Justice Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the individuals who are taking part in this video conference. I know that it's probably been boring sitting in a room by yourselves waiting for us, but I would ask, Ms. Derksen, if you have a five-minute opening for us, to go ahead.

[Wilma Derksen, Victims' Voice Program Founder and Past Coordinator, Mennonite Central Committee Canada]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address you and the rest of the committee.

I am here on behalf of the Mennonite Central Committee, often referred to simply as MCC, which is a worldwide ministry of Anabaptist churches that endeavour to share God's love and compassion for all in the name of Christ by responding to basic human needs and working for peace and justice.

However, I will be speaking to you as a parent of a murdered child. I am also here because the issues you are addressing are extremely important to me and my family.

My daughter Candace was 13 years old when she was abducted and found murdered six weeks later. We lived for two decades without knowing the details of what happened. I not only know the horror of murder, but I am also intimately acquainted with the aftermath of violence. From the beginning, I began working with other victims, and I learned that the emotional aftermath can be as threatening as the crime itself. It does and it can destroy us.

The attention focused on this bill reminds me very much of the time when Candace first disappeared. All I could think of was the murder and the need for justice and safety. It was very difficult for me to think or talk about anything else, but I had to learn. I had two other children who were alive and I had a husband who needed a loving wife. If I had waited for justice and safety, I would have had to wait for a very long time--life would have passed me by.

I am still involved with other victims of crime. Two weeks ago, I was with a group that spent most of the evening analyzing the problems of our justice system. We were wallowing in our pain, not always being politically correct, as one member put it, but allowing each other to speak freely.

At the end of the evening, I asked them what they would do to create justice in the country. To be honest, I expected that they would suggest changes to our criminal justice system similar to the bill that we have before us today. I thought they would prioritize safety at all costs, propose stiffer sentences, and advocate for victims' rights.

They didn't. As we went around the circle, they all agreed that the answer to crime is to put more emphasis on the school system and other social programs. While not denying that we have to maintain prisons, they insisted that we as a society need to put our energy and creative thinking into giving our young people a better education and a better life.

I could share equally compelling stories from my work with offenders. My experience in the way my family and I chose to respond opened up opportunities to visit many of the prisons across Canada, from William Head Institution in B.C. to Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick.

I am thrilled to report that this last February we saw our own case finally brought to justice. For the first time, we actually heard the story of what had happened to our daughter, but the sentencing of the man who murdered our daughter did not satisfy our deep longing for justice. In some ways, we had already found justice in the joy of the good things that had come out of Candace's death and in the support of our community of friends.

The trial brought out the truth, and it was the truth that healed us and set us free, not the sentencing. I still find no satisfaction in thinking that the man will be sitting in prison for the next 25 years. There is nothing life-giving about that. It's just sad. And it's going to cost us probably $2.5 million.

In this short time I can't begin to give you a comprehensive critique of the bill, but I do want to register my concerns with the potential for unintended consequences. For example, even though it sounds wonderful to enshrine the victim's voice at Parole Board hearings, I also worry about this. Are we going to be putting pressure on victims? Could we be locking some victims and offenders together in a dysfunctional dialogue for the rest of their lives?

Perhaps we need to include the victims at the beginning of the process, mapping out their healing journey at the same time as we are sentencing the guilty. Perhaps this should be at the discretion of the judge. We can think about these things creatively.

Furthermore, I wonder if we can afford to focus so many of our scarce resources on mopping up the past so that there are only crumbs left for the living, who are struggling to find hope for the future. As the Minister of Justice rightly noted earlier this week, the Government of Canada is funding many creative community-based justice initiatives that address the root causes of crime, support victims of crime, and help ex-offenders reintegrate into the community. I would ask that you assign a greater proportion of your attention to this good work.

This is the month my daughter was abducted 27 years ago. People often ask how we survived the impact of murder as a family, how we are still together, and how we eluded the grip of violence, held onto our joy, and did not become negative. The winning formula for us was love first, justice second.

I do thank you for your wonderful hard work in governing our country. I wish you much wisdom as you deliberate on this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Ms. Derksen.

Mayor Katz, thank you for your indulgence in waiting for us. You have five minutes.

[Sam Katz, Mayor, City of Winnipeg]

Good morning to all members of Parliament.

First of all, let me thank you for inviting me today to speak to this important bill.

I am the mayor of a city that has a lot to be excited about: a fantastic new airport, increasing residential development in our downtown, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and the return of the Winnipeg Jets.

As optimistic as I am about our city's future, I need to be realistic as well.

I'm also the mayor of a city that has seen 34 murders this year. You may be shocked to face the grim reality that out of those 34 homicides, 11 youths--children--have been charged in these crimes.

As you know, violent crimes like homicide are the most difficult to predict and prevent, especially when we are dealing with matters involving alcohol and drug substances or young offenders.

