Justice Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So, in the other two cases, the victims' families were not opposed.

[Kim Pate]

They basically said they weren't happy with what had happened. They obviously didn't support the fact that the person had taken a life, and they talked about the anguish it had caused but also indicated they had some hope that the person would move on and do something productive with their life.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Do you have the sense that participating in this process is another form of victimization for the families?

[Kim Pate]

There's one family of victims who didn't say that initially, certainly didn't voice that at the judicial review, but at a recent parole hearing have. I have some opinions about why that may have happened, in terms of other interventions. Certainly nobody I know of has started, at the hearing, voicing those sorts of concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Dechert for five minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Pate, thank you for being here today. With my colleagues, I'd also like to thank you for the good work you do to help people in difficult circumstances.

When you last appeared before this committee on the previous iteration of this bill, which I believe was Bill C-36, you appeared at the same time with Ms. Sharon Rosenfeldt, who leads a group called Victims of Violence and I believe was herself a victim of violence. One of her children was one of the victims of Clifford Olson. She said a number of things that I thought were quite interesting in that testimony that day. I'd just like to read a few passages. She said that when the member of Parliament who was responsible for the faint hope clause

talked about the waste of the life of the offender who is kept in prison for 25 years, he seemed not to take into consideration the innocent life the offender wasted when he or she made the decision to commit murder. There is no parole or judicial review for murder victims and their families. They have no faint hope clause or legal loophole to shorten their sentence.

She went on to say:

Most victims of crime feel we need to attend any and all proceedings dealing with the offender who took our loved one's life. It is with humble honour and strong conviction that we represent our loved one, for you see, no matter how many years go by, there is never closure when another human being has taken your loved one's life. There is never closure in the manner in which your loved one died. It is unnatural. The result of murder is ugly. The wound of the crime in violence is always there at the surface. It never leaves, even though our lives continue and we discover some years later that there really is a life after murder. In reality, the victim knows there is closure to certain stages of the justice system, there is a finality to the proceedings, or there is supposed to be, and that finality is a form of closure. For us, it seems it is the only form of human rights we have on behalf of our loved one, so we, the family, will always be there to represent them.

She went on to say:

...it is quite simple for us: the offender and the justice system may have forgotten our loved ones, but we, the victims' families, have not. Most of us will always be there to represent them and speak on their behalf. That is why victims' families attend any and all hearings, even though it opens up the wounds no matter how many years have gone by. That is just the way it is.

As other members of the committee have pointed out, with respect to currently incarcerated murderers, they have the right currently to apply under the faint hope clause at years 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 of their incarceration. Each and every time they do that, those victims' families feel a need to come back before the parole hearings to represent the loved one who has been taken from them. I'd just be interested to hear your comment on that and your response to Ms. Rosenfeldt's concerns.

[Kim Pate]

Oh, I have the greatest respect for Sharon. I've known Ms. Rosenfeldt for 26 to 27 years. I respect the work she does and her tremendous efforts in her organization, which provides a lot of really important support and assistance to victims.

With respect, though, if someone applies for a judicial review and it goes before the chief justice, it wouldn't involve the person going before the parole board. There would be one application initially, and then if the person were denied, there might be another one in some subsequent period, but it wouldn't necessarily be every two years. For those who are—

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

It could potentially be, though, couldn't it?

And they do participate in the application for a reduction of the ineligibility period?

[Kim Pate]

Again, hypothetically, according to what the law says, it's possible, but I have yet to see that situation. Usually, the person wouldn't be supported and therefore they might not proceed, or they might be supported and proceed, but it usually wouldn't be every two years like that.

I think it depends on the stage people are at. I don't know how I would react if I lost my child to murder. I do know that most of the people I know who have “experienced” murder have experiences as different as one to the other. So I would never negate the experience of Ms. Rosenfeldt, nor would I negate anybody else's experience. But there are also many people who feel very strongly that once a person has indicated that nothing will bring the loved one back—nothing will—then having someone languish in prison when they might in fact be able to contribute in a different way in the community, whether like some of the women I'm working with, who are taking care of their grandchildren or going out and participating by doing some other work, such as in a healing program for other women and children.... Those initiatives might not otherwise happen had those women not had access to them.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

She seems to indicate, at any rate, that her view is that she has to be there on behalf of her child every time that possibility arises.

But let me ask you about another aspect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You're out of time, unfortunately. I'm sorry.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay, the next round. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're back to the Liberal side. Any questions? Mr. Lee?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I just have one. It's very technical.

Subclause 3(1) of the bill describes or refers to an application in writing to the judge, and the bill subsequently refers to the sequencing of the 90-day windows. The wording there is that the person may “make an application under subsection (1)”. This refers only to the application to the judge, doesn't it?

[Kim Pate]

That would be my understanding.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

And it doesn't refer to the actual parole eligibility application?

[Kim Pate]

No, because they would first have to go through the chief justice, then through the jury and have the jury agree to reduce the eligibility, then have the eligibility reduced. Then on whatever date the jury determined, the person would be eligible to apply to the parole board. But all of the paperwork and procedures would have to be followed in-between.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I don't know the answer to this. I'm asking you as someone with experience. Are victims involved in this type of application to the judge?

[Kim Pate]

I'm not aware of any victims being involved in that stage of the application.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So then in your experience, victims only become involved in the actual parole board eligibility application—which could follow after a judge gives the green light, if the judge gives the green light.

[Kim Pate]

They could be involved there, but they could also be involved in the judicial review process.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

They could?

[Kim Pate]

Victims do appear or have appeared, either in person or through written statements, before the jury as well.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

To make representations to the judge.

[Kim Pate]

To the jury, yes.