Senator Baker, thank you very much for your kind words and your preamble. I appreciate it. This measure has involved a lot of work and there have been many victims who have consulted with me. More important, they are waiting for the fruition of it, so thank you very much.
Senator Baker: You've appeared before the Parole Board, haven't you?
Mr. Sweet: Yes, multiple times. With regard to the amendment, I know you're aware, because you are very experienced, senator, that legislation by its very nature is not retroactive. I thought the amendment in its fullness — if we look at it, the amendment was three paragraphs — was designed so that the next review pending for someone who is already sentenced would still fall under the regular provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as it is now, but at the next review the Parole Board of Canada would have the discretions that the bill has in place. So I felt it was a thoughtful amendment that would allow those who are going to be dealing with the Parole Board process, victims and victims' families, to have some solace that now the Parole Board of Canada has that discretion.
I didn't mention it in my opening remarks, but the experience that I've had with the Parole Board of Canada is that these are very well trained, professional people. In fact, I particularly remember the first one because Mr. Rallo was surprised that he had the same Parole Board member that he had had three times before. The gentleman actually had files about this high. There was some institutional memory, which allowed the Parole Board member to deal with this case in a circumspect and knowledgeable way that a brand new Parole Board member may not be able to. I trust that they would really be able to use these tools so that in a case where there is a violent offender who has proven through their incarceration that their intention is to be reformed, to be ready to be released into the community, to be a contributing citizen, to make recompense for their crimes, that they have the option still to have the review earlier, if of course the offender applies. So I felt the amendment was a fair one. It was a good balance for victims to be able to see some fruits of the bill as well as fair to offenders because their next review would be traditional under what is the status quo.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you for agreeing to testify before the committee. Congratulations on this bill, which I am honoured to sponsor in the Senate on behalf of all victims.
In the past, victims have frequently been harassed by those who committed crimes against them. Criminals would often decide not to appear before the Parole Board and would start harassing their victims again. The Olson case was the most unfortunate one. During his incarceration, he failed to appear a dozen times, while the victims' families were informed of this only a few hours before the hearing. That places tremendous pressure on families that have also lost a loved one, often in horrific circumstances. Therefore, I strongly support this bill.
I have a few somewhat more technical questions for you. When I wrote the presentation I would make in the Senate at third reading, I wondered whether victims were informed. When a criminal is released, is the victim informed of that development within 14 days? Is that right?
[English]
Mr. Sweet: Correct.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I often meet victims, and their main wish is to be informed before the criminal is released. In many cases, victims run into the person who committed a crime against them in public — at a shopping centre or on the street — while not even knowing the offender was released. I am wondering why victims are not informed before the criminal is released?
[English]
Mr. Sweet: Thank you for the question, senator. In substance and principle, I agree 100 per cent with you. I think the sooner we can get the information to victims, the safer that they'll feel and the earlier they can take action if they need to, if the person is going to be close to their community and they decide that they want to take some kind of initiative to feel safer.
That said, as I mentioned in my notes, the further down the road I got in dealing with this subject, there are also complications in trying to get that information out, sometimes just for general security, sometimes because of the complex nature of the relationship between Corrections Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. But I think that the signal has been sent very clearly that we want that information to get out as quickly as we can, save and except for the one exception we had in the bill and that is if for some reason that information being made public will imperil the safety of the offender being released.
I don't like hypotheticals usually but just for illustration for the committee, if, for example, he committed an offence with multiple other people and he served as a witness against them or something in this case and his release may put him in jeopardy of reprisal, then there is the provision for them to withhold that information simply because it would put the offender in serious danger in regard to that kind of situation. We can probably think of hundreds of them, but that would be the one exception.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Victims are the ones who are put in grave danger. There have been a few such cases. The most notable one is that of the Quebec police officer, Sandra Dion, who was threatened by the imprisoned criminal. He said he would assault her again after his release. Our system provides very little in the way of provisions to protect victims once criminals have been released. We have very few means of protecting our victims.
Therefore, if victims are informed of at-risk criminals being released after the fact, does that not expose them to greater danger?
[English]
Mr. Sweet: We're making sure there is a minimum time that is not there right now. Certainly we want to do everything we can to advise them and keep them safe. I felt this provision was one that, while not in existence now, would give the Parole Board and Corrections Canada ample time to get their house in order and notify the victim, but you have my heart and soul on this, senator. When you're weighing these things you're not only looking at the technical complexities of the relationship between Corrections Canada and the Parole Board but also how much you can get into a bill, the size and scope and severity of the bill, and what will be acceptable to them. As I said, you have my heart. I would have liked to have gone further myself.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Mr. Sweet, for your presentation. I think this bill certainly has some merit. However, I have a question in relation to the amendment that was brought in the other place. As my colleague Senator Baker has referred to, that was introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety. When that bill was debated and amended, I understand it was before the Supreme Court made its decision public in the case of Attorney General of Canada v. Whaling. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Sweet: No, I'm not.
Senator Joyal: The problem I have is simple. When that amendment was introduced, it had the impact of bringing a retrospective effect into the bill, and that was the purpose of the amendment, as you stated yourself. When I quote your words, it's not verbatim; I was not fast enough to write them down. But you said it's so that we see presently, for those who are there, what the impact of that bill will be immediately. So for this bill to have an impact immediately, it has to be retrospective. In other words, it has to apply to those who have been sentenced before that bill comes into force. I see you nodding. Unfortunately, the minutes of this committee do not register that, but I think that you can answer if my interpretation is right according to what you said.
Mr. Sweet: Senator Joyal, what I said was that the next review for the offender will be under the present conditions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Any subsequent review would then be governed by the amendment that is in the bill now, should it get Royal Assent and become law. It's going to be up to you here, obviously, and third reading in the Senate.
Senator Joyal: However, the problem I have is that the Supreme Court has clearly decided the principle of retrospective application in relation to Parole Board conditions in a decision that was made public last spring, after this amendment was introduced.
I quote the Supreme Court decision at paragraph 8, and I don't know if you have the decision of the court with you or not. Maybe the clerk can give Mr. Sweet the decision. It's page 399 of the decision of the Supreme Court, and it's paragraph 8 that I would like to read.
Paragraph 8 states the following:
The question before this Court is whether the retrospective application of the delayed eligibility for day parole to incarcerated offenders who had been sentenced before the APR provisions were repealed violated the respondents' right, guaranteed by section 11(h) of the Charter, not to be punished anew for their offences.
The court continues at paragraph 9:
This appeal affords the Court the opportunity to revisit the purpose of section 11(h) and to define its scope. For the reasons that follow, I find that section 11(h) applies to the respondents' claim. The retrospective application of delayed day parole eligibility violated the respondents' section 11(h) right not to be "punished . . . again", and that violation was not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
The decision was given by Justice Wagner on behalf of the court. And it's a unanimous decision of the court.
The problem is that we now have a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the very principle of retrospectivity in respect to Parole Board condition applications. In my opinion, clause 7(3) of your bill is unconstitutional on the basis of that decision. I can understand the purpose of the amendment, as you stated, is certainly an objective that one can have in mind, but it runs contrary to a decision of the court. I think that if we are called to approve this bill in its present shape and form, I'm not in a position to support that clause of the bill on the basis of the Supreme Court of Canada decision after the bill was adopted by the House of Commons committee.