We're living in a society right now where individuals believe they can get away with violent crime. What's worse, as a result of the laws currently in place, they technically are.

The safety of all citizens of Winnipeg will remain a priority for my council and me. We've worked diligently to invest in and provide tools to the Winnipeg Police Service to reduce crime in our city, but significant change requires more than simple police enforcement.

That is why I am encouraged by the bold steps in Bill C-10 to change the status quo and start taking real responsibility for our citizens' safety. The revolving doors of justice need to close, and we need to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act so repeat offenders stay behind bars instead of escalating the nature of their crimes out in society.

The rights of our citizens need to trump the rights of the criminals in our country. There is so much in this legislation that is vital to preserving the safety of our citizens.

Yes, violent and repeat young offenders need to be held accountable for their actions. The word “consequences” need not be seen as a dirty word. Yes, we need to end house arrest and conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes. Guess what? It doesn't work for rapists, murderers, and thieves.

Yes, we need to restore victims' rights so they can participate in parole hearings and address inmate accountability, responsibility, and management. The criminal justice system needs more focus on justice than on criminals.

Yes, we need to provide mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences when such offences are carried out for organized crime purposes and involve targeting our youth. As mentioned, Canadians and people everywhere are entitled to live their lives in peace, freedom, and security.

I understand the need to provide programming to our youth to deter them from a life of crime. We've invested in programming at every level of government to combat this problem, nut guess what? Actions minus consequences equal nothing.

This bill will assist in a multi-pronged approach to solve our crime problem. The naysayers will kick and scream but will be content to sit in silence and accept the status quo while more people die on our city streets.

Something has to change. As mayor of a city that is on the front lines in dealing with the effects of this broken system, I say that the time for change is now. I encourage all of you to pass this bill and take action now.

Thanks very much to all of you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Katz.

The bells are ringing. I'm just going to check on what's happening.

I think everybody has just received word from their whips' offices that a vote is taking place. The bells are ringing and the rules--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Can we just have one round for each party?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I don't think that will work. We're--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We'll then have 15 minutes to get to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Well, the rule we've heard is that when the bells ring, the committees are to adjourn.

The clerk says we would need unanimous consent for 15 minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to express the concern that we're all the way over at Queen Street, so the timeframes are a little different here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

There is for one round.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

But we'll have to cut it and keep it tight to four minutes.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Four is good.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all of you for your obviously differing views on this whole issue.

Ms. Derksen, I do want to thank you, offer my condolences on your own personal circumstances, and say that your approach to this is somewhat different from what we've heard from other victims. I want to say that your views echo those of Professor Bala, the law professor who spoke to us the other day. He said:

It must be appreciated that the youth justice system plays only a limited role in preventing youth crime or creating a safer society. Our pre-school programs, education, child welfare and mental health systems, and our families, faith organizations, community groups and recreation programs do much more to address the causes of youth crime and prevent future offending than the youth justice system. Further, as identified by Justice Nunn, to the extent that our youth justice system is failing to meet its objectives, many of the problems relate to lack of resources and inadequate training rather than to the legislation.

So thank you for giving us your perspective as well as that of other victims you've worked with over the years.

Mr. Sapers, one issue that hasn't been talked about very much--and perhaps Madam Roy can also comment on it based on her experience in dealing with offenders--is the change in wording from “pardon” to, I think, “record suspension”. It seems like a wording change, but to me it may represent a more profound change in our pardon system.

If I'm wrong, let me know, but my sense is that if someone says they've received a pardon, that means a lot. That they've gone through a process of being investigated, being rehabilitated, and being recognized by the parole board as having been rehabilitated. I think that means something to an individual, and it may affect their future life.

Saying that you have a “record suspension” almost sounds, in layperson's terms, like saying you have a suspended sentence. It's not as though you have received a pardon, which seems to mean something.

Mr. Sapers and Madam Roy, would you care to comment on that very briefly? Obviously we have only a couple of minutes.

[Howard Sapers]

Sure, and I'll try to be very quick. Legal language is very important. It has to be clear, so simple is better, and words have deep meanings to people when they're involved with the criminal justice system.

So whether we're talking about the language around pardons or least restrictive measures in corrections or anything else, it's very important that rules be clear so that systems can be held accountable.

“Pardon” does have a particular meaning, and there would have to be a lot of education to support the change.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Roy.

[Joëlle Roy]

There too, I'll say the same thing. I agree with Mr. Sapers. What does the suspension of criminal records entail? That means that we're not granting a full pardon. What do we do in a case in which an individual has served his sentence, has repaid his debt to society? I believe that, in a democratic society like the one Canada wants to be, when an individual obtains a pardon, that means something, in particular that he can move forward, find a job. What effect does a record suspension have? It's an ambiguous situation. We don't know what it is.

And why abolish the pardon? Why? Why add five or 10 years in the case of summary conviction offences or criminal offences? What's the justification for that? We have to ask ourselves who requests a pardon and