Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 36 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 21, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-45, to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another Act, met this day at 10:34 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, with us today are Mr. Arn Snyder, Chair, Policy Review Committee, and Mr. Matthew Yeager, Secretary, Canadian Criminal Justice Association; Mr. Rick Prashaw, Communications Coordinator, Church Council on Justice and Corrections; Ms Lisa Finateri representing the Infinity Lifers' Liaison Group; Mr. Donald Evans, Director, and Ms Elizabeth White, Executive Director, St. Leonard's Society of Canada.
Mr. Mathew Yeager, Secretary, Canadian Criminal Justice Association: We are delighted to be here today. To my left is Johanne Vallée, Executive Director of the Social Rehabilitation Service of Quebec. To my right is Mr. Brian Gough, a staff member of Project Lifeline which is sponsored by the St. Leonard's Society of Canada, who will be our lead witness.
Madam Chair, with your permission, rather than reading our testimony, I would ask that it be taken as read. We will hear first from Mr. Gough and then from Johanne Vallée.
The Chair: That is agreeable.
Mr. Brian Gough, Staff member, Project Lifeline: On June 18, 1996 I had the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the House of Commons. I am grateful for this opportunity to comment once again on the proposed amendments to section 745.
Why are these changes proposed? What prompted the Minister of Justice to introduce amendments to section 745? Clearly, it was not due to a process failing.
In my view, the proposed changes to section 745 stem from the lobbying efforts of victims' rights groups to change criminal justice policy as well as the concerted efforts of a psychopathic offender named Clifford Olson. For years Clifford Olson has been able to instil fear and to manipulate the press and public opinion from his jail cell. The media, victims' rights movements and ordinary citizens have been enraged by his remarks. Olson and others like him are rare in the system and will not be released.
It is understandable that the victims' rights movement would become such a strong voice today when the media misstate the existing law with respect to judicial review.
The victims' rights movement has the right to lobby government officials, and any thinking person can, and does, have sympathy and empathy for the victims' families, especially when for 15 or 20 years their efforts have been bent on vengeance. Vengeance has a crippling effect on the person and on society as a whole and has no place in rational debate.
The families of the offender are also victims. I do not mean to suggest that their pain and loss are any greater than those of the victims' families, but it is unfortunate that the offenders' families have never had an equal voice on this issue. The Government of Canada has an obligation to ensure that fairness and justice apply to all Canadians, including those who have been incarcerated and their families.
The fear-mongering raised by Mr. Olson and the media should be examined for what it is. Mr. Olson knows only too well that he will not be released, despite his right to apply for a judicial review. No loophole exists in the law for any lifer. Life is life.
Judicial review, as it exists, represents a well thought out democratic process.
The hearing itself takes place in the community where the offence took place. A jury comprised of 12 citizens decides on whether to advance the eligibility date for parole. For example, if a person with a 25-year eligibility date applies, there could be one of four possible outcomes. First, there could be no change or reduction of the period of parole eligibility, but a date could be set for a new application to be made. Second, there could be no change or reduction of the period of parole eligibility and the possibility of future applications could be refused. Third, the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole could be reduced. Fourth, ineligibility for parole could be terminated, making the offender eligible to apply for parole at once.
If the offender manages to get a reduction in his eligibility date, he must still go before the National Parole Board and attempt to gain parole. This process is not automatic and first requires a process of pre-release involving escorted temporary absences, unescorted temporary absences, day parole and then full parole. This process usually takes three years. Even if eligibility is reduced to 15 years, full parole can be years away.
As of February 28, 1995, 15 of those who had received a reduction in their parole eligibility had been released on full parole, while six had been released on day parole. None of these people had committed similar crimes. In general, lifers continue to be the best parole risk with the lowest recidivism rate.
I have given a brief synopsis of judicial review and my opinion as to what prompted the Minister of Justice to propose amendments to section 745. I see nothing broken here, nothing that needs to be fixed.
I am sure all here have read a great deal of information regarding parole and judicial review. However, I should like to take this opportunity to speak to you about change -- change in the human spirit. Unfortunately, misinformation from the media reaches many, but the men and women of the National Parole Board who work with lifers clinically and spiritually are unable to reach those numbers.
The purpose of the federal correctional system is to carry out the sentence of the court; but it is also incumbent upon the system to recognize the profound interpersonal and intrapersonnal change that occurs in an offender's life. The system is required to punish offenders by taking from him or her our most precious of rights, the right to liberty. It must also make every effort to salvage that life and to return the offender to the community as a law-abiding citizen. There is a period in the lives of a vast majority of lifers when this change occurs, and that change occurs well before 15 years.
To deny a life a second chance ignores any semblance of fair and humane treatment and contravenes the very principles of a free and democratic society whose ethics reflect a Christian doctrine of redemption and forgiveness. I know of many convicted murderers who have been released through the parole process and who now live productive, law-abiding lives. They work, pay taxes, employ others and, in many cases, work in some social capacity to help others.
As I understand the proposed changes to section 745, they would entail application to a judge for judicial review before the jury process. This process is arbitrary and capricious and thus not in the public interest in a free and democratic society. No application is allowed serial killers; however, there does not seem to be a clear-cut definition of "serial killer."
Requiring a jury to reach a unanimous decision, rather than an eight-to-four decision, is not a democratic process either. Would it not be tragic if the Supreme Court of Canada were required to act in this fashion?
These amendments would be retroactive and would have devastating effects on lifers who are approaching their review dates. It would also demonstrate a complete lack of faith in the many men and women who work in our system to help rehabilitate the offender.
It has been 20 years since the mandatory penalties for murder were increased to 25 years before eligibility for first degree murder and to 10 to 25 years for second degree murder at the court's discretion. At an institutional level the proposed changes to section 745 would mean longer periods of maximum security for most lifers, which would cost the government and taxpayers undue expense in a time of economic restraint.
People who do return to society after serving sentences of 20 years or more are marginalized. The longer a person is incarcerated, the more difficult it is to reintegrate that person into society.
Many offenders who still remain incarcerated after 20 or more years pose no risk to society. However, their reintegration is impaired and delayed due to other factors, such as a condition I liken to post-traumatic stress disorder caused by years of living in an environment where a high alert mode is the norm.
Professionals working with offenders in the pre-release process often encounter difficulty in finding suitable facilities, such as halfway houses, for some offenders. Clearly, a suitable facility for some does not yet exist.
The proposed changes to section 745 would increase the number of offenders who fall into this category. For everyone life without hope is tragic indeed. Changes to section 745 take away hope. When we as individuals or government take away hope from a person or persons, we demean ourselves as a society.
It is incumbent upon you as non-partisan appointees to ensure that our government not be permitted to react to pressures of lobby groups for political purposes. Changes to this law as proposed by Justice Minister Allan Rock do not reflect comprehensive empirical examination of how the present system is successful. To date, to my knowledge, there is no evidence that anyone who has been released as a result of a present judicial review process has recommitted a capital offence. Again, if it is not broken, why fix it?
I am a paroled lifer. I served approximately 12 years in federal prisons, nine of those years in maximum security. I was released on parole in 1984 and achieved a post-secondary education in behavioural science. For seven years I worked with and for the developmentally handicapped.
Recently, I began working for Lifeline Kingston, a program of the St. Leonard's Society which works with lifers in the Ontario region. In my capacity as an in-reach worker, I feel compelled to speak for the more than 600 lifers serving their time in Canada federal prisons. These men and women are also Canadians. Despite the crime they are still human beings with a hope for a better future. They have value to us all.
Finally, I appeal to your wisdom, compassion and sense of fairness. Each of you has been appointed to oversee the workings of government. You are not seated here today because you seek re-election or maintain a party line. You are not seated here today because of any particular lobby or special interest group. You are seated here today invested with the power of true objective examination of all government dealings. With that in mind, I urge you not to change a system that is working. I urge you not to take away the only hope which 600 men and women in Canadian prisons hold. I urge you not to forget the families, the wives, mothers, fathers, children and relatives of these people. I urge you not to forget that this entire issue was born of vengeance and retribution. I urge you not to forget that this bill was forged by misinformation and public hysteria generated by Clifford Olson and his manipulation of the media. I urge you not to forget that there is no existing data to support changes to section 745. I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
Mr. Yeager: With the permission of the committee, Madam Chair, may we now present Johanne Vallée?
[Translation]
Mrs. Johanne Vallée, Member, Director General, Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies: I would like to thank the members of the Senate for the opportunity of testifying before you today. I would also like to thank the Canadian Criminal Justice Association for inviting us to be a part of its panel. Before I outline for you the position the Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies, I want to tell you a bit about our organization so that you understand the people who are responsible for shaping the association's views.
The association was first set up in 1962 to encourage and support the involvement of citizens and community organizations in the administration of the criminal justice system, in crime prevention and in the reintegration of offenders into society.
We are an umbrella organization serving approximately 50 community agencies headed by volunteers working throughout the province of Quebec. Each year, we provide services to approximately 35,000 adult inmates who have had run-ins with either the federal or provincial justice systems. We reach out to inmates, accused persons, parolees and families of offenders.
We offer a wide range of services through our network: we work closely with drug offenders, with persons suffering from psychiatric problems and with sexual offenders.
Our association is represented by people convinced of the fact that most offenders have the ability to change. They also realize that in order for this potential for change to be realized, the support of citizens and of the community is needed.
While some members of the public have expressed concern about the reintegration of offenders into society and are calling on the legislator to bring in tougher parole eligibility criteria, the many individuals who head our association's networks are committed to bringing about a climate of peace and social harmony.
I would like to touch on three aspects of the bill: the jury, judicial review in sentence management and public safety and the Quebec experience.
With respect to the jury, the bill is proposing that the jury's decision be unanimous. This is a somewhat surprising amendment when we stop to consider the authority normally conferred upon this decision making body.
The jury is first and foremost the expression of democracy in that it gives citizens the right to participate in the decisions handed down by the justice system. We can appreciate that unanimity is an important element in the decision-making that a jury is called upon to make in conjunction with a trial arising from a Criminal Code offence. The principle of reasonable doubt applies at this level. If the jury is not unanimous, then a reasonable doubt exists, making it impossible to hand down a guilty verdict.
In the case of a judicial review hearing, the inmate's guilt has already been established and the jury is being called upon to form an opinion as to the progress that the offender has made and how his behaviour has changed. Testimony is heard from a number of stakeholders. The inmate's behaviour is carefully scrutinized in an effort to convince the jury of recommending a reduction in his period of eligibility. The onus will be on the inmate to prove that his behaviour has been exemplary. This probably explains why only 30 or 36 per cent of inmates apply for a judicial review. This represents only a fraction of the overall number of inmates serving lengthy sentences.
Moreover, as described in the bill, the fact that a judge is the one who decides whether or not to hear an application for judicial review leads us to believe that the jury's authority has been usurped by the judge. We should not forget that in a judicial review hearing, the jury is comprised of people who come from the community in which the offence was committed. Therefore, the residents get to review the offender's case. We feel that the judicial review process favours community involvement in the administration of justice and in the reintegration of offenders in society.