It is one of the functions of this committee to look into the constitutionality of bills in relation to various sections of the Charter and in that case, in my opinion, it's a clear infringement upon a principle that the court has recognized as being of application in relation to Parole Board conditions. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Sweet: Senator Joyal, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Since I'm not familiar with the case in its entirety, and also the entirety of the judgment that you just delivered to me now, it would be unwise for me to comment in that regard. But certainly it would be the job of the committee to decide whether the substance of the case and the substance of the judgment directly refer to what we're dealing with here and then, of course, you'll make your decisions in regard to the bill that's before you.
The way the amendment was framed was one that was circumspect, but I will leave those decisions in your hands.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. Sweet. Far be it from me to ever want to willfully support an NDP amendment, but the NDP did offer an amendment in the other place. That was referring to the fact that if a victim could not attend, that they be allowed to attend by video conference, something to that effect, and I believe the Toronto Police are somewhat supportive of that. Is there a reason you can give as to why the people in the other place did not want to receive that amendment?
Mr. Sweet: No. I don't think I would ever speak for a committee, and I won't speak for this one. I know that committees have their own destiny and are the masters of that, but I will say I'm confident with the Victims Bill of Rights that is being debated right now, those are the kinds of things the government will be focused on in the days ahead.
Senator Plett: We will be hearing from Mr. McCormack, and they had one more concern, so maybe you can address this. Maybe it was only at committee as well, so I support that you can't speak on behalf of their committee.
They said:
We also support proposed subsection 140(11), but leave you with this observation. If the victim cannot attend a hearing, they "may" submit a written and/or video impact statement to the board, but you might consider adding that the board shall receive it as evidence . . .
Was that discussed anywhere other than at committee in the other place? Do you know anything about that?
Mr. Sweet: No. Again, my experience with the board is that the wording still affords that they would be able to use those different technologies. Frankly, there's probably going to be some review at the board level of their capability of receiving different kinds of technology.
When I was at the Parole Board hearings that I witnessed over the three times, some of the capability at these institutions is pretty rudimentary, so I'm certain that they'll have to get up to speed with some high-speed internet and the kind of things that will require that. I think they'll be open to that as well.
Senator Plett: I won't debate that. I'll just leave you with this observation: I think some of the reason that we want to get some tighter laws, such as this good bill that you are presenting here, is that we want to take it out of the hands of people just being able to make a decision and trust that they will make the right decision. Thank you.
Mr. Sweet: I agree with you.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Sweet, for your presentation. As I understand it, there are two key components to your bill. The first is strengthening the voice of victims of violent crime. The second is modifying parole and detention-review dates. As I understand it, your bill is proposing changes that have been enacted by other jurisdictions such as California, the U.K. and New Zealand. Could you elaborate a bit on that, please?
Mr. Sweet: That's correct. You'll know, if you heard my testimony from the committee in the other place, that I specifically cited some of the work that had been done in New Zealand, Australia and the U.K. with regard to exactly these kind of things with respect to victims being able to have more of a voice, as well as the capability of having some discretion with regard to how an offender actually manages their own rehabilitation. So you're right; this isn't something that we're doing singularly. There is a lot of research out there, lots of practice, lots of best practices, lots of benchmarks that we can investigate and see that these are good practices and have good outcomes for those offenders who are released.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Sweet. I want to talk to you about the latitude of the Parole Board, which tends to extend periods between hearings. Does the extension of periods between hearings change inmates' behaviour, and perhaps even affect the prison environment?
[English]
Mr. Sweet: I think that it will give the Parole Board the capability to say, when an inmate has shown absolutely no initiative to reform or rehabilitate — someone mentioned the case of Clifford Olson — when they have publicly, disdainfully taunted the victim over and over again using media, "If you're not going to fulfill what would be a reasonable responsibility of trying to reform yourself into a contributing Canadian citizen, then what's the sense of us hearing a case that we'll simply be saying no to anyway?" So I think it gives them those kinds of options. Rather than bringing a victim's family all the way up every two years to do that, they can put that off until five years if that's what's warranted.
Senator Fraser: I apologize for arriving late, Mr. Sweet, but I did try to read up on your bill when I got here. I'm very grateful for the chance to hear what I have been able to hear of your views.
I'd like to come back to this question of the Whaling decision that you now have before you. In paragraph 38 of that decision, the court refers to punishment — that is, limitations on accessibility of parole — punishment imposed without the protections afforded by a trial. It compares what was done for day parole in the impugned provisions discussed in this judgment and, too, says it is punishment imposed without the protections afforded by a trial.
In what way do you think your bill would escape being found to impose punishment without the protections afforded by a trial? I'm not asking you for a Supreme Court judgment here. I'm asking you for your judgment as the father and the grandfather of this bill.
Mr. Sweet: Thank you. I'm glad you're not asking for that. I would certainly imperil myself if I stuck my neck out that far.
I think it's important for me to restate the fact that, not being intimately familiar with the case or the judgment, I couldn't comment on it, but I can comment in this way: In no way, shape or form was the intention of the bill to be punitive. Not in the least. The intention of the bill — the wording of the bill — is designed to give the Parole Board of Canada tools in the cases of the most violent offenders. I've named a couple already and could go on. In fact, one of our previous witnesses in the House of Commons, Terri Prioriello, faced having her sister murdered by a very violent offender, who actually, she testified, threatened her within the Parole Board hearing, or just at the end of the Parole Board hearing, when people weren't looking.
We're talking about those people who have decided that they want to be the worst offenders and are going to stay that way. That's primarily what the intention of this bill is, for the Parole Board of Canada to have the capability to simply delay a review. I should say to you, as well, because of the paragraph that you read, that now the Parole Board conducts reviews without hearings. Sometimes those are negative, and sometimes those are positive. Families only find out about those through a letter afterward saying that they reviewed the file. In fact, in one case that I'm very familiar with, they reviewed the file and gave partial parole to an offender. The family found out about it without having had the ability to be at the hearing.
So there are all kinds of ways that the Parole Board of Canada is operating right now. The intention of this amendment was not punitive but, again, to give the Parole Board of Canada the proper tools to handle the cases that come before them and those cases that they're aware of even before the hearing.
Senator Fraser: Okay. I won't harass you on that issue.
Senator Batters: Thank you for coming before the committee and speaking about your important bill. I wonder if you could tell us, for the record, when you first introduced this bill in the House of Commons. Do you happen to have that information? My information is that it was February 27, 2013. Does that sound correct? If you're not sure, maybe you could —
Mr. Sweet: I apologize. That's one of the things about being here on the Hill. Everything is kind of a blur.
Senator Batters: It blends together, yes.
Mr. Sweet: But I would be glad to source that and get it back to the committee.
Senator Batters: If you could, that would be very helpful. Thank you.
I'm interested in the portion of your bill that would give victims and their families the ability to access transcripts of parole hearings, and I'm wondering if you could tell us why you view that as important and where that idea came from.
Mr. Sweet: Yes. I'm very glad you asked that question. Right now, there's only audio that's being done at the Parole Board of Canada.
Senator Batters: Sorry, only what? Audio?
Mr. Sweet: Only audio recordings there. Part of the intention was to send a signal that, as quasi-judicial boards, I think part of the legal evolution should be that they get an official transcript. These are hearings of very serious matters. They aren't now, but it is my sincere hope that these will be treated just like legislation, any other legal document, any other kind of transcript from a trial, and that then the victim will have access to it. Of course, removing any information that may imperil some other innocent person who is involved in the hearing whose testimony or verbiage may be recorded. You want to make sure that any third parties are protected.
Senator Batters: Okay. Could you also tell us a little bit about what discretionary tools this bill gives to the Parole Board?
Mr. Sweet: Primarily, it gives them the capability to prolong review in cases that they're well familiar with. Again, I want to remind the committee that we're talking about the most violent offenders here. We're not talking about any kind of minor theft offences or anything. These are serious, violent offences. It gives them the opportunity to postpone that review when they don't see evidence of the need to have one. So it's a five-year capability, a window of five years.
Again, I remind the committee that if the person is diligent and wants to rehabilitate and be a contributing citizen, I believe the Parole Board will recognize that and has the capability of having a review much earlier. It's five years in the case of a regular review; where a person's parole is rejected because they reoffended while they were out, it's within four years.
Senator McInnis: We will have to review the Whaling decision that the veteran Senator Joyal has dropped on us this afternoon. We have heard about it but we haven't read it. From what I listened to what he had to say, there appears to be some merit, but that's not what I wanted to get into today.
When you did this exhaustive work that you have done — and this may be an appropriate question as well for the ombudsman's office for victims — a person is innocent until proven guilty before the court, but there's a long legal process from the time that the charge is laid and the alleged offender goes through the court system. I may have missed some, but you have the plea, normally not guilty, setting down for trial, compiling the evidence, the victim impact statement at the end of the day, the trial and all the brutal evidence that comes out, the sentencing and all this type of thing.
You're talking about a process, minimum, of probably two years, if you go through the appeal process, and perhaps longer. So during your research into the victims and what they have to go through, was there any consideration of keeping the victims informed? I've often seen them in the court and they're there in the courtroom and very little attention is paid to them. Sometimes the media will speak to them, but nothing else. Did your research take you into that area at all?
Mr. Sweet: First, on behalf of victims, thank you for bringing that up. No, I was focused specifically on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, but we've had many conversations with victims. Some police forces have victims' services that are quite robust and very responsive, and others are lacking. I have heard those stories, many of them.
Senator McInnis: The release of the offender into the community, it's suggested that notification be given to the victims. Sometimes an offender has been rehabilitated, and I can understand the hope that they would not be put in the exact community, in a small area. Take, for example, a large city like Toronto. No one would want them to go to an area where the victims are, but do you agree that there should be some restriction? Of course, with all of this information going out, whether it's a correction plan and the content of that and all that type of thing, we have social media today and the damning effect that can have. Did you give any consideration to that?
Mr. Sweet: Much consideration. One of the things that I did recognize from cases that I got intimately involved with as well as those whose stories I heard, all of them are different. All of them have their unique twists and turns.
If I haven't, I should just signal my appreciation for the Parole Board of Canada because their job is extremely hard, dealing with each one of these individual cases and all the nuances of them, such as the state of the offender, the victims' concerns, the community's broader concerns, the capability of having services that are available.
We are intimately aware of that in downtown Hamilton where we had a corrections release facility and one of the offenders being released went across the road to Jackson Square shopping mall and stabbed a woman 17 times. These are extraordinarily difficult things, where to put an individual who has had their sentence served and to do it in a way that is supportive of them and at the same time provides protection for the community at large and for the victims.
In fact, I almost quoted from the 1998 document that explained why the Corrections and Conditional Release Act came into effect, which was to try to balance all of those things that are extremely difficult.
Senator Baker: The only question I have — I suppose an observation — is that the amendment that Senator Joyal is concerned about and that we discussed was brought up, of course, at the last stages of the committee hearings. It was brought up at the end of the process and wasn't discussed after that. It wasn't part of your original bill. I wanted to put that on the record, that it wasn't part of the bill you had tabled, that it was an addition that was put on, and the wording that applies, "even if the person has been sentenced," was not part of the original bill.
But congratulations again. You've done a great job on this subject over the years. It was 2011 when you started this, by the way, for the benefit of the senator who asked the question.
Mr. Sweet: You did that very fast. I was just going to mention that the first iteration was February 10, 2011, that's correct, and the current version is February 27, 2013.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: You are currently studying a monumental piece of legislation in the House of Commons. I'm talking about the Victims Bill of Rights, which we hope will be passed this week.
I think this bill constitutes an important step toward passing the Victims Bill of Rights, as our objective is to ensure that victims are well protected and are involved in a criminal's release process, which they have historically been completely left out of it. How do you view this complementarity between the bill and the Victims Bill of Right, which should be passed soon?
[English]
Mr. Sweet: Thank you for that. I think there is as well. Thank you for the compliment. I certainly hope it's one of the initial steps in fulfillment of the goals and vision of the Victims Bill of Rights.
Senator Fraser: I think this is a yes or no answer. Ms. James, when she brought in this amendment, said that the government moves to amend this bill by doing such-and-such. Normally, government bills concerned with the justice system are vetted for constitutionality by the Department of Justice. Do you know if this amendment was vetted by the Department of Justice?
Mr. Sweet: No, this was an amendment that was introduced at the committee. I can assure you that in regard to the substance of Bill C-479 that I drafted, we had a cadre of lawyers. We have the good fortune, as you certainly do in the Senate, of having those resources as members. In fact, some of the questions that were asked here today were the push-pull of how much I would like to see happen and how much they felt was constitutional. Some of my restraint was due to the fact that we needed to also take into consideration the constitutionality of every provision that is in Bill C-479.
Mr. Chair, is there any time left that I might —
The Chair: We have another panel sitting right behind you. If you want to make a quick comment, go ahead.
Mr. Sweet: I have one. There is one family I would like to recognize because they fought for years and years, and it was also someone who shares my name but is no relation. I wanted to mention that. The Toronto Police Association may refer to it more, but if I could have three or four minutes —
The Chair: No. Two minutes.
Mr. Sweet: Let me just say that Constable Michael Sweet was murdered on March 14, 1980. He was murdered by two Munro brothers and it was a heinous crime. He was a dedicated police officer who happened to be in the vicinity when these two brothers were robbing a store and took hostages. They shot Michael Sweet and then allowed him to bleed to death in front of them while the Toronto Police force tried to negotiate with them and begged them to send an ambulance to allow them to extract the wounded officer.
To go back to a point that was made earlier, the Munro brothers, and any other criminal, do their crime publicly. They are arrested publicly. They are tried publicly. The evidence is available for everybody, and they're convicted publicly. Their only request was please do the best that you can to make sure that during their incarceration, the public knows that they're making a concerted effort to reform and rehabilitate. A portion of this bill, to give information to victims on the rehabilitation plan, was in there for Michael Sweet's family so they would have some assurances that those people who are incarcerated are making a sincere effort, that they are being rehabilitated. Thank you for the indulgence, chair.
The Chair: That will be the focus, as I understand, of the Toronto Police Association's submission to the committee.
Before we close, I have been advised — I read this somewhere today but can't locate it — paragraph 63 of the Whaling decision may provide assistance to members of the committee who have concerns about the constitutional issue. Thank you, Mr. Sweet. We appreciate your appearance and submission to the committee.
For our second panel this evening, I'm pleased to introduce from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; as individuals appearing this evening, Marie-Claude Gendron and Mona Lee; and from the Toronto Police Association, the president of the association, Mr. McCormack.
Ms. O'Sullivan, do you wish to lead off?
Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime: Thank you for inviting me here to discuss Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims). I would like to begin by providing you an overview of my office's mandate. Created in 2007, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime helps victims in two main ways, individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with them every day, answering their questions and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies or programs to better support victims of crime.
I begin today by thanking Mr. Sweet for his work on this bill and for his efforts to recognize the valuable role that victims of crime have to play in the Canadian criminal justice system. It is clear to me the intention of Bill C-479 is to make the corrections and conditional release system more considerate and inclusive of victims of crime.
The bill puts forward some valuable changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would significantly enhance victims' treatment and consideration in the process, and I fully support these aspects of the bill.
Many of the changes are in line with the recommendations that our office has made in the past. I'm also pleased to see that some of the recommendations we made to the Committee on Public Safety and National Security were included in the Victims Bill of Rights.
That being said, there are some minor modifications that would further strengthen the bill. I would like to share those with the committee today.
Bill C-479 aims to address the lack of information victims receive about the offender who harmed them by providing information pertaining to the offender's correctional plan and by amending section 142 of the CCRA.
While I support both of these changes with respect to information provided, there are two things that could strengthen these new provisions.
First, even with the changes to section 142 of the CCRA outlined in this bill, some information remains at the board's discretion to provide to the victim. In keeping with my previous recommendations, I encourage members to consider amending the bill so that all information currently listed as discretionary under section 142 is disclosed to the victim automatically unless of course there is a relevant safety or security reason not to.
Second, many victims have expressed the desire to be informed of the commission of any new Criminal Code offences by the offender while under the supervision of Correctional Service Canada.
We recommend that the bill be amended to ensure that victims receive this information, either as part of the correctional plan or in a format deemed appropriate.
While ensuring that victims are properly informed is essential, it is equally important to create opportunities for victims to participate in the process and to create an environment to encourage that participation. This means providing victims with choices and options for how they can choose to participate in the criminal justice system without feeling intimidated or fearful, and without causing significant disruption to their lives and finances. One example of this is a parole hearing.
In the current system, attending or observing a parole hearing in real time is the only way a victim can obtain the most complete information about the offender who harmed them and the progress they have made. While some victims find it important and even necessary to face their offender in person at a parole hearing, others may find this idea intimidating or generally undesirable. Only in exceptional circumstances can victims request to attend the hearing via video conferencing technology or closed-circuit television.
Bill C-479 aims to address this gap by proposing that in cases where a victim or a member of his or her family has been denied the ability to attend a hearing, the board shall allow for the victim or family member to observe the hearing by any means considered appropriate by the board.
I would recommend two modifications to this proposal: That the wording be amended so it doesn't merely permit victims to observe the hearing but to participate by presenting their prepared victim statements, and that the option for a victim to observe or participate in a hearing be extended to all victims regardless of whether or not they have been denied attendance.
We must keep in mind that for some victims, work commitments, child care, caring for elderly parents or family members, financial restraints or their own emotional anxiety of being in close proximity to the offender may prohibit them from attending a hearing.
This lack of options for attending a parole hearing in and of itself wouldn't be as problematic if a victim who did not attend the hearing had choices and options for reviewing the proceedings at a later date. Bill C-479 recognizes this need and attempts to address it by providing a transcript to the victim or family member if one has been made.
Unfortunately, while this clause has the victims' needs in mind, our office understands it is not currently the practice for transcripts to be made. Instead, audio recordings are kept as records of the parole hearing proceedings.
Knowing that transcripts are not made, I had previously recommended that victims be granted access to listen to, but not keep, audio recordings of the parole hearings and that there be funding for victims to travel to locations where the recordings are stored, as necessary.
I was glad to see that portions of this recommendation were included in the Victims Bill of Rights. However, the issue was only partially addressed as the Victims Bill of Rights only allows access to audio recordings for victims who do not attend a hearing.
I therefore reiterate my recommendation that the option to access audio recordings should be available to all victims, whether or not they attend a hearing.
In conclusion, I reiterate my support for Bill C-479 and commend efforts to address some of the gaps in information, participation and consideration that currently exist in our system for victims of crime.
That being said, I believe that with the minor modifications I have suggested today, the bill could significantly help to enhance the treatment of victims of crime in Canada.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to any questions you may have.
The Chair: A reminder to witnesses to stick to the five-minute guideline as best you can, especially when we have this number of opening statements. We want to leave time for senators' questions.
Ms. Lee, please proceed.
Mona Lee, as an individual: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you to give a voice to victims and their families in support of Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).
I would like to reiterate my thanks to Mr. Sweet and his staff for all their hard work in getting this bill to this point and for his support for victims of crime in Canada.
I would also like to thank Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, for her submissions on this bill and her support for Canadian victims of crime.
By way of background, I wish I wasn't, but unfortunately I have become an expert in many of the issues that are dealt with in this bill by virtue of personal experience. My sister was savagely murdered in October 1997. He pled guilty to second-degree murder as he covered it up to appear to be a robbery and he was sentenced to life with no parole for a minimum of 12 years.
We were spared the agony of a long, drawn-out trial, but it was not until six years later, in 2003, that I was able emotionally to bring myself to even find out where he was located. Once I did that, I became involved in this system and became a "registered" victim with all its entitlements.
Beginning in 2004, which was a mere seven years after his conviction, my family and I have endured the hardship and pain that comes with being a victim involved in the parole system in Canada. His first application for day parole was denied in June 2007. To the present time, there have been six parole hearings involving six victim impact statements and the torture that goes with them. Never mind every two years, ladies and gentlemen. Some of these hearings were held six months — yes, six months — apart.
If I may, I would like to read several excerpts from my victim impact statements to show the gut-wrenching nature of these hearings and what families of victims of crime must endure. The first was from September 2008, which was a mere one year after his first application for day parole was denied. This was to the members of the Parole Board.
I want you to imagine the revulsion that I felt when I recently came home and opened yet another letter from the Parole Board advising me that he had submitted yet another application for day parole. I was told last July that it would be two years — in 2009 — before he could apply again when the minimum 12 years were up, but no, I was told that my case was "special" and that an early decision was being requested.
I then go on to mention the petition, which goes way back, to the federal government that asked for the five-year time frame instead of the two and states, in part, that families of homicide do not get parole for their suffering and repeated parole hearings can have tremendous negative effects on the families of victims by making them relive these crimes over and over again.
There was another hearing in September 2009 for full parole, which was denied, and another less than a year later, in April 2010, where he was unfortunately granted full parole. But as is the case with many of these killers, the story was not over.
In July 2013, I was notified in the middle of the night by a phone call that he had been arrested and had his parole suspended. Parole has now been revoked and he is back in prison, at least until we start this parole process all over again.
At the time he was rearrested, I was asked to do a victim impact statement wherein I stated in part that we all know how disheartening it is to hear the phone ring in the middle of the night, so you can imagine how upset I was to find out by a 3:30 a.m. phone call that he had a warrant out for his arrest yet again. In spite of strong efforts on my part of going down many avenues, I was not able to even find out what he did to cause this to happen, yet they wanted me to do a victim impact statement. Persons after person told me, "Sorry, he has his right of privacy and we can't tell you what he did." How fair is this, I ask you? As I pointed out in previous statements, where are my rights and the rights of my family?
No wonder parliamentarians have brought up Bill C-479 because each time these hearings come up we are re-victimized and we have to relive the events that caused the brutal deaths of our loved ones.
I would also like to mention a few points about the hearings themselves, some of which are addressed in the bill. As they were held in another city, and for that reason I had never been face-to-face with the killer, I chose to do my victim impact statements by audio and then by videotape. I encountered many frustrating events with the execution of my statements at these hearings. Once when I inadvertently forgot the last part of the written transcript, they cut the tape off in mid-sentence. It was about the killer's right to see at first and my voice was not heard. On another occasion, they were not even prepared with the right equipment to show the tape. I was not even allowed to show a picture of my sister in the video as I was told it was about him and not about her, if you can believe it.
As I mentioned, the true flavour of the hearing was conveyed to me only by the kind person from the victim's group who attended on my behalf.
Currently, all we receive is a sanitized decision register to protect the killer with pertinent facts blocked out to protect his privacy rights. This would be somewhat remedied by the bill's provisions to include copies of transcripts of hearings to victims if they're available, but I would encourage all involved to continue to try to provide for teleconferencing and closed circuit video feed for all victims who request it, other than just those who are denied live attendance. We need to be heard, and we need to be able to hear.
I would also ask that you consider giving victims the right to see a picture of the accused once he has been released on full parole. I was told it was against his privacy rights. This man could have showed up at my door and I would not have known who he was. The killer's rights were paramount to my and my family's safety.
The more information we are given, the better we can be prepared to participate in this system.
In conclusion, I thank you for your consideration and would say that this bill is a great beginning for helping victims of violent crime. I urge all parties and senators alike to continue to work together to allow our voices to be heard.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mike McCormack, President, Toronto Police Association: Good afternoon. My name is Mike McCormack, and I'm president of the Toronto Police Association. I want to thank you for the invitation to speak on behalf of our over 8,000 members of the Toronto Police Service. I appreciate my time is short and, in addition to my presentation, I have also submitted a more detailed document to the committee.
As Mr. Sweet alluded to earlier, I would like to give some context as to why our association is so supportive of this bill. It's sad to say that I feel that the Michael Sweet murder is a case study where the system goes completely awry and wrong.
For context, on March 14, 1980, Mike was murdered by Craig Munro. Mike was only 30 years of age when he was murdered in a savage and brutal way, tortured and left to bleed to death on the floor of a tavern in downtown Toronto, 52 Division. He was survived by his 29-year-old wife and three children; at the time they were 1, 4, and 6. As I said, all murders are brutal, but Mike's was particularly brutal and cruel, and Mike's family, the Sweet family, does not get parole from their suffering.
Munro already had an extensive criminal record and he was a very dangerous and violent man. He was charged and convicted of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Life means life. However, after 25 years, he was eligible for parole, but parole does not change the life sentence. What it does, however, is potentially relieve the offender from full consequences of their life sentence and their murderous act.
In our opinion, justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to be done if our criminal justice system is going to command public respect. The parole system is an integral part of our criminal justice system and parole is not a private remedy. Parole is a public remedy, and every aspect of the parole system must be as transparent as the rest of the criminal justice system. A murderer's privacy rights in parole hearings cannot be greater than what they were during the criminal trial proceedings. To the contrary, they should be less, because at the trial there was a presumption of innocence. That no longer applies.
Mr. Munro has had three parole hearings: in February 2009, March 2010 and March 2011. His fourth parole hearing was scheduled for August, 2012, but his privileges were revoked that same month because he breached the conditions of his unescorted temporary absences. Craig Munro is back before the Parole Board in August of this year.
Getting a transcript of a parole hearing is vital for the victims, and this is why: We have been stunned, as have Michael Sweet's widow and children, over the changing testimony of Craig Munro at each of his parole hearings before different panels of the Parole Board. This has led to inconsistent and contradictory findings of the Parole Board, at one time placing Craig Munro on the fast track to freedom. But for his own predictable breaches, he would have been paroled by now. The lies and deceptions are apparent to the victims but not to different panels of the Parole Board. There are no transcripts; there are no records. Every time he has appeared before a different Parole Board they had no context of what came before them. If our victims weren't out there, the Sweet family and representatives of the association, we would never have had a record of this; because we would have been provided with no transcripts, our availability to track where the stories had gone off the rails.
We have never seen a transcript of a Parole Board hearing and we do know the hearings are recorded, and all of our attempts to obtain a copy of the audio recordings of Mr. Munro's Parole Board hearings have been denied on the basis of Mr. Munro's privacy rights. These hearings are public and members of the media have been at some of these hearings. In our respectful view, while we supported this proposed amendment, we feel it could be improved by amending this section to include a copy of the audio recording of the public parole hearing in the event that a transcript is not available. The new section 140.2 also causes us serious concern as it gives the board the authority to delete from any transcript the offender's personal information. We do not understand why this is necessary when such considerations are not present during a criminal trial.
The annual reviews for those offenders convicted of first degree murder causes enormous hardships for the victims. No sooner is one parole hearing over than the victims have to prepare for the next one. We would suggest that unless there is some material change in circumstances, a first degree murderer sentenced to life after the first post-25-year parole hearing should not be entitled to another hearing for five years and certainly not less than three years.
We also fully support proposed section 140 (11) but leave you with this observation: If the victim cannot attend a hearing, they may submit their written and/or video impact statement to the board, but you may consider adding, "and the board shall receive it in evidence," so the victim has the option of submitting such a statement, but if the victim chooses, it is mandatory that the board receive it into evidence, underscoring its importance.
Why this is particularly important to us is Karen Fraser, Michael Sweet's widow, has attended every parole hearing. Last year she had an unfortunate accident while in Florida. She fell and broke her neck. She is confined to a wheelchair. We are hopeful she will get movement back in her limbs, but she is confined to a wheelchair so you can see where this can become a problem.
Let me end with this: Some opponents to this bill question the role of victims at parole hearings. I want to be clear about this: No victim has asked to be a victim. It was the convicted offender who made the decision to make a particular person a victim. The victim has a perspective that must be heard. It may not be determinative but it is a necessary perspective that must be considered. That is very much in the public interest.
As I said, I have already submitted a more detailed written copy of my presentation today. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear here.
[Translation]
Marie-Claude Gendron, as an individual: My name is Marie-Claude Gendron. I am appearing before you today to tell you about harmful criminal harassment I have been subjected to by a dangerous repeat offender who is still making me fear for my life and my safety. My aggressor will probably be released in February 2017, depending on the Parole Board's decision. On February 17, 2010, he was found guilty of making death threats and assaulting me with a knife. He was sentenced to two years less a day of imprisonment and three years of probation. On January 11, 2013, he reoffended by breaking and entering into my home in order to commit a crime. He is currently serving a sentence of five years less ten months.
Since that breaking and entering incident, I have been convinced that Bastien still intends to kill me and then commit suicide. To support this statement, I want to tell you about other incidents where I was a victim of assault. However, with insufficient evidence and a failure to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt, those incidents were not given full consideration in court.
On December 5, 2008, he was accused of making death threats and causing me bodily harm. Fearing his reprisal, I was very frightened, and I dropped the charges. However, the prosecutor ordered him to abide by formal conditions, which consisted in him abstaining from drinking alcohol and using drugs, as well as in undergoing psychiatric treatments. He never did any of that. When he threatened to burn me with him after an argument, I hid in my car. He smashed the window and tried to pull me out by the shoulders. I gave him an opportunity to rehabilitate by asking him to attend therapy sessions for violent men, but he of course dropped out. I'm very disappointed.
One year later, on January 9, 2010, he held me captive for two hours on the second floor of my home, with a knife to my throat. He told me he would cut me from top to bottom in the evening, but in the meantime, he would have some fun with me. When I would cry, he would see the terror in my eyes and smile, saying that my eyes were starting to look beautiful.
Finally, when he was not paying attention, I jumped down from the second floor and sought help. I knew I was dealing with a psychopath. He tried to win me back from prison by sending me two dozen roses, a love letter filled with promises he never keeps, but most importantly, by admitting that he subjected me to horrible things. I submitted the confession letter to the prosecutor. Therefore, my abuser had to plead guilty. I think that, since that day, he has wanted me dead and won't stop hounding me.
A letter from the Parole Board dated November 8, 2010 states that Bastien is still trying to write me. Officers are reporting inappropriate behaviours, suicide threats and tendencies toward avoiding responsibility that show he is not aware of his problems, including drug addiction, criminal inclinations and antisocial behaviour.
The board deems him to present a very high risk of recidivism and high needs. Therefore, he is not recommended for release. He once again managed to send me a letter through Santa Claus. I have noted that Bastien still maintains long-term thoughts and intentions involving me, especially when he writes that he would like to reconnect with me, regain my trust and would like me to agree to marry him.
Four days before Bastien was released from the provincial prison, the person in charge of victims told me that he had the words "justice" and "vengeance" tattooed on his forearms. On March 8, 2011, they tried to reassure me by saying that he would be under enhanced monitoring. On March 9, I flew to the Dominican Republic. I did not want to stay at home, since I was too afraid he would reoffend.
On March 17, 2011, while I was still in the Dominican Republic, police officers informed me that my patio door on the second floor had been kicked in, that footprints led to my bedroom and that fingerprints were found on my closet doors. Unbelievably, nothing had been stolen. I knew perfectly well that it was Bastien.
I had a restraining order issued in my neighbourhood in response to the information provided by the person in charge of victims. Despite this, nothing stopped him from trying to murder me a few days after being released. When I came back from my trip, I asked a man to move in with me.
On November 2, 2011, I gave my roommate a ride. When I came back home, I was alone. Bastien held me captive again, using a 12-gauge gun. He begged me to take him back for four hours. He told me he monitored my comings and goings for a month from the other side of the river. When he last broke and entered, on November 11, 2013, he disguised himself as a fat person to deceive the security cameras, if there were any. He also told me that he had written an eight-page suicide note in case he was found in the area.
Threatened with the 12-gauge gun, I pretended that I wanted to take him back, but told him I needed time to think about it. I fled to a shelter and —
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Gendron, sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt. We don't have much time for questions. Could I ask you to sum up, please?
[Translation]
Ms. Gendron: I am terrified at the very idea of going out, knowing that no law or monitoring system can guarantee compliance with court orders such as those for reoffenders who are forbidden from consuming alcohol or drugs, where urine, saliva or blood samples could be collected upon request. I truly fear that the next time may be the last. These are the actions of a desperate victim who has become a fugitive in order to save her life.
In closing, I would like to say that a violent repeat offender who leaves prison with the words "justice" and "vengeance" tattooed on their arms makes me fear the worst. It seems to me that an electronic bracelet would reassure the person I have become and give me an opportunity to go back to being my old self. Electronic collars are used for dogs, so that they won't get lost. The accused would wear a bracelet to stay away from me. Please make sure that he keeps well away from me before the worst happens. Despite all my misgivings about the legal system, there is still a small spark of life left in me. Help me hold onto it. Help me put an end to my fear. What would you do in my place? Thank you. A desperate victim.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We don't have a great deal of time left for questions. I'd encourage members to keep that in mind in terms of preambles. Witnesses, if you could make your responses as concise as possible, that would be helpful. All of the senators who wish to ask a question can do so. We'll begin with the Deputy Chair, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: I'll be very brief and just ask one question. I'd like to thank the witnesses who appeared here today for their extraordinary presentations on each one of the subjects.
My one question concerns a matter that was raised by the ombudsperson, by Mona Lee and by Mr. McCormack as well, and that is the fact that, as the ombudsperson put it in her presentation, she would like to see a change in the bill. Either change the bill, or bring in, in the future, a measure to accomplish what you outlined. Allow for the victim or family member to observe, as it says in the bill, the hearing by any means considered appropriate to the board. The ombudsperson says that she would recommend two modifications, that the wording be amended so that it doesn't merely permit victims to observe the hearing but to participate by reading their prepared victim statements and that the option for a victim to observe or to participate in the hearing by other means be extended to all victims. Then you point out that there are financial restraints on some people and also emotional anxiety about being in close proximity to the offender.
My question is this: We have video conferencing now for witnesses in court. We put that into the Criminal Code years ago. All jurisdictions in Canada now even have video conferencing for an accused who is in prison who they don't want to bring to the courtroom for his preliminary or for his plea and so on. Why would it be that we don't have this available for victims?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to respond by saying that, to me, it's about choice and options and about ensuring that, for the victim's safety and security concerns and the impact, they have a method to convey that and have it considered by the board. We haven't even gotten into people. Mr. McCormack spoke about somebody with limitations on ability to travel.
It shouldn't rely on the goodwill of an organization. You, as a victim of crime in this country, should have the right to have a choice and options available to you as to how you wish to participate. I can tell you that I spoke to a victim today who said, "I don't get time off work to go to parole hearings, and I can't afford to." I agree with you. We need to make it so that, as a society, we provide victims with the right to have a choice and an option about how they wish to participate.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to thank our witnesses. I see that there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that victims have equal status in the parole system. Baby steps are clearly being taken.
A lot of work is needed to change such a comprehensive system. We need to get it right. I understand your impatience and I understand that you have very high expectations, but I think our strategy is to proceed by changing what can be changed with certainty. Instead of taking huge steps and messing things up, we are taking small but successful steps.
In any event, thank you very much for your testimony. It is consistent with what we believe, at least on this side, but probably also on the side of our friends from across the table.
Ms. Gendron, I sympathise with you. It is unacceptable, in a society that calls itself civilized, to leave a lady stranded in this kind of a situation. Unacceptable. Here are my only questions for you. Did the prison system inform you of that individual's behaviour? Did the prison system protect you properly? Did the Parole Board consider your interests before considering those of the criminal? That is what your testimony tells me.
Ms. Gendron: No, they did not take my interests into account. This is a provincial case, and I think the parole system on that level is not the same as on the federal level. I was never consulted. I was simply informed that he would be released on a specific date and that he had tattooed the words I mentioned on his arms on a given date. That is when I panicked and asked the judge for a restraining order. I ran away, since I did not have any information.
Senator Boisvenu: We can assure you that we will do everything in our power over the coming years to ensure that victims are equal parties in this system, as the way things currently work makes no sense.
Thank you for your testimony. It tells us a lot about what changes need to be made.
Senator Joyal: Thank you for your presentation, ladies.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. McCormack. My first question would be to Ms. O'Sullivan. You proposed some amendments to the bill. Did you have an opportunity to propose those amendments when you appeared in the House of Commons hearing in relation to that bill?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I did. I have also handed in my written statement. I have one page appended that highlights that. We had three recommendations. Two have been addressed in the Victims Bill of Rights, and one is partially addressed. So I did have an opportunity, yes.
Senator Joyal: Did they give you reasons why they were not accepting the other amendments that were left aside? Was there a debate, a study of the impact of those amendments in terms of administrative weight or financial implications or other arguments that one might have to consider before accepting a proposed amendment like the one that you proposed yourself?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I don't know what process they went through after that. Our recommendations, as you know and as I have presented before this committee, come directly, many of them, from victims of crime and the complaints that they call us with. One of the reasons that I think that the voice and the ability to participate for victims is so important is that it is directly linked to Canadians' confidence in the criminal justice system. They're going to have more confidence in a system that ensures that a victim's voice is heard.
When you look at the data on confidence when it comes to conditional release and correctional service and probably a large point of their role in society, the more we can do to ensure that a victim's voice is conveyed and considered, the more it is going to increase Canadians' confidence. So I can't say exactly what research they did or any financial things they did on that, but, if you think about it, if you're giving victims choices and options from a financial perspective, for the many reasons that I listed here, many victims may choose to participate by those alternative means. I have found in my experience, throughout my career, that, when you tell someone they have to do it, then it happens. We are in an age of technology. I can tell you that, in other countries, they have automated victim information and notification systems that go out to victims. In other words, what the legislation says the victims have, some get it right through their device. So we have to be looking at technology to help to accommodate. Yet, it has to be their choice. Victims need the information on what's available to them to allow them to make that choice.
Senator Joyal: I couldn't agree more, especially when I read part of the brief that Mr. McCormack didn't read, especially about a victim that was called to testify while the sentenced person was jailed in B.C. and the person was living in Toronto. It is ridiculous to think that you can book a flight, be absent from your work and organize your family life and whatnot. As you said, the technology is there. It would be so much easier for the person to take his or her statement and send it by video conference. We hear witnesses here through video conference from B.C. or other parts of Canada regularly. I'm surprised that this has not been accepted by our colleagues in the other place as being something that falls under sense.
Mr. McCormack: I think that's a very significant point, and I'm glad you picked up on that. Often, it's not the case that the people are incarcerated within the same jurisdiction, the same province. As I say, the Sweet case is a microcosm of everything that could go wrong going wrong. Munro is in B.C. We have certain members of Mike's family — his youngest daughter — who still, to this day, cannot go out and see him, go out there for the hearings, because she's still afraid. This would allow her to participate in that process.
Not only that, but what was happening with Munro was that there would be a date scheduled for the hearing, and he would cancel. The victims would all change their schedules, take holidays or whatever.
Senator Joyal: Just to maintain the stress on the people sometimes.
Mr. McCormack: Right. They would be ready to go. Then, he would pull back, and they would be standing there going, "Okay, when are we going to go?"
Senator Joyal: Were you given some reasons in the other place as to why this proposal has not been accepted?
Mr. McCormack: No. We weren't given any reasons on that. Going out there and participating in this process, actually being involved in the process with the Sweet family, I would sit down with them every time, and we would go through this process. We were constantly running into a roadblock of prisoners' privacy rights. It was all about the privacy rights and rights of the prisoner. As far as we were concerned, the person seeking parole had given up those rights when they committed the murder that they committed. That should be where we were looking. I couldn't agree with Sue more. The victims play a very important part, but they play an important part in giving public confidence and transparency into what this process is. Transparency is what we're looking at from an association perspective.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you all for your presentations. In your presentation, Mr. McCormack, I think you made it clear that there has to be a demonstrated and significant material change before the next Parole Board hearing is set. There is no question in my mind as far as that is concerned..
It appears to me that the most fundamental flaw in the current system, as you have indicated, is the lack of transparency, especially for the victims going through the process. There is little disclosure to the victims. For example, I understand that transcripts are not available to the victims, a situation that should be rectified by this bill.
Are we in agreement on the lack of transparency?
Mr. McCormack: There is a total lack of transparency, and transcripts are one key component. Like I said, the Sweets were going out there every year. They were seeing this inconsistent testimony on behalf of Munro at every hearing, but it would be a different Parole Board hearing. It would be a new group of people coming in, so Munro would just change the story every time. He'd tweak his story and say, "Okay, what was I saying wrong?" But what was also very frustrating to us is that we were made aware that there were some issues around Munro's behaviour while he was incarcerated. We tried to get that information to see what was going wrong while he was incarcerated, and we couldn't even get that information. What I found really interesting in dealing with our bail and parole, our ROPE people — and I notice that somebody made a comment, one of the other groups before, that most of the paroled offenders are arrested for a technical breach, like abusing drugs or alcohol, not recidivism to the crime that they committed — what I want you to consider is that one of the things with Munro is that some of his triggers are alcohol and drugs. So it might be considered a technical breach that he's drinking or taking drugs, but those are some of the triggers. That's what came up in the trial when he viciously murdered Michael Sweet. So there has to be some transparency there as well.
The one thing we are very concerned about is the definition of personal information and the Parole Board having the ability to delete personal information from the transcripts if this bill is passed. We're in a quandry. What does personal information mean? What does that entail? How much leverage does that give the board to delete from the transcripts? It's something for you to consider.
Senator McIntyre: In 2010, your office published a report and in that report, as I recall, it recommended that the time between hearings be extended to five years for those serving life and indefinite sentences if an offender's request for conditional release is denied. Would you say this bill is based, for the most part, on the recommendations made by your office?
Ms. O'Sullivan: We certainly made those recommendations. Our recommendation was specific to homicide and indeterminate sentence. This bill has gone beyond that and included Schedule I, so it's certainly in line with those first two recommendations on homicide and indeterminate.
Senator Fraser: I have a question for Ms. O'Sullivan. This bill essentially has two parts. One has to do with delaying parole hearings and one has to do with making it much more possible for victims to participate and be informed, but they're two quite separate things in many ways.
If you had to choose, which of those two parts would you rather see and would be most help to victims?
Ms. O'Sullivan: If you ask me, every victim is unique, as people have said, but if I were to theme what is important to victims, they need information about what their rights are, about their roles in the criminal justice system and they need information about the offender who harmed them. They need to be considered throughout the entire criminal judicial process, to be protected throughout that process and to be supported. There's no either/or here. We need to ensure that throughout the entire criminal justice process that victims are treated with compassion and dignity and they have all of those four components.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Lee, and it will be very brief. I would like you to tell us about your dealings with the Parole Board. When you had to communicate with the board's representatives, were you well received or did you feel like you were bothering them?
[English]
Ms. Lee: As I was telling Mr. Sweet before, I think they became very afraid of me after a while because I was very strong in what I wanted to have done. I wanted my statements to be read. I wanted my statements to be heard, and I didn't let it go until that happened. Whenever another hearing came up, it became "Oh, it's one of hers again" and they had to do it properly. But I think I'm different than a lot of victims. A lot of people are intimidated by the entire system. It's very overwhelming.
I was overwhelmed at the beginning and it's still overwhelming, but the more that we can do to help all victims be heard and be able to hear is important because they just go along and do their thing. If you don't question it, it just keeps happening the way it was happening. I'm happy that this will hopefully be passed very soon and it will help a lot of people. They still have a lot of discretion, though. The Parole Board still has, as they call it, the special situations, so this isn't going to solve all the problems but it's certainly going to help.
Senator Plett: I'll ask both of my questions quickly and I'll ask them both of them immediately.
Ms. Lee, you just closed off the tail end of your answer to Senator Dagenais, you hoped this will be passed very quickly.
Ms. Lee: Yes.
Senator Plett: I raised the issue of video conference with Mr. Sweet, as you know, and I was disappointed I did not get a good answer as to why it wasn't passed. Maybe there is one, and I think we should find out.
But if we do want to amend this bill, it likely won't be passed in this Parliament. So would you rather have us pass this bill in this Parliament the way it is and then work on improving it with other legislation down the road? That's my first question.
Mr. McCormack, you talked about deleting personal information in transcripts and so on. The way I read the bill, it says the board may delete from a copy of the transcript any personal information about a person other than the offender, the victim or member of the victim's family, probably some innocent person testifying.
Did you misread it or do you still have a problem with that? That's not the deleting information about the offender which I, by the way, agree with. I'd like an answer on both of those, please.
Ms. Lee: I can address the first one. We've been working on this — I say "we," but it's Mr. Sweet, his office and the ombudsman that have been working on this bill for a long time. If it has to go back to the house with more, it won't be passed. I would love the video conferencing. I could have really used the video conferencing in my situation, but I've been told — not promised — that this will happen.
Senator Plett: So you're willing to put it on the shelf in order to get this passed?
Ms. Lee: I am.
Mr. McCormack: I would have to reread it but we have had problems in the past with them deleting personal information around the offender.
Senator Plett: I agree with you, but the bill does not say this.
Mr. McCormack: Then I'm fine with that, yes.
Senator Batters: Thank you all for your helpful testimony today. You provided us with some excellent and helpful illustrations on why this bill and the Victims Bill of Rights are needed in this country.
Ms. Lee, in your opening statement you talked about how having a photo of the offender would be helpful. I've received information that the Victims Bill of Rights does have that in there, so that provides you with that assurance.
Ms. Lee, if you could let me know how the frequent parole hearings that you've described in really excruciating detail have impacted you and your family, and how you think the changes in this bill would help your family and other victims of crime.
Ms. Lee: This is going to help a lot of people that were in my situation. At the time when I was doing these, my children didn't even know that this had happened to their aunt. They were very young and I hadn't shared that information because it was so horrible. I was forced to do these videotapes, audiotapes really often, six times in that space of seven years and it was so difficult every time. It's been a long time, but you can see it still effects me; it never goes away. So this will help people not have to relive this, be re-victimized every two years or less. This gives the Parole Board that option in cases like Mr. Sweet's, in cases like mine. The killer had not changed. Things had not changed. In fact, he is back in but he's waived his right to parole. He realizes himself that he's not getting out.
The law had said before, you have to do this, it's their right. This will change things for the better for people like me and others and their families.
Senator Batters: Thank you. Mr. McCormack, although you spoke about this briefly in your opening statement at the House of Commons Justice Committee, you went into more detail when you said for murderers like Craig Munro, privacy rights and parole hearings cannot be greater than what they were during their trial and sentencing hearing. To the contrary, they should be less because at trial Mr. Munro was presumed innocent. At a parole hearing there is no such presumption, quite the opposite. He is a convicted murderer and the difference is significant.
In your experience today, what information is currently withheld from victims during parole hearings that you feel should be accessible and how do you feel that information would be helpful?
Mr. McCormack: First of all, as I said, we had information that Munro had some discipline issues within the institution. When we requested to get that information, what was happening, what were the discipline issues, we were rejected. We were told these were his privacy rights within the institution and that his institution record, behavioral record and conduct record would not be shared with us.
They were talking about paroling this guy who is a vicious murderer. One of his triggers was alcohol, the other one was drugs and we had information that his discipline was around those types of offences. So if we're talking about rehabilitation and triggers, the concern, not only for the Sweets but for the public in general, here's a guy who's supposed to be locked up and not have access to this stuff, he's committing offences while in jail, and we're talking about giving him parole. Why should we not have a full and frank disclosure of that type of information?
Senator McInnis: Understandably, many victims feel that the justice system ought to be more punitive and that toughness is the solution to crime. That's, for the most part, based on the belief that no one should have to go through what you've gone through.
So I want to ask you, how is the justice system doing in balancing the quantum of punishment and the rehabilitation for the common good of increased public safety? No one wants these horrendous crimes, but it will at least prevent repeat offenders and so on if they are rehabilitated while they're incarcerated. How are we doing with respect to that?
Ms. Lee: In my situation, they weren't doing that well. He went through all the programs. He did all the rehabilitation things. He even got engaged while he was in prison. Then he got out and he reoffended. It's the system. If this had happened in the United States, he would never have been let out.
I think it's gone completely from the death penalty where life is life down to minimal sentences. I don't know what the answer is.
Ms. O'Sullivan: You made a comment about punitive. I can tell you I deal with victims across this country. Some see sentencing as a huge part; some see restorative justice as a huge part. When I talk about choices and options, that's also about ensuring that when victims bring their voices to the table, what many victims want to know, and the information that Mike talked about, which now some of it is available, as you're aware, they can get the PPDO and they can get now through the corrections plan some of this, they want to know what the risks are for this offender. They want to know that these risks are being managed. They want to know what progress the offender has made in relation to their overall rehabilitation.
Why is it so important that they get this information now throughout that process? I've talked to victims who, for 20 years, especially for serious offences, come out, I didn't know any of this. Are they making a sincere effort at rehabilitation? I can tell you that some victims who saw sentencing as hugely important at the beginning, they will go through — as you said, it's a life-long journey, and through this journey they may want at some point to engage in offender mediation or any of those other things that are available to them. They can't do it if they don't know about it. They can't do it if they're not informed of what this information is, and they certainly would want to know what progress this offender is making towards rehabilitation, if any. Are they engaging?
When I talk about that transparency and that importance of allowing victims to have that voice, there are many reasons.
Senator McInnis: Access to the corrections plan.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes, which they will have some more of that. In my conversations with Correctional Service Canada, they are looking at that, because, as you can imagine, there is some potential information, it could be in relation to dealing with — I won't say psychologists or whoever, but could be personal, but like a report card, they want to see they attended this program. They want more than that. Were they engaged? Are they making progress? Are they addressing those risk factors? Are they being managed? Mike spoke to those triggers. Are they sincerely making those efforts and is there progress in relation to that rehabilitation?
The Chair: Thank you all, witnesses. We very much appreciated your appearance here and your testimony.
A special thank you to Ms. Lee and Ms. Gendron. I think it's very important for the committee to hear from victims of crime who have to, as Ms. O'Sullivan said, live through this journey. We very much appreciate your appearance here today and your testimony.
(The committee adjourned.)