I will now talk about the impact of the judicial review process on sentence management and public safety. We must bear in mind that in Canada, the philosophy and mission of the Correctional Service of Canada is based on the belief that a person is capable of change. The proposed amendments further limit access to this process and stand in stark contrast to this philosophy. They emphasize that incarceration is associated more with vengeance and punishment than with a chance for social reintegration.
The judicial review process rewards those who, during their period of incarceration, have made a genuine effort to become better citizens. It is thus pointless to extend their time behind bars. The time comes when it is appropriate to release an individual. That is why judicial review is a useful, necessary mechanism. It helps to identify those who are really ready to be released and to avoid situations where these persons would be uselessly detained in prison when they could be out becoming productive members of their community at less cost to the taxpayers.
If access to release is further restricted, the hopes of inmates will be dashed and it will be much more difficult to manage lengthy sentences. Consider what is happening in France. This country is currently experiencing serious problems with violence in its institutions because of overcrowding, lengthy sentences and fixed-term sentences.
It is in Quebec that you will find the highest number of inmates whose application for a judicial review was well received. The results have been excellent. None of the inmates released has recidivated and the level of community involvement has been remarkable. Many members of the community do volunteer work with inmates serving lengthy sentences and have been doing so for a number of years. They take part in the judicial hearings. Subsequently, they remain in touch in these inmates after they have been released. Over time, they build a relationship with these inmates based on trust and mutual respect.
Because of the positive results achieved, community groups in Quebec support existing judicial review provisions. They are opposed to any changes. When the Department of Justice organized discussions even before the bill was announced, Quebec groups came out strongly in favour of the status quo. The Bar also made representations to this effect.
Our organizations feel that the proposed changes reflect neither reality nor the public's need for protection. Moreover, the amendments are not consistent with the values of Canadian and Quebec society.
Judicial review was introduced to give only those inmates who were deserving of it an opportunity to be released with supervision. Once released, these persons remain inmates their entire life. Although the process has been the target of numerous attacks, judicial review constitutes, in our opinion, a fair and effective mechanism in that it targets a clientele which presents a low risk for reoffending. In our view, vengeance is the only reason why some are demanding an end to judicial review. We ask you to reconsider the proposed legislation and to maintain existing judicial review provisions.
[English]
Mr. Yeager: Madam Chair, that completes our submission. Perhaps we should defer to other colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you. Let us move to the Church Council on Justice and Corrections.
Mr. Rick Prashaw, Communications Coordinator, Church Council on Justice and Corrections: Madam Chair and honourable senators, we welcome this invitation to appear before you. While you see only two of us, you will hear from four, two via the written word, for our presentation this morning.
My name is Rick Prashaw. I am on the staff of the Church Council on Justice and Corrections. With me is Lisa Finateri, who is our placement student this year from the University of Ottawa. More significantly, she is a member of Infinity Lifers' Liaison Group, and travels with her group weekly to the Kingston area to visit lifers in penitentiary. While she will not participate in the formal presentation, we invite you to ask her questions so that she will be able to share her experience with you.
You will also be provided with the testimony of our president, Renate Mohr, who is a professor of criminal law at Carleton University and who has worked extensively with the Canadian Sentencing Commission.
I would also mention Wilma Derksen from Manitoba, who suffered a tragedy in her life in the late 1980s. Her daughter, Candice, was abducted and murdered. I will share her personal reflection. She represents a significant number of victims who are searching painfully for healing paths of justice and who feel that legislation such as the bill before you today is the wrong tool of justice in terms of bringing justice and satisfaction to them.
Some of you may know us. We are a coalition of 11 national denominations representing many different faith traditions. We speak on behalf of 14,000 church congregations in this country. We represent Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Evangelical, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Salvation Army, Quaker, Mennonite, Christian Reform and Disciples of Christ. Since 1974, we have followed a mandate not only to resource our churches but to educate them and the public vis-à-vis the values and the principles underlying many of the issues in the criminal justice system.
Since our creation, we have come to realize that the adversarial nature of the present justice system with its bent on punishment for punishment's sake seldom, if ever, gets to the true harm that crime does to communities and individuals. For this reason, many Canadians are dissatisfied with their experience with justice because they are trapped into believing that longer, harsher sentences will make them safe or heal the hurt resulting from crime. Nothing is farther from the truth.
Our church congregations want safe communities. I, as a husband and father of four children, want safe communities. The last thing I and other church members want is to have truly dangerous people in our midst. Bill C-45 will not bring that safety and will not protect our communities.
We reject Bill C-45 because it, along with many other similar measures that appear reasonable on the surface, will in fact undermine the safety of communities. This is so because we have come to believe that this bill is a repeal in disguise of the "faint hope clause". It is a repeal that flies in the face of the evidence of how well judicial reviews are working, and which will result in profound human and social costs that will make our ineffective criminal justice system even more retributive and our communities even less safe. Bill C-45 alone justifies our appearance here, but we believe that you, as senators, have an opportunity to say no to this type of legislation which is symbolic of a whole mindset in the country and of a whole path for justice that truly brings no justice to our communities.
We believe these major changes would amount to an extraordinary shift in the policy and philosophy of corrections as they apply to those convicted of murder. In the words of Allan Rock, the "faint hope clause" and the judicial review process are now to be applied only in exceptional cases. For ten years plus, they have been a normal and successful part of the correctional and parole systems.
We believe this decision amounts to a direct attack on the principle of rehabilitation. Faint hope will become no hope for those warehoused in our prisons. The light is being turned off in our prisons through this piece of legislation.
When society extinguishes hope and its accompanying motivation for change, we will undoubtedly make the bleak reality of life behind bars even worse and ensure that those eventually released into our communities will be returning in a worse state than when they went in. How does this produce safe communities?
This is so for a number of reasons and factors that we ask you to take into account before allowing this bill to become law. The government, we believe, by succumbing to pressure and confusing politics with justice, wants to keep all who murder more than one victim in prison for a full 25 years, with no attention paid to the wide range of causes or cases in their category. This will result in enormous social and financial costs. According to the figures of Correctional Services Canada, between next year and the year 2008, because of this law, 101 individuals who had multiple victims will be excluded automatically from applying for the thorough judicial review process. Looking back in time, it means that of the 63 reviews heard so far, the 11 that have been processed, which include multiple victims, will be excluded automatically, even though juries in communities said that seven of those individuals were ready for parole and in fact were ultimately released and are doing well in their communities. Under the provisions of the bill before you today, these people would automatically be in prison for 25 years minimum because they had more than one victim.
In other words, senators, there are people doing well under day or full parole in their communities, who would not have been let out had these proposals before you been law then. Existing rules for the judicial reviews have allowed juries to delve into the human circumstances of particular cases, instances that involved despair and a whole slew of situations, including biker wars, lovers' triangles and other issues. We do not minimize any wrongdoing. We do think there must be accountability and safety, but juries in many communities are concluding that some people have changed sufficiently to begin their gradual reintegration into society without putting citizens at risk.
We are not asking that anyone be released automatically after serving 15 years. Judicial reviews do not do that, but they allow for a thorough process and community consultation. As the evidence indicates, they are working well.
When all the amendments of Bill C-45 are taken together, they amount to a virtual repeal of the "faint hope clause" and not, as Mr. Rock would have us believe, a reasonable compromise between those who would keep the existing law and those who would repeal it. I hope I am proven wrong, but I am afraid we will be back in a number of years to review the number of judicial review cases and how many people have, in fact, been released.
These amendments call for a unanimous verdict from all 12 jurors instead of the present two-thirds majority; they would arbitrarily throw out all cases where there were multiple victims, and put in a screening mechanism to throw out vexatious cases. These amendments, when taken together with a recent provision in the Criminal Code which allows for victim participation and impact statements, will mean that few people will ever be released into their communities before the minimum 25 years. This will all happen due to the introduction of a variety of factors unrelated to the facts, real risks or the rehabilitative work that may have been accomplished.
We are not opposed to greater victim involvement in these reviews, as long as it is voluntary and victims are supported through the process. However, we are saying that, if this measure is combined with the proposed amendment that all 12 jurors must agree, we know that it will take now only one juror, moved by the appeal of a victim's family, to veto the wishes of his or her 11 peers and keep an individual in prison for up to 10 more years.
We must meet the needs of victims in more effective ways, but we cannot build a justice system based solely on emotion or community exasperation, which in turn is manipulated by some politicians for their own reasons. It is in everyone's interest that people who murder and are sentenced to life with no parole eligibility before 25 years come out of prison and into our communities better than when they went in. The monitored reintegration of offenders into society, particularly those who have undergone some change and are no longer considered a threat, makes all the sense in the world.
Among others, we have challenged Mr. Nunziata on this. Mr. Nunziata, enough politicians in every party, some police chiefs, some media and some members of the public are saying, "No, keep our communities safe by keeping murderers in prison; the longer and the more, the better." They believe this will protect their loved ones, including their children, but what about their children's children? We are not responding meaningfully to the problem of murder in our society. We are deferring our problem to future generations, willing it to our children, our grandchildren, to Mr. Nunziata's grandchildren, to mine and to yours. They will have the right to indict us for this type of legislation.
There is a profoundly human element to our debate today. As much as we would demonize those who murder and treat them as outcasts, they are our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, our fellow citizens and neighbours. They are part of our community, and so are their victims and so are their families. We in society today are jeopardizing that connection we have to each other. What we do to those in prison and to their families outside of prison; what we do in the name of some victims, we do to all of us. The loss of anyone's rights or anyone's hope is a loss for the whole human family. From our Christian faith perspective, we recall the words of St. Paul: "If one part of the body is hurt, all parts are hurt with it." When we extinguish hope, when we remove any incentive to change, when we forget that almost all who murder will be back in our midst some day, we forfeit our common humanity.
Those listening to these words might, understandably, shout back, "But that is exactly what they did when they murdered their victims." We agree, and in no way do we excuse or exonerate them for their actions. We, too, want our loved ones and our communities safe. We know there must be serious consequences. It seems that through the judicial review process, that is taken into account.
The updated figures presented today by the CCJA indicate that 14 of the 69 judicial review juries denied outright the application to reduce one's ineligibility period. The parole board later denied parole outright to six of those 50 who had their period reduced. We believe the existing law is working. We do acknowledge victims' experience and feelings and everyone's legitimate concerns. We have not honoured their rights or concerns near enough in our justice system, but we must reject the justice that is a mask for some for vengeance or retribution.
In closing, I want to leave with you the words of Wilma Derksen, who recently joined our board and who, coincidentally, is in the province of Ontario this week on a speaking tour. We tried to get her here but we could not do so. Today, she is in Toronto as part of restorative justice week. She is telling her story.
She is beginning a victim support network. She is about to launch a major two-year initiative across the country to begin to have victims help themselves, to dialogue with some of the victims groups, and to see what will be a path towards justice and healing. These are her thoughts, which we shared with the justice commons committee. She stated:
...after the funeral, when I was still raw with grief, a friend came over. The tea was good, the room warm and quiet, and she said: "Wilma, I know that you have forgiven. I sense no vengeance. But knowing that, if you could let yourself go, what would satisfy justice for you? Would it be execution?"
Wilma replies:
Till that point I had never allowed myself the question. But I felt safe with her and her question was a fair one, so I decided to explore my inner feelings.
She went on to say that she was shocked at what she was thinking and what she was feeling. She then said to her friend:
Ten Child murderers would have to die ... and I would have to pull the trigger.
In my mind's eye, I saw 10 hooded figures lined up against a brick wall and I pulled the trigger 10 times. The feeling was delicious. But the camera of my imagination continued to roll and I saw the 10 hooded figures fall. I saw the blood and desecration. I saw the hoods fall loose and their faces vulnerable in death. I looked up and saw the mothers morning the losses of their sons. And being so close to my own grief, I could identify fully and felt their losses as keenly as I felt my own. And even worse, I saw that one of the men had left no one to mourn his death. He had never had any love and I had just snuffed out his last opportunity. Coming back to reality, I was devastated.
Christ showed how to flesh out the skeleton of justice with love and forgiveness; He showed that complete healing can be brought about by using our pain to build hope. He knew there would only be more emptiness if we seek to fill our loss with vengeance. He shows a better way to put value and meaning into our suffering. Believing this, my husband Cliff and I desperately tried to plant our little seeds of hope in our tragedy. We started a fund for a swimming pool at Camp Arnes. We helped start a Child Find organization in Winnipeg and shared our story openly as a test to see if this would really fill the emptiness of our loss. Nothing can replace Candace. But when I compare the delicious feeling of pulling the trigger to that wonderful, deep joy of seeing the swimming pool completed, finding a child and knowing our story has helped others, there is no comparison.
Wilma would not let me get away with this without adding a proviso. She always says this: Never tell any victims that they must go down this road. This is her choice. The last thing she does or wants -- and the last thing we want -- is to set up victims fighting among themselves about the proper path to go. We wanted to tell that story this morning to fill out the picture you might have of victims in this country. There are many choosing different paths. Victims are revictimized enough. We simply want you to know that the voice of victims is a rich and diverse one; that a growing number are choosing life giving paths of healing and meeting their needs and rights in ways other than putting all their energy into determining the penalty of the offender.
We do not at all criticize victims' groups because it has been set up this way for them. Their only measurement of any kind of justice is the length of sentence given to the offender. That is the result or the fruit of our adversarial justice system. If we had a different way of doing justice in our country and different interventions, they could look to other measurements for justice.
We urge the members of the Senate to prevent this bill from passing, to make the necessary amendments to say that enough is enough of these punitive types of legislation that do very little to make our communities safe. Ms Finateri and I will be open for questions now.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Prashaw. Being from Winnipeg, I am very much aware of the work that Mrs. Derksen has done both in Child Find and other activities.
Ms Elizabeth White, Executive Director, St. Leonard's Society of Canada: Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today with our colleagues. With me today is Mr. Donald Evans.
For those who have not heard of the St. Leonard's Society of Canada, it was first founded in 1962 on the same premise as has been spoken about here this morning, namely, to make our communities safer through proper and safe integration of offenders from prison back into their communities.
The first house opened in Windsor and similar houses for federally sentenced men followed. The national society was formed in 1967 and now comprises 15 affiliates across the country, with the national board having representation from each affiliate and from the community at large.
The original premise that integration for persons who have been long separated from society is the only way to make it a successful integration, and to make our communities safer remains the mandate. The programs, however, have diversified over the last 30 years. In particular, the life line program was developed specifically to address the needs of life sentence persons returning to a community that in no way resembled the one they left so many years before.
I should like to speak first of the context of Bill C-45. I know you have had many facts, figures and briefs presented to you. I will not dwell on the facts, but it is important that we recognize that we got section 745 because we abolished the death penalty. That was our big step forward; I would hate to see us go back from that. The compromise for getting rid of the death penalty was to increase parole eligibility to 25 years. The result, as you know, is that Canada has one of the longest periods of incarceration for homicide in the world. And incarceration, we also know from all the studies, is not proven to successfully make communities safer, other than in the very short term.
Acknowledging that one purpose of sentencing is to rehabilitate and offer an incentive to prisoners to improve their ability through programs in order that they will live crime free and address criminogenic factors was the purpose of section 745. It is a good sentence management tool. It reduces unnecessary incarceration expenses and it has been very effective in its application.
The fact that only 39 per cent of those eligible to apply for section 745 have done so shows that inmates self-select, to a huge extent, whether or not they are appropriate candidates to meet the criteria. In the first instance, it is working.
Skipping through the rest of the statistics down to the bottom line, only 13 per cent of all those who are eligible are actually out on conditional release at this point. That shows us that from the first step through to the last step of actual release under conditions by the parole board, we are effectively choosing only those who are most likely to succeed. In fact, we are already meeting what the Minister of Justice says that he is setting out to do.
It also indicates that community involvement in the application of section 745 has been worthwhile and balanced. Community-based juries are not simply giving individuals carte blanche to apply for conditional release. They are thoughtfully going through all the factors and exercising their discretion on behalf of their communities.
It is hard to understand how we ended up with Bill C-45. Lifers generally, contrary to public perception, have limited criminal backgrounds. They tend to be stable both in prison and outside of it. Their recidivism rate is low overall, as evidenced by studies in the United Kingdom and Germany as well as in Canada.
The bill sets out to fix a system that is not broken. It tightens the provisions, perhaps to the point where early application for release will be virtually inaccessible to all. As Mr. Prashaw noted earlier, it is a virtual repeal which, if passed, would confirm Canada's unenviable position as one of the countries most prone to incarcerate, despite the fact that we know that prison is no solution to repairing harm for victims, to healing communities, or to rehabilitating offenders.
This bill would take an open, community-based system and, in the first instance, place it behind the closed doors of the judicial system. A public that believes that the system is neither responsive to it nor open to its scrutiny will not be encouraged by this legislative step.
As has been stated many times, Bill C-45 appears to be a response to one person -- Clifford Olson. Given the effect of screening by community juries, Mr. Olson is not going to get out. There are very few Mr. Olsons in Canada, and to create law for them would be to create a system premised on the exception, not on the rule.
Bill C-45 takes a flexible, community-sensitive mechanism, which is of benefit to our overall criminal justice system, and ties it up in knots. By the provision to prohibit access to multiple murderers, it removes consideration of the individual in the context of their crime and their community. By use of a paper review, it reduces the role of the community and adds a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. We have no evidence that juries are not doing their job well.
The unanimity requirement creates a decision of one rather than a decision of the community. If one individual has the power to veto, a decision can easily become an arbitrary one.
Would the passage of Bill C-45 improve the system for victims? This has been addressed in several ways, but I would simply add that offenders who are bent on pursuing the minds of victims will be very persistent individuals. They will remain a cause of pain and grief to victims until they are dead, and this legislation does not talk about a death penalty. It will not solve the problem of the pernicious offender.
We are talking about a true "faint hope" provision, one that is effective. An essential premise of our Canadian system is that individuals can and do change, that all deserve, ultimately, a chance to prove to a releasing authority that they will live crime-free in the community, albeit under sentence. The proposed changes will not alter the fact that ultimately there will be an opportunity to apply for that release, but they will restrict, I think, in an inhumane and hope-defeating manner the opportunity to show that one is ready to apply for consideration for earlier release. We are only talking about a few years difference in the end. Even successful applicants rarely get out before 18 or 19 years of incarceration.
Another question is whether Bill C-45 would improve offender reintegration. We know that the longer the term of incarceration, the more difficult the return to the community. Programs such as Lifeline about which Brian has spoken have evolved out of the very need to work closely with long-term prisoners to help them adjust to their changed world, to work with them as they re-establish or, in some cases, establish for the first time supportive relationships, stable activity and housing.
We recognize the great cost of incarceration. We recognize that it brutalizes. We recognize that programs are more effectively delivered in the community. We know that incarceration alone will not allow those victims who want to move forward with more satisfying initiatives to do so. It does not allow us to focus our resources on programs that work effectively and compassionately with victims. Those would be positive initiatives. We have opportunities now for more satisfying justice alternatives. Bill C-45 is not one of them.
Section 745 works; it is humane and it fulfils a role. Bill C-45 is cumbersome, expensive and of no perceptible merit. It is an apparent response to a fear founded on misapprehension of the facts around murder, murderers and retribution, none of which is worthy of support.
We have not seen a sound premise advanced for this legislative initiative. We submit that it is unnecessary and we urge you to reject it.
Mr. Donald Evans, Board of Directors, St. Leonard's Society of Canada: I thank the committee for giving St. Leonard's the opportunity to appear here.
My first point is a very simple one. It is clear to everyone who has examined the statistics and research on this issue that we have legislation that is not broken. Therefore, the effort to fix it is misdirected. The evidence is clear on that. Exceptional circumstances should not drive us to create legislation which ties our hands in other ways and does not provide any of the safeguards which it purports to provide.
The current legislation allows the denunciatory role of law to continue, which is not reflected in the proposed changes. When someone does apply at the 15-year mark, the community involvement and the jury system allow for a further reinforcement of community core values along two fronts: positively, if there has been positive change; negatively, if there has been no change. Therefore, the core values of our society are consistently reinforced by the jury system, and the denunciatory role of the law can still be maintained in a case such as that of Mr. Olson. His case is a perfect example where the jury can state in its recommendations why he should be denied, unless he has shown remarkable changes in behaviour since the last time I read his reports.
I like the eight-to-four rule. Unanimity in this area would allow for manipulation inside the system. There are already serious concerns about unanimous decisions in jury trials. Under the current legislation, if someone dissents, it is reported as dissent. If an issue is not decided unanimously, I am sure that record still goes to the National Parole Board. The only issue here is whether a person is eligible for a reduction in time served before they can apply for a hearing. The statistical evidence to date indicates that not many people get through if no one wants them to get through.
The checks and balances are in place in the current legislation. There is no need to fix it or to change it. We should be more concerned about what happens to individuals in prison which makes it impossible for them to change. Some onus must be put on the system to manage the long-term offender, because there will always be some people, as we are all aware, who will not get any eligibility for parole. Even at the 25-year mark, their chances of parole will be severely reduced because no significant change in their behaviour has occurred.
I support everything that my colleagues have said. However, I ask that community involvement be maintained in the legislation, which will allow for the possibility of further denunciation of horrendous acts about which people are really worried.
Senator Gigantès: You were eloquent and moving. However, your use of the cost argument perturbs me because we are talking about dollars and cents versus a human life. I wish you would drop it. I would rather we did not go into this. If we entered into the cost argument, we would have to discuss the death penalty, and you would not be here, sir. Therefore, let us forget the cost argument. We could reduce the cost of our system of incarceration by releasing the legions of people who are in prison for other than violent crimes.
Some are opposed to the death penalty, as I am. I am opposed because of my fear that an innocent person might be condemned wrongfully and executed. We might find out later that it was a miscarriage of justice which could not be repaired.
The same fear applies to release. You release someone and you say, "Will that person be a recidivist and kill an innocent person?" This is the sort of thought, surely, that would go through the mind of a juror. It is the sort of thought that goes through the mind of society. It is the sort of thing you have to address a little more than you do.
The other argument you do not touch upon is the business of state killing, if you are thinking in terms of cost, which logically leads to the death penalty. One of the reasons for abolishing the death penalty, which I wish you would discuss, is that the state must not kill. Similarly, the state must not kill a person's chance of redemption.
I did not follow very well your objections to applications to a judge. I do not see how that in itself would make things worse; I can see how other parts of the bill might.
Mr. Yeager: Senator, on behalf of my colleagues, we presented to the members of this committee written testimony with a number of research items attached, including items which deal with fear of recidivism when someone is paroled. There is contained therein historic material on the success of lifers on parole, how selective that process is and how well they do vis-à-vis other prisoners. That may interest you.
It is my understanding that every time there is a judicial review, this information, or portions of it, is presented to the juries. Members of the community have an opportunity to digest that information and to make a determination. We know that our track record in this area is exceptionally good by any international standard that you use.
Senator Gigantès: Has there been one person who, after being released, went out and killed again?
Mr. Yeager: I believe there has been one.
Senator Gigantès: Has there been only one?
Mr. Yeager: I do not know.
Senator Gigantès: That is the sort of thing that makes the people who support this bill say, "Even if there is only one, why should we take the risk of condemning someone to death when he might be innocent?"
Mr. Prashaw: Let me address the question of cost. I do not disagree with your comments at all, Senator Gigantès. Costs reflect values and priorities. They tell us a little bit about who we are as a people. If you look at your bank book and where we spend money, you will see it says who we are. That is the only reason that I introduced the matter of cost. I agree that it is neither the starting point nor the heart of the matter.
I recently had an interesting conversation with some people from the Department of Justice who showed me a graph which was presented to political leaders. It shows where they are in their mandate. It also shows the amount of time and money being spent on legislation dealing with prevention, as well as what we are spending on alternatives. Of course, the bar setting out punitive legislation was quite long; the one dealing with crime prevention was much shorter. Under "alternatives" one could hardly see it starting.
One is directly related to the other, given the shrinking resources we have to spend in our country. In terms of truly making our communities safe, there is a cost. I agree with you when you say that people are not really moved by the cost argument, that their minds are set on these issues. I agree with that.
When we look at the spending of governments, we can see where their hearts are and where their priorities are. It is not good enough that they say, "At the end of the day we will get to those alternatives and we will get to crime prevention." We are having a similar debate with regard to health and education. Profound changes are taking place in our society. People's ideas are shifting in terms of how to deliver services. It is not happening in the justice system primarily because of fear and perceptions. That is our point.
It is not so much that I disagree with your comments about costs, senator. I just think costs tell us something, and we have to look at that.
Ms White: I would like to speak for a moment about the issue of the murderer on parole who murdered again. I believe you are correct that there was one individual who did that. He was not released under an early application for release pursuant to eligibility under section 745. All people serving life sentences have the right to apply for parole after 25 years. That is when it happens.
In fact, every time we let someone out, there is a risk. There is also a risk from all the people who are already out because most people who murder have not murdered before. It is not an area of high recidivism.
I am sympathetic to the fact that no one wants to risk an unnecessary taking of life that could otherwise be avoided, but the legislation before us does not deal with those issues.
Senator Milne: Could we have some clarification on that point? We were told that none had reoffended.
The Chair: Under a release pursuant to section 745, no one has reoffended in a capital crime.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: My question is for Mrs. Vallée. As you know, our job is not an easy one. If violence is a problem, we try to improve legislation and I believe that in some cases, this is necessary. At other times, I am concerned by the fact that mistakes are made when it comes to enforcing a law which is not a bad law in itself. However, it is possible to make some foolish mistakes.
This explains why we sometimes release persons who, under current laws, should not have been released. It is not that we need tougher laws, but rather that the laws we have should be enforced more stringently, in my opinion.
This being said, this does not mean that some laws should not occasionally be amended. I have no objections whatsoever to that. However, I would like to ask you some questions about two things: the jury and recidivism.
You argue that jury unanimity should not be a requirement. Unanimity goes to the very heart of what a jury is. While I could accept that the jury's decision was not unanimous, what kind of majority would we then require? A simple majority?
Mrs. Vallée: A two-thirds majority.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, but to what end? To avoid a scenario where one person assumes considerable power over another person's life. Isn't that right?
Mrs. Vallée: Let us work from the assumption that a two-thirds majority rule is in place for the judicial review hearing. The members of the jury are there to form an opinion. As we know, opinions vary from person to person. Admittedly, the jury will examine the information presented to it. However, given the current climate, the bill and the National Parole Board, public opinion is so strong that even with the best arguments and logic, the pressure can be such that people will cave in more easily to the media and lobby groups. We have to leave some room to manoeuvre, hence the two-thirds majority rule. Moreover, the current legislation has worked well. Why fix something that does not appear to be broken? That is the question people are asking.
In looking at the operations of the federal parole board, we note that in Quebec very few inmates are being released. As soon as an incident occurs, the number of inmates released slows to a trickle. The vacancy rate in halfway houses is currently quite high in Quebec. I have to say that if one takes the time to go to federal penitentiaries, despite the goodwill of all stakeholders -- and God knows that our organization is often criticized for the way the correction service works -- one is forced to concede that the prevailing climate is one of extreme gloom. Inmates do not even want to bother applying to the parole board. Professional workers are discouraged. Despite the objectivity displayed toward certain inmates, very few are being released. The media feed on public opinion to sell their newspapers and as a result, there is no longer any room to manoeuvre.
We believe there must be a way to achieve a better balance within the current system. I am not a lawyer and I cannot give you all the reasons why a jury reached or did not reach a unanimous decision. However, given the current social climate and the twist that the media put on events that occur in the criminal justice field, the system is no longer managed on the basis of our society's values, but rather on the basis of the pressure exerted by lobby groups or by the media.
Senator Beaudoin: Therefore, you are talking about a jury which would operate according to a two-thirds majority rule. Is that correct?
Mrs. Vallée: I believe that under the current system, the two-thirds majority rule applies.
Senator Beaudoin: My second question concerns recidivism. I believe in the importance of rehabilitation and protecting society. We must strike a balance between these two objectives. I find it scandalous that sometimes, an inmate is released even though his past record is known. What is the best way to protect society? I have no doubt whatsoever that some people can be rehabilitated. However, I am not so sure about others. Are we making any progress in this area? Are we improving our system? Have we brought more experts on board? Mistakes do happen from time to time. This is inevitable and I agree with you that we need to have a system in place. However, what is the best way to proceed? The tendency each time is to increase the length of the sentences when maybe we should resort to some other mechanism. I would like to hear your views on this subject.
Mrs. Vallée: The advantage of lengthy sentences, and I am not talking only about individuals to whom the judicial review process is applicable, is that inmates remain in the system for a long period time and their behaviour can be monitor and analyzed. Because of the length of time they spend behind bars, these individuals generally develop self-analysis skills and at some point, they come to realize that they have a problem and must deal with it using the resources available to them within the system.
I would point out that many of the major crimes or murders in Canada and Quebec were committed by persons who had never moved through the system, by persons whose problems were either ignored or never addressed by the health system.
The failures of other systems are often off loaded onto the corrections system. In Canada, we are privileged if we compare ourselves with other countries. Many improvements have been made in recent years, even for such difficult cases as sexual offenders. These improvements are beginning to filter into the current system. Important changes are taking place in institutional programs. Unfortunately, resources are extremely limited. When we restrict the number of parolees, what we are in fact doing is limiting our ability to test -- this is not a word that I like to use -- a person on the street. The true test comes when a person is released. He may be feeling fine inside, but the true test comes when he is released. The system needs the resources to establish institutional programs for all inmates. At present, because of budgetary constraints, resources are inadequate. Inmates have to double up in their cells, and the waiting lists for some programs are long. Resources must be available to inmates upon their release. Better co-ordination is needed in some cases. Quite frankly, we have noted considerable improvements in the past five or six years, and established programs are starting to pay off.
Senator Pearson: It was very interesting to note that many more inmates were released under the current legislation in Quebec than in other provinces. I believe the figure was 29 in Quebec, whereas there were only 2, 3 or 4 inmates released in the other provinces. Do you have any explanation for this?
Mrs. Vallée: We are often asked this question and unfortunately, we have no clear answer. After the death penalty was abolished and mandatory 25-year sentences were introduced, the Council of Churches in Quebec moved almost immediately to set up groups of volunteers. As a criminologist in public service, I have to say that these volunteers have worked tirelessly. They meet regularly with inmates and do not hesitate to tell someone that it is time to wake up and take charge of his life. They have succeeded in developing a relationship based on mutual respect and trust. Inmates are open to being challenged by volunteers and vice versa.
Judicial review in Quebec benefits from the efforts of these volunteers who follow the inmate's progress over time inside prison, accompany him to the judicial hearing and subsequently help him find work and rebuild his life after he is released.
We believe that these are some of the reasons why Quebec juries have ruled more often in favour of the inmate.
[English]
Senator Milne: I point out that, as Mr. Gough says, if it is not broken, do not fix it.
We have been faced with two diametrically-opposed views in the evidence that has come before the committee. Victims' groups and police groups have asked us to throw the whole section out. The John Howard Society and Elizabeth Fry Society have said precisely what you were saying, that the present law is working and should not be changed. Somehow we must come to some balance.
How do you suggest that the system deal with manipulators like Clifford Olson, who are so successfully using the press to raise people's levels of fear, if not through something along the line of Bill C-45?
Mr. Yeager: One of the wonderful aspects of the current process, which was mentioned by my colleague Elizabeth White, is the ability of a jury not only to give some element of hope to a lifer but also to denounce a lifer such as Clifford Olson. I believe Mr. Evans mentioned this too. If Mr. Olson applies for judicial review, one of the benefits of this process may be that a jury would have an opportunity to denounce him for his manipulations and the kind of offender he is. That is also a benefit of this particular process, strange as it may seem to you.
I hope members of the committee fully understand that the National Parole Board takes the cases of lifers applying for parole very seriously. A tremendous amount of work is done in background and institutional performance, and it is evaluated. Three members of the parole panel sit on the panel to make a decision. There is generally a very long period of testing involved, both within the institution and with escorted temporary absences and unescorted absences. This is a very careful process.
Senator Milne, if you refer to our testimony where we cite the research and provide a summary of it, you will begin to see why lifers do very well on parole.
Mr. Prashaw: I empathize with the very difficult predicament in which you find yourselves. Balance sometimes has more to do with politics than with justice, although balance also is a measurement within the justice system to find that equilibrium with different sides.
I think there are short- and long-term answers. The short-term answer has been mentioned by Mr. Yeager. I would trust the community to make the best decisions with respect to Mr. Olson. Senator Pearson cited statistics for some of those western provinces. They are making those decisions. Whether they are the best decisions for the community is another matter, but they are making those decisions. Those who apply are kept in for longer periods, by and large.
In the long term, perhaps you could put pressure on the government and on the populace to attend to the true needs of victims and not to become trapped in the adversarial response of some victims that it will be only on the playing field of punishment that we will be able to meet their needs.
There are so many needs. I cited Wilma Derksen's example and what direction she is going in. Other groups are starting to form at the grassroots level. Some people are not attracted and do not move to the higher profile victims' groups because they find they do not meet their needs in terms of self-help and healing. We would be grateful for any help that you can give by way of public debate and funding for victims groups in the country and for the victims themselves so that they can promote other ways of addressing these needs.
There is a pot of money out there in terms of proceeds from crime; there is a pot of money out there in terms of crime prevention. Could not some of that go toward dealing with reparation, restitution, counselling, funds and scholarships?
Senator Gigantès: You think there is some sort of cost. If someone kills my daughter, there is no reparation and there is no restitution.
Mr. Prashaw: I agree. There is absolutely no reparation if that tragedy happens to your family or my family, but I was responding to Senator Milne's question. She expressed the feeling of being trapped between two pressures. I think there are ways to get out of that trap and to go in other directions.
Senator Milne: None of those means is in front of this committee right now. We are dealing with a piece of legislation, and we have three choices. We can pass the bill as is, defeat it, or we can amend it.
The amendments proposed by Ms Vallée are in fact contrary to the original piece of legislation. We should really just defeat it, then.
Mr. Prashaw: We believe that, at least, they would not make the existing situation worse. I will not speak for everyone here, but we have indicated to the House of Commons and to the Senate that the existing law is working. If there are to be changes, let us not make the existing situation in the country worse in terms of safe communities.
Mr. Gough: Perhaps I could interject on the matter of the option of amendments.
In the brief of the Criminal Justice Association, which will be attached to your record, we have provided you with four specific suggestions in respect of amendments. The fourth one is at the bottom of page six concerning the purpose of the hearing. I hope we have provided the committee members with a range of possibilities.
I am comfortable with saying that the best option for the committee is simply to reject this bill. However, if the committee cannot reach unanimity on that particular issue, we strongly recommend that you take out some of its worst provisions. We have identified those for you.
The Chair: Just for your information, we do not need unanimity. We only require a vote of six to five.
Senator Doyle: Perhaps you can help me. We have been hearing a good deal this morning about the influence in the media and the great ground swell of opinion generated by Mr. Olson. In the part of the country I come from, people are more concerned about Mr. Bernardo and Ms Homolka. They are the villains of the day, and they are the villains of whom we are all aware.
However, Mr. Gough has had an experience unique among the people in this room in that he has been released and has gone out into the community where, we are told, terrible pressures have been generated by the media.
Did you find any hospitality in the world into which you were released?
Mr. Gough: I had a lot of support. I had support from my church, from the John Howard Society, and from case management officers who worked in the system and who later, for one reason or another, left the system. I had support there. I had a great deal of support from my family. Without this support, obviously it would be very difficult. I was fortunate.
Senator Doyle: We are aware of the work done by various organizations in the field. What happened when, suddenly, someone who had no idea of your background discovered what your background was? Did you find a willingness to reason and to become eventually a part of that support either for a brief time or for a longer period?
Mr. Gough: I had mixed responses. On the one hand, I had a great deal of support. For instance, I can recall going to work for a Christian organization that worked with the developmentally handicapped. They knew of my record and the crime. They accepted me. They knew I was a changed person. I became a good employee and they hated to lose me.
On the other hand, I have applied for jobs where it was necessary to have a criminal check. Despite there being nothing in my past to exclude me from a job, I was not hired for particular jobs based on the fact that I had a criminal record, specifically with homicide on that record. The reaction is mixed. Have I answered your question?
Senator Doyle: Yes. Did you ever find yourself discouraged to the point of wishing you had not been released?
Mr. Gough: No.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: It would appear that inmate rehabilitation has been a success story thanks to the services offered by Quebec. I hope that your association keeps in close contact with the Canadian association so that other provinces can benefit from your programs and from the community involvement aspect. Judging from what we have just heard, rehabilitation is certainly very important. Senators Beaudoin and Pearson raised the issues that I wanted to address and therefore I had nothing further to add.
Senator Beaudoin: But you agree.
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes, I do.
[English]
Senator Gigantès: There often is an overlapping perception as between one form of crime and another. Sexual crimes such as rape affect attitudes toward other crimes.
I have a lawyer friend who defended a rapist who had already done two years for rape. On the first day of his release, he raped again. My lawyer friend got him acquitted by being absolutely beastly to the victim.
These are the sorts of example which illustrate that this fellow should have had more than two years. That is confused with release, or whatever. The general view is that some criminals get off much too easily and come out much too soon. How will you deal with that?
Ms White: Your point that the justice system is incredibly complex and overlapping is a good one, and it makes dealing with these issues very difficult.
Your particular example highlights all the things that still need to be addressed. Two years in prison or ten years in prison, in and of itself, will not change the rapist. The rapist will only be changed if the rapist finds the right programs and the inner motivation to change. The fact of incarceration will not do it for him. It is our job as a country to develop the programs and the means and to make them accessible. When the person returns to the community, we must give them the support and supervision that they need to get over that transition. That is my view on the rapist.
The other issue you raise of the adversarial nature of our courtroom and its absolute inappropriateness in dealing with crimes of a personal nature -- that is, where your friend the lawyer did his job and took apart the victim's complaint -- is a comment on how we address crime and what we do with it.
None of these things is solved by any one legislative change. I think the media do a disservice overall to the general public when they suggest that there are quick fixes and they sensationalize them and do not speak overall about how the system can be improved.
You are right. It is extremely complex and is not susceptible to a simple response.
Senator Gigantès: By the way, that was a Quebec case.
Mr. Prashaw, you bothered me often. One of the things that bothered me was when you said, "It's politics, not justice." Politics is what replaced violence. Democratic politics is what replaced violence a long time ago when it was decided that decisions would be taken by a majority vote rather than by singular combat or simple vendetta. Politics and justice are very closely tied.
I am not a professional politician, even though I am in politics. There is a tendency to denigrate politics. If it were not for democratic politics and majority decisions, we would be in dreadful shape. So do treat politics with a little more kindness, please.
Mr. Prashaw: Senator, I will. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the process, the system and the people who dedicate their lives to making this country a better place. I did note that some politicians, some of the time, succumb to the winds which blow in order to determine their positions on certain matters. That was the qualification I made and I will stay with that qualification.
However, I think as well that the pressures you are under are enormous. We want to do the long-term work to shift out of the adversarial system in justice and politics which sometimes makes the time frame for delivery too short. Although this is does not apply to this chamber, rather than moving from election to election, we would prefer to move from communities less safe to communities more safe.
I wish to close with an interesting story on the rapist. I do not know that particular person, but there is a faint hope with respect to how communities deal with sex offenders. Of course, there is a wide spectrum of sex offences from less serious to very serious, although, for victims, every offence is serious.
In Hamilton and Toronto, we recently reported in a publication on circles of support and accountability. The Mennonite community and the Alcoholics Anonymous community have come together with a couple of very high profile sex offenders in that area who have been reported on page 1 of the newspapers there and who have been chased many times from one town to the next. Those groups are saying that chasing such a person out of one community so that he can live anonymously in another is not making our communities safe. The Mennonite church and the AA movement have set up seven-day, 24-hour circles of support and accountability. They are telling these offenders that they will look out for them, that they will help them, but that they will keep them on their toes.
There are many problems, including burn-out. There is tremendous commitment by these circles, but I believe that it is a little ray of hope with regard to how these communities respond. This is a better way than looking to prison, which is often not the most meaningful response.
Senator Gigantès: To come back to the adversarial system, Solon, the founder of democracy, was asked, "Did you write the best laws possible?" He said, "No, I wrote the best laws that society was prepared to accept." In a democracy, that weighs heavily.
Mr. Prashaw: Mario Cuomo said on the night of the election in an interview with Pamela Wallin that we have too few leaders today. His definition of a leader is someone who, when elected, will take a people farther than they ever expected to be taken. He said that we have leaders today who go to where the people are and parrot where they are for the duration of their term.
That, too, is a challenge of leadership; that we take people farther than they thought they would go.
Senator Milne: Mr. Yeager, is your fourth suggested amendment to add a new paragraph?
Mr. Yeager: That is correct. It is actually a suggestion to the committee that in the process of doing a markup it might be a good idea to provide the community with some assistance in the function of the hearing and what they are there to decide upon.
We provided a rationale for why we think that might be a very good amendment.
Senator Milne: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for a very interesting and informative discussion this morning. It is clear that a wide variety of opinion is being presented to us on this. Our study has proceeded for many weeks and will for several more. Your presentation certainly provoked some thought and deliberation by this committee.
Senators, we made a number of recommendations on Bill C-8, the drug bill, including our desire for a joint House of Commons-Senate review.
I wrote to the Government House Leader, the Honourable Joyce Fairbairn, on November 6, 1996, indicating that we would be interested in knowing what was to happen with our recommendations, further indicating that we would like that review to commence as soon as possible.
I must report that I unfortunately still do not have a reply. I will pursue that. I just wanted you to know that your committee chair has not ignored recommendations which we have made. I will continue to do whatever is possible to put pressure on the appropriate people.
The committee adjourned until 12:30.
Upon resuming at 1:30 p.m.
The Chairman: We have two witnesses with us this afternoon, both representing Action for Victims. Mrs. Darlene Boyd has already joined us at the table, and Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy will be joining us momentarily.
Perhaps, Mrs. Boyd, we could begin with your presentation, and we will hear from Mrs. Mahaffy when she arrives.
Mrs. Darlene Boyd, Member, Action for Victims: I am most grateful for this opportunity to address you on the issue of Bill C-45. I realize that, as each of you faces the onerous task of finding in favour or against a recommendation to adopt Bill C-45, your final decision will not be easy as you and your honourable colleagues prepare to vote on this matter in the near future.
I appear before you today to speak on behalf of my daughter, Laurie, whose atrocious rape and murder almost 15 years ago has made our paths cross here today. My goal is two-fold: to make each of you understand why I cannot support any attempt to amend section 745.6 of the Criminal Code; and to ask you not to vote in favour of Bill C-45.
I ask the latter, not for selfish reasons or for reasons which might be interpreted as being motivated by vengeance for the vicious treatment of our most precious daughter but, rather, in the interests of the Canadian public at large and for the protection of trustworthy and unsuspecting citizens who might otherwise fall prey to these individuals who have been tried and found guilty of first degree murder.
In my opinion, cold and calculated first degree murderers must serve the full 25 years, as sentenced, without any possibility of an early parole. My opinion is shared by countless numbers of individual Canadians and is fully supported by groups and organizations whose scope is of a national scale and whose views on this subject are a matter of public record.
I trust that you will give full consideration to the wishes of those whose opinion I fully agree with as you approach the moment when you will make your final decision regarding Bill C-45.
I would like to introduce you to a very personal side of my life. Her name was Laurie Leanne Boyd. She was our own special daughter of whom we were so very proud, in much the same way, I imagine, that you who have daughters and sons feel about your own children. On that terrible night of January 31, 1982, Laurie was 16 years old when a raw viciousness, an obscenity, crossed her path and so violently robbed her and all of us of her young and promising life. A victim of the worst and lasting kind, murder, our daughter became the victim of unimaginable violence. The nightmare of this deliberate and most heinous crime began when she was abducted by two men, sexually assaulted, and stabbed, we were told, between 18 and 20 times. It was apparently hard to determine. She was then doused with gasoline, and her body was set on fire.
Our daughter was the second victim of two very sick individuals, James Peters and Robert Brown, one of whom committed suicide while incarcerated in 1986. They were apprehended and convicted of first degree murder. The sentence, we were told time and time again, was to be life, with absolutely no eligibility for parole for at least 25 years. This we were assured of time and time again by our justice system; yet, we now know that section 745 of the Criminal Code, the "faint hope clause", has been legislated into the Criminal Code as of 1976.
Can you understand now why I appear before you today, feeling disgusted and abandoned by a justice system for which I once had total trust and respect? The respect did not disappear overnight, but was whittled away over the past two years, the whittling tool being section 745.6 of the Criminal Code.
On February 15, 1997, less than three months from now, honourable senators, under this section of our Criminal Code, our daughter's killer will be eligible to apply for early parole and thereby begin the process which may result in his early release back into society.
I ask you: Would you feel safe, or feel that your children or other family members are safe, knowing that such an individual could move into your neighbourhood, just up the street or maybe even next door from you?
As my husband, family and I face the application and eventually a guaranteed judicial review, and as this first degree murderer looks forward to the possibility of an early release, we have nothing to look forward to but the emotional pain which will accompany the reopening of barely healed wounds. We anticipate nothing but more anguish as we are made to relive the devastating nightmare of our daughter's death.
When capital punishment was abolished, it was replaced with a mandatory life sentence for all those offences to which the death penalty had previously applied. The penalty imposed for first degree murder is a minimum of 25 years in prison. This is not being enforced in the true meaning of the word "minimum", and we see now that we were deceived by this lie, a lie that lives on.
Two years ago, my husband and I were told about section 745. The news came not from the parole board, not from any correctional institution, but from a message left on our answering machine by a newspaper reporter. How insensitive and demeaning to Laurie's lost life. Was this information ignored when her murderers were sentenced or was this purposely left unmentioned by a justice system well aware of the possibility of early parole 15 years down the road?
When we first listened to the message on our answering machine, we were horrified. We thought there must have been some mistake, that this could not be true. We trusted our justice system to carry out the sentence of a minimum of 25 years, and believed that anything else could not possibly be considered. To our horror and dismay, there was no mistake. We will, at some unscheduled time, be forced into the hell of once again coming face-to-face with the slip of a man who is responsible for taking, so violently, someone so precious to us.
We all dread this moment and cannot support Bill C-45. I cannot and will not betray our daughter and the countless Canadians who support the total repeal of section 745.6, by accepting the amendments proposed under Bill C-45. We must not let victims of violence become faceless and silent, as our justice system would have them become.
This insulting and insensitive bill is dramatically affecting hundreds of families, simply because our Minister of Justice believes murderers deserve a second chance at life. This he clearly demonstrates by his amendments in Bill C-45. When the death penalty was replaced with the minimum sentence of 25 years, Canadians took this at face value and believed that 25 years meant 25 years. We are headed for a time in Canada's history when the sentence of a minimum 25 years will become synonymous with a mere 15 years, and a time when such a penalty will also not be seen as a deterrent for potential offenders.
Where do we draw the line? Does 15 become five or 10 years in jail? Where is this leading us as a society?
It is one thing to have compassion and understanding. However, we expect our government to strengthen the fabric of this country, not to work away at the weakness of its weave. Our government must have the strength to stand up and protect the citizens of Canada, and that means repealing section 745.6 of the Criminal Code.
In the absence of such will, Canadians are left defenceless and unprotected from those most evil: first-degree cold-blooded murderers. There should not be a law that allows or supports early parole for first-degree murderers and, most importantly, defines a so-called "successful placement" for them at the time of parole. Their fate was decided by a jury of our courts who had all the facts before them and who determined that they should be imprisoned for 25 years. Why does our government insist on overturning these decisions at the end of only 15 years?
How can we determine and testify that this loophole is working well? We have just touched the tip of the iceberg, as section 745.6 has been dormant for 15 years and has just in the last few years been activated.
The faint-hope clause has become the sure-bet clause with an 80 per cent success rate. The 10-year-early parole bonus has become a very inviting one to anyone serving a life sentence. And why not? They are extremely knowledgeable on this issue, knowing that, if declined, they may reapply at a later date.
Bill C-45 was drafted in haste with little attention being given to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country who are demanding total repeal of section 745.6.
The most disturbing factor is that, while the government has been tinkering with the question of section 745.6, more killers have become eligible to apply for early parole. By adopting the Minister of Justice's amendments, the list of eligible first degree murderers will continue to grow and will have reached the astounding total of some 600 murderers by the year 2007; and then it will continue to grow.
How can we have among us such an abundance of knowledge and yet continue to ignore what wisdom should dictate? I will not send congratulations to Allan Rock and his justice committee who claim to have repaired a huge flaw in our justice system by proposing Bill C-45. Although it may appear to be adequately addressing the issue, it is only giving it a facelift.
Our call for total repeal of 745 is not motivated by vengeance or a demand for retribution. On the contrary, it represents the original intent of the minimum sentence of 25 years, and thus fully supports consistency in sentencing. It represents what a legal system should be based on -- and that is truth.
We must ask ourselves to define the word "punishment". When an individual brutally, with intent and premeditation, takes the life of one or more persons, there must be stable groundwork for punishment, a punishment to fit the crime committed. There must be accountability, and responsibility must be assured for their actions. This must not be confused with rehabilitation. No person falling into this category, I believe, can or will ever be rehabilitated to the point where reintegration into Canadian society is possible. Whether convicted of multiple, serial, or single murders, each offender should serve the full sentence imposed. We cannot categorize murder; the end result is the same -- someone dies.
Mr. Rock has voiced his concerns for the "special" cases. Since when have we been so cold-hearted to consider any murder "special"? The cases Mr. Rock is concerned with could take advantage of the Royal prerogative allowing reconsideration of the case in question if need be.
Section 745 is being used to undermine the original sentence for first degree murder, and this is unacceptable. Realizing that all section 745 hearings do not obtain a full parole, I point out the second-best option, this being a reduction of some sort in the sentence.
These hearings can cost thousands of dollars. This is the main stem for the outcry of the Canadian public. Tax dollars finance these hearings. Could we not find needs better suited for the money so spent?
Our legal procedures are being laughed at by some of Canada's worst murderers, and the sad thing is that we are truly the clowns. We apprehend, we convict, and then we waver on our decision of punishment. Section 745 creates an amusement-park playground for murderers at the Canadian people's expense, thus never allowing the survivors of victims a chance to restore and repair the pieces of their lives. Section 745 is a waiting game, with us on one side, and the murderers and our justice system on the other.
Do you think this is real justice?
I have a list of names of murderers, by province, who are eligible as of December 31, 1995 to apply under section 745, as well as a list of the judicial review decisions as of September 1995. I ask the committee chairman and honourable senators to accept both these lists as having been read into the record, and to ensure that it is transcribed as part of my verbal submission.
There must be truth in sentencing. Do not tell us one thing and then do another. I have read in previous briefs how every person should be treated with dignity, equality, fairness and compassion. No first degree murderer deserves any of the above. Jim Peters never showed our daughter, or the other young woman, any compassion as they pleaded for their lives. He never left them any dignity. As far as fairness, how does a 16-year old girl defend herself against two grown men driven by perversion?
All we are asking for is a safe society. Why is it so difficult to convince our justice system to implement the measures to ensure this? Stop digging the unnamed graves provided as a result of section 745. Consecutive, not concurrent, serving of sentences imposed must be implemented. The mathematics is simple. If you murder once, no parole for 25 years. If you murder twice, no parole for 50 years, and so on. By just amending section 745 we are opening the door to endless appeals. These killers know the system. They are the greatest of manipulators.
I ask you today not to support Bill C-45. Remind our Justice Minister of the long forgotten Bill C-234, formerly Bill C-226, that is buried in committee and which should have taken precedence over Bill C-45. Is there no priority taken in matters of sequence? The last reading of this bill drew positive results in the house, the final vote being 136 to 103. Allan Rock has referred to us as the "walking wounded" and as the "victims' industry". I would voice a correction at this time: All I am is a mother representing my dead daughter, our family and thousands of Canadians who are demanding total repeal of section 745.6. This is the only way exploitation by these killers will stop.
In conclusion, I appeal to you today to help us finally put Laurie to rest so that she may peacefully continue to age and grow in our minds and in the minds of everyone who loves her.
The Chairman: Mrs. Boyd, I can shed a little bit of light on some of the matters you raise in your presentation. Bills that are numbered in the 200s are Private Members' Bills and do not have the same priority as government bills. That is why this bill takes precedence.
Ms Boyd: You will have to forgive me. I am very new to this.
The Chairman: I am sure that 90 per cent of Canadians would not understand the difference between the two.
We cannot deem information to have been read into the record, that is not part of our rules. Your oral presentation today will be transcribed and will form part of today's proceedings. Anyone may have access to the information you have provided to us today.
Senator Gigantès in first on the list.
Senator Gigantès: Madam Chairman, the testimony has devastated me. I do not think I can ask any questions.
Senator Milne: I, too, am devastated by hearing about what happened to your daughter. However, I do want to clearly understand what options are open to this committee so that you do not leave with the false expectation that we can repeal section 745, because we cannot.
The options before this committee are to take Bill C-45 as it is, which is an attempt to stiffen up section 745.6. We can accept the bill, defeat it or amend it. Those are the only options open to us. We cannot propose, for example, an amendment that would completely negate section 745. That is not within the rules of Parliament.
I do not want you to leave this hearing this afternoon with any false expectations or hopes of what might come out of it.
With respect to page 8 of your presentation, I want to be certain what we understand what you mean in the second last line. Your first option is to repeal section 745. Your second-best option is a reduction in sentence of some sort. I think you probably mean a reduction in the parole ineligibility period -- in other words, lengthening the sentence, not reducing it.
Ms Boyd: That is right.
Senator Milne: I wanted to ensure that your presentation did say what you meant it to say.
Senator Beaudoin: Your testimony was clearly presented and very moving. You assumed that, when the death penalty was abolished, it was replaced by a sentence of 25 years. If I follow your brief, thereafter you discovered a section in the Criminal Code which stated that after 15 years a certain procedure was possible.
Ms Boyd: That is right.
Senator Beaudoin: You then realized that the time had come when there was the possibility of an appeal or a renewed procedure. This bill was then proposed. What you are very clearly saying is that we should apply the law as it is, that is, a life sentence means a minimum sentence of 25 years. You are against the present legislation, as well as the proposed amendment to that legislation. That being the case, no matter what the Senate does respecting Bill C-45, to accomplish what you wish would require legislation to restore the 25-year minimum, as you thought was the case.
Ms Boyd: Yes, you are right. When these two fellows were sentenced, we were told the maximum sentence was life with absolutely no eligibility for parole. That is still being said, and people are being misled by it.
All of a sudden, 15 years down the road, we receive a phone call stating that no, he will not be imprisoned for 25 years; he will only be in jail for maybe 15, 17 or 19 years.
That concern will always be with us. We will always be wondering if it will happen in the next month or the next month after that because there is way of knowing when it will happen. There is nothing to protect us or our feelings. We cannot be expected to get on with our lives when we do not know when this will affect our lives again so dramatically.
"Murder is a word which causes people to think of very nasty situations. However, it is much more than a nasty situation. It affects so many people for ever and ever.
Laurie has a brother. I do not know what will happen when he has to face this fellow once again. He was only 14 years old at the time.
I did not come here today hoping that you would listen to my application out of a sense of pity for me. I came because I firmly believe that our justice system must be truthful in its dealings with Canadians. Do not tell us you will do one thing and do something else. Do not use the lame excuse of a section being added in 1976, and that you forgot to tell us about it. That no longer washes well with us.
Senator Beaudoin: Your message is very clear.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Boyd, for your presentation. It has certainly given us a great deal of food for thought. I can assure you that it will form a significant part of our deliberations.
Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy, Director, Action for Victims: Honourable senators, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on such short notice. I will attempt to be succinct, as advised.
I appear before you still unable to return to my job as a teacher since June 15, 1991, when Leslie Mahaffy, my daughter, was abducted, confined, restrained, bound and murdered. Her desecrated body was found in cement blocks in St. Catharines, approximately 40 kilometres from our home in Burlington.
I am also the founder and director of Action for Victims, a five-year-old victims' advocacy group which tries to help victims emotionally, psychologically, financially and personally by providing information and listening to their horror stories.
I am also here on behalf of all victims of murder and the general public, which I know shares my view on section 745 and the proposed amendment, Bill C-45.
As I stated in my brief before the Commons committee hearings, which I urge you to read again as a supplement to my remarks today, nothing has persuaded me to sway my opinions to accept any amendment to section 745 of the Criminal Code. Section 745 has caused havoc -- and it only began in 1990-1991 -- for the public, the police, the offenders and certainly the families of all the victims of murder. This government has not spent enough time studying and researching the real issues involved in amending section 745, which was a poorly justified and ill-conceived section created as a softer alternative to section 742 of the Criminal Code.
As the discussions, debates and deliberations continue to entangle section 745 and Bill C-45, the issues are obvious to everyone except Mr. Rock who remains stubbornly stoic and closed-minded to those who have had the opportunity to testify and make known their concerns with the bastardized parliamentary procedures which plague the repeal of 745 and gave rise to Bill C-45.
Bill C-45 has clearly illustrated to Canadians that the crafters of this bill are not concerned with the public and their personal safety as much as they are with the concerns of the offenders. Safety of every member in our society will be and should be reflected in every decision of the courts. Truth in sentencing, for example, safety, training of Corrections Canada employees and the National Parole Board's improved mandate of accountability and public safety must be priorities. Decisions throughout the justice process should be made in the best interests of the innocent in society and not the offender. It is time to reflect upon our philosophy of life and death, right and wrong, taking responsibility for our actions and behavioural modification all towards the achievement of a higher, kinder, more gentle and humane zero-tolerance-of-violence society. The protection of the public must become an accepted priority and a demonstrated reality by the government to all Canadians.
The intent of section 742 was public protection and the prevention of offenders ever repeating their despicable, unacceptable behaviour of those among us. They who cared not, placed no value upon the most precious yet fragile existence of a human life over his or her selfish wants.
Section 745 was written for those who believed 25 years was too long a punishment for the offender and he or she should, in exceptional cases, receive a judicial review after serving 15 years of the sentence. The time is now, before the year 2000, that Canadians will direct politicians and once more ask for truth in consecutive sentencing and no parole for those sentenced to life imprisonment until they have served 25 years.
We must have a viable alternative to capital punishment. That, Bill C-45 does not propose. In fact, the amendments are too few, too late and too vague. Some are just another layer of bureaucracy that guarantee workfare for lawyers.
I will not repeat each itemized concern regarding Bill C-45, but I would ask you to refer to and to seriously consider each point addressed in the CPA brief, particularly page 11, dated November 6, 1996, presented by Scott Newark and Grant Obst.
I am concerned that the filter Mr. Rock referred to as a judge, before empanelling a jury, who has discretionary powers to decide whether a murderer has the likelihood to succeed in his or her bid, makes his judgment on only Corrections' caseworker submissions. Why is there no of mention of victim impact at this stage? Apparently we assume, as the judge will have to assume, that victim impact statements will only be accepted if a jury is empanelled. I feel strongly that a victim impact statement made both at the time of sentencing and at the time of hearing should be considered, not one or the other. Bill C-45 is very vague and, if impact statements are not allowed on both occasions, why not? I would also ask why impact statements and all other documents available to the judge and jury are not in the form of sworn affidavits.
I am concerned that the "danger" supposition that follows would be more truthful if principles of consecutive sentencing were upheld. That would negate the absurdity of possibly thousands of scenarios.
I will outline only one scenario for you. For example, if you kill one person, you would still be afforded a judicial review under Bill C-45, regardless of whether you were on parole at the time of the murder; the number of aggravated sexual assaults you may be charged with; the additional number of rapes you may have committed; and regardless of weapon possession and aggravated assaults against citizens, police officers or prison guards. That is to say, your 25-year sentence could still be reduced. However, if you shoot your two neighbours because their dog is always on your property, you will not be entitled to a judicial review.
This over-simplified example makes the dangerous assumption that someone who kills two people is worse than someone who kills only one person. How, then, do we sentence a killer who kills three people or 33 people? Only consecutive sentencing with consideration of dangerous offender, high-risk offender, and repeat offender legislation can offer the public truth in sentencing. There will be no bait and switch justice that rightfully angers the public so that they display their lack of trust of the whole justice system.
The victims' family members are devastated and are returned to the time and place of the crime, which horrifies and terrorizes them all over again. This happens when it is six years, 15 years, 17 years, 25 years, or 30 years later.
Truth in sentencing provides, first, the specific deterrent for the offender; second, general deterrence for others who might be so inclined; third, rehabilitation; and, fourth, denunciation of his or her behaviour and actions.
We need simple answers for the unacceptable behaviour that our society will consistently not accept. For example, if a killer's total crimes add up to 640 years and he or she has only one life to give -- as did each of his or her victims -- then the offenders should stay in jail and out of society for that one life.
There is a greatly needed balance from the hell-hole institutions to the Club Med institutions in our country. Lifers and all inmates must be taught, if possible -- that is, they should be trained, retrained and untrained -- and receive every opportunity to change and to alter his or her behaviour while incarcerated.
Every member of my family has had to experience a new way of living. We have had to accept every psycho therapy session at our cost for the past five years, five months and 21 days -- and, forever.
We now must exist with the totally intolerable behaviour of Leslie's killer. Our lives today are merely an existence, not living -- and it is certainly not living a life that any one of you would choose.
Permit me to draw an analogy to a dilapidated house which is an eyesore in an upscale community that values pride of ownership and community. The community feels this house is devaluing the other properties around it, but the municipality will not tear it town down, as it is not in their best interest. They slap a coat of paint on it, prop up the porch and paint the front door. No one in the community could deny that it looks better just as, upon a quick glance of the amendments contained in Bill C-45, section 745 looks better. However, the closer you get to it, you see that the paint is pealing and the door no longer opens.
The amendments to this "house" have not improved or fixed the problem. The "house" -- that is, section 745 -- still exists. The amendments have simply justified its existence and justify no more dollars being spent on it. Section 745 and the Bill C-45 amendments perpetuate the blatant lack of truth in sentencing. Clearly, now, capital punishment or consecutive sentencing will be the only alternatives to a kinder side of our nature.
This legislation will be remembered at election time as a callous piece of legislation that, once again, benefits only the guilty, not the innocent.
Where does Bill C-45 amend and address the justice department's responsibility for the safety of all Canadian citizens and not just the safety of the offenders?
I hope that no one in this government has ever heard their child's screams and cries of pain pleading, "Someone, please help me." Just minutes later, the blindfold that she has been forced to wear -- or worn for days -- is removed and she is killed. How dare you not listen and answer the screams, the terror and the pain of all victims and the cries of all Canadians for your commitment to accountability and responsibility for the safety of all citizens of Canada?
One group of Canadian citizens who must not be overlooked but guaranteed safety on the job is the corrections guards and workers. There is a serious false sense of security to think that retaining section 745 will protect them from injury or attacks. Section 745 cannot protect them. Bill C-45 is not the only way.
I am not a policy maker. However, even I can think of more creative ways to ensure that our corrections employees are safe. Simply put, if prisoners cannot control their anger and their destructive behaviour in prison and are a very real threat to the guards, then it is inconceivable to me that these are the very same offenders that Mr. Rock would rationalize should receive a reduction in their sentences.
Our Criminal Code has provision for special early releases and reduced sentences. However, Mr. Rock must consider this to be the appropriate way to address such special cases, namely, to dust off the little used Royal Prerogative of mercy.
I am also concerned about the overcrowding in our prisons. However, from where I stand, the wrong people are being paroled. The wrong people are also being incarcerated. Those who commit property offences should not be housed in the same institution as those who have committed offences against a person. A 70-year-old man who is diagnosed with cancer and has only six months to live should not be denied early parole. He should be permitted to go home and die at home. Slap an electronic bracelet on him and parole him before warrant expiry rather than extend early parole to a 35-year-old paedophile.
We have all heard about the overcrowding in our prisons that would occur if we did not give early parole to murderers. However, this is an illogical argument, considering offenders are provided with bleach and condoms. I think very few are complaining about their double-bunked situations.
I apologize for the lack of sequential recording of my concerns, but someone took my child away -- and many other victims' family members had a murderer steal their child or loved one from them -- and I find it extremely difficult to maintain the focus and the sustained effort I wish I could have.
I will not apologize for my tears or my emotion, nor should anyone in my position. The day our society, our government and our courts do not feel uncomfortable close to our emotion and our humanity, the progress to a kinder, gentler society that is free of violence will not be attainable.
True justice is peace and humanity. All of a society which has not yet been directly affected by crime becomes as indignant as those of us who have.
I thank you for your support.
The Chairman: We thank you for your presentation this afternoon. You need apologize for nothing in your brief. You made it extremely clear how you felt as a victim. It was also clear that you were speaking on behalf of your daughter.
Senator Cools: What you have had to endure is unspeakable.
You spoke about the paucity of assistance given to persons in your situation, and I know that to be the case. I have had much experience with the penitentiary system and with working with persons in your circumstances. One is always struck by the millions of dollars supporting the offender and the paucity of dollars supporting the victims.
You spoke of psychotherapy sessions at your own expense. Could either or both of you share with this committee some of the financial expenses which you have incurred?
In other incarnations, I have known persons such as yourselves who did not have sufficient money even to buy coffins. In contrast, I am told that one of Paul Bernardo's lawyers billed Legal Aid $400,000 for his defence. Many victims are totally impoverished. For many years the system has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to them.
I thank you very much, Mrs. Boyd, for the list of inmates you provided. However, as I pass my eye down this list of inmates who will be coming up for review, I see the names of inmates from whom I revoked paroles on previous occasions before they committed the murder for which they are now incarcerated. I know that I myself revoked the mandatory supervision of one person listed here.
I do not think this committee is in a position to do anything about that, but at least the record could show the other side of an issue which is in need of compelling attention.
Ms Mahaffy: In 1991, our family in Burlington was lucky in that we were advised immediately of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in Toronto. We were given the form to apply and did not have to supply much detail. I remember that my husband just submitted it with names. However, the funeral must be paid for immediately. As kind as our funeral home directors were, it had to be paid for. We had to cash in GICs to pay for the funeral.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does allow $3,500 for the funeral, but that would not have covered her funeral, which was in no way elaborate, even though the funeral home gave us a discount.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards a maximum of $2,500 to a victim of crime. The troublesome part of that is the phrase "pain and suffering". My husband did not receive a single penny for pain and suffering. I do not know why. He certainly has gone through a lot of pain and suffering. When I was hospitalized shortly after Leslie's burial, I was covered by OHIP. From what I have gathered from other families to whom I have spoken, if victims attended a doctor who was under the OHIP scheme, they were lucky. I was lucky to have been hospitalized, I guess, in that I was covered by OHIP from 1991 to 1995.
When the trial was moved to Toronto, I was not able to commute to the therapist whom I was at that time seeing once a week. I did find a therapist in Toronto who has been very helpful. I attend once a week, and will double my attendances in the near future. He is not covered by OHIP. He charges $135 an hour. I owe him over $5,000.
However, as a result of networking with other victims' families and others in a position to know, I applied to the Canada Pension Plan for a disability pension. Calculations were made retroactive and I received a lump sum. Since January 1, I have been receiving a monthly sum which will not be sufficient to enable me to live alone. As of January 22, I will be living alone with my son.
I do not recall the amount I was awarded for pain and suffering. It was not the total amount possible. I believe that I was awarded a fair amount for replacement of my wages as a contract teacher. Pain and suffering was awarded, but from that they subtracted the life insurance policy which we had for Leslie, which was meant for her college education.
They covered my husband's lost work time but would not reimburse any of his lost overtime. As a result, instead of dealing with me in the hospital, my seven-and-a-half-year-old at home and my mother at home, he went back to work after six weeks, which I think was too early.
Unfortunately, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards only an income earner. There was no payment for therapy or to recompense for pain and suffering for Leslie's brother. In Cornwall, a 16-year-old girl was murdered a year ago January and an 11-year-old sibling is still having a terrible time. Since she earns no money, there is no compensation.
People can turn to their churches for counselling which is helpful, and to bereavement officers at the funeral home. There are social agencies to which I refer people I have met who are in the same circumstances as ourselves.
The Chairman: Although this does not directly relate to Bill C-45, I think it is important that this committee, which deals with many bills with respect to justice, hear that kind of testimony.
Senator Cools: As Mrs. Mahaffy was telling me that she owes so many thousands of dollars for a therapist, I was just thinking of the services of the many psychiatrists that Ms Homolka had free of charge.
Ms Mahaffy: I do have good news. I have applied again to the Canada Pension Plan. In talking to the two clerks who answered the phone -- I did not get to the top -- I was told that they would absolutely not reimburse me for my rehabilitation because it was not a physical complaint. I said, "Well, it is; it is in my head," but she did not buy that. However, with further research, I found their pamphlet, so I have something in print. I am pursuing that.
Senator Cools: Mrs. Boyd and Mrs. Mahaffy, you have given us a list of every convicted offender who might apply under section 45 to the year 2007. There is a lot of controversy in this country about convicted inmates and whether they have killed once, twice or three times. I observe that Senator Milne, when she sponsored the bill, said in her speech that it is not true that certain of these inmates have not killed more than one time.
Have you or your organizations done any work whatsoever on the killing history of these individuals? I saw many inmates who had killed many times. Sometimes the charges would be different, manslaughter or whatever, but I do remember seeing inmates who had killed at least two or three times. I remember seeing many women who had killed a few times.
I know that your group has no money; however, do you have any knowledge base on the histories of these individuals?
Ms Mahaffy: I do not. I think that history is also relevant to the fact that there is no concern about the number of victims killed or anything like that, so it is left out.
The statistics came from the Canadian Police Association, I believe. For their purposes, it only includes the name of the actual killer. It does not say whether the killer has killed two or three people or when he or she killed. I am sure that they do have in their records a complete history of each killer. We know who is coming up and for what reasons.
Ms Boyd: Approximately six months ago I called to see if I could find out something about James Peters. I wanted to know if he had taken any measures as far as applying for the 745. I made five phone calls that day, and I was put off and put off and put off. No one wanted to talk to me. It is as if we are not important. It is like, "He just took your daughter. Now, just go away and let us do the job. Let us rehabilitate him. Let us get him back into society." We are not important. They do not want to talk to us. Even though it was my daughter who was murdered by him, his rehabilitation and what he is doing today is none of my business, and I think that is wrong.
Ms Mahaffy: In Ontario, on June 11, 1996, there was a victims' bill of rights for Ontario, and, we will, hopefully, be able to go to a national victims' bill of rights under which we are entitled to know. I have already heard from the parole office regarding the killers in our case. We are entitled to know any movement. The only question is: If they do not tell us, who is to blame, or who is responsible for that knowledge?
In Ontario, a 1-800 number has either already been set up, or it will be up and running in early January. There is certainly progress in that area, and it is probably due to pressure.
Senator Milne: Madam Chair, just to clarify the record, Senator Cools was referring to an answer I gave to Senator St. Germain in the Senate. I want to ensure the record is clear. No one who has been released under section 745.6 has killed again.
I will repeat to you, Mrs. Mahaffy, as I did with Mrs. Boyd, because I do not want you going out of here with any false hopes, that this committee can only accept Bill C-45, defeat it, or amend it. We cannot throw section 745 out. That is not within our purview.
Given that situation, I will ask both of you what may be a very difficult question. If you do not want to answer it or you find it too difficult, I quite understand. If you were in our position, considering that section 745.6 will still be there, would you want this bill to go through and try to stiffen it up a bit, or not at all?
Ms Mahaffy: I urge you to defeat it. We have been through the process, and the bill was at second reading stage before committee for a total review, and that was strongly supported by the Liberal Party. Then, all of a sudden, Bill C-45 appeared amending the section but not repealing it.
Every person I listened to before the Commons committee, myself included, felt rushed. This is a bill about time -- time spent by the killer, time spent by government, time spent by a judge and jury, our time spent. I do not think that there has been enough discussion and enough time spent on this bill. It is a very important bill. I feel that how we live with murderers is right at the apex of our society.
Ms Boyd: I cannot support it. I have never wavered in that stand. Since this started, since I found out about it, I have wanted its total repeal. It must be taken out. It is not good. It supplies the victim with nothing. It imbalances the scale of the proceeds of justice.
Senator Milne: However, given that we cannot repeal it --
Ms Boyd: I understand what you are saying.
Senator Milne: -- would you like this passed or not?
Ms Boyd: I would ask you to not pass it.
Senator Gigantès: This morning we heard from groups who indicated that this bill is too stiff for murderers, but they also wanted it defeated. You are speaking on behalf of the victims, and you too want it defeated. What are we to make of this?
Ms Mahaffy: I do not know who made their presentation this morning, but those who want the amendments defeated like it better without the amendments because they feel they can designate and differentiate between a person who kills once and one who kills more than one person. It is not a good way to deal with multiple murderers or people who kill more than once, but it is saying that the more you kill, the worse you are.
The amendments will not help. The amendments will not make the sentence any softer for them. It is a matter of how we deal with the mass murderers.
The amendment related to unanimity requires that there be unanimity only in the first vote. If the jury is unanimous they will get a hearing and there will be a reduction of years. However, if they do not agree on the number, as I understand from reading between the lines, they revert to a situation where only two-thirds of the voters must agree.
That is why I ask that you defeat the bill, and I support others who have urged you to do the same.
We have to live with murderers. I never give up on humanity and on helping others. We all have to modify our behaviours in a way that society will accept us. If we cannot control our behaviour, then we will not be able to live in society; we will have to live outside society.
Again, the amendments have not changed the situation for those people. If they do not qualify because they happen to have killed two people, then they will not get a judicial review. It is still too harsh. They are still looking at 25 years in jail.
I would like to see more help and more money going to corrections. These people, like us, are learning to live a new life and they need help.
Rather than having them learn golf, which is not a life skill, they could be learning and enjoying other things, whether they be artistic, mechanical or whatever, but something that would be safe enough for them to do and which would allow the guards to feel safe. For example, if there are enough guards, the prisoners could use tools that might otherwise be considered unsafe.
I almost consider those who are incarcerated as an untapped resource. Perhaps they can help other Canadians. They are being paid. There are more interesting things for them to do. I do not like the fact that some prisoners in the hell hole will be monitored electronically. They will have no human contact. That is inhumane.
Senator Gigantès: We were told by the groups we heard this morning that, after 25 years, they will be released in any event.
The Chairman: They will be eligible for parole.
Senator Gigantès: If they are paroled after 25 years, their rehabilitation may be less effective than if they had had the hope of being eligible before the 25 years were served.
Ms Mahaffy: If they are sitting doing nothing, if they do not feel useful, if they do not like themselves, then you get into the realm of hope.
However, if capital punishment is not a deterrent, then how can we logically say that hope is, and that it will deter their behaviour? How can we say that if they are waiting just 15 years for their judicial review? As to them being occupied in something interesting and constructive, the corrections workers who testified before the Commons committee found that the lifers were the most docile. Once they had reached the resolve that this was the type of life they had to lead, then they got on with living.
Senator Gigantès: Am I correct in saying that you think our prisons contain people who should not be in prison and that they, in fact, form the vast majority of the prison population; and that if we did not imprison them we would have resources to do the things you suggest?
Ms Mahaffy: I am referring to those who commit the non-personal types of crime. I refer to crimes against property. For example, someone who has embezzled $4 million is sent to prison for seven years while a grandfather who has been molesting his granddaughters for seven years receives a sentence of two years less a day. It is not fair.
There are horrible sentences out there. Those who commit crimes against property and who are serving over two years, should be in an institution learning and working their eight-hour day as the rest of us have to do in order to support ourselves. However, they should be in a section separate from those who are dangerous. We have all heard the expression that those who go into prison come out better criminals because they have been taught in prison. Let's keep the embezzler away from someone who robs a bank with a gun, which is certainly a quicker and faster crime to commit than embezzling money over a number of years.
Senator Wood: Madam Chair, I do not want to question Senator Milne's statistics. However, I have a paper given to me by the Department of Justice of Canada which states that four of the 50 who received some reduction in their parole eligibility date have reoffended. One of them reoffended, one is lawfully at large, and two were revoked because they breached parole conditions.
The Chairman: Those are not with respect to murder, though, senator. We have more recent statistics which I would be pleased to share with you. They are for October 1996. I will ensure that you receive the most updated statistics.
If there are no other questions, I wish to thank you both. I know this has been an emotional experience for you.
Ms Mahaffy: I would just like to say that I am going away with more energy than I came in with, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you again.
The committee adjourned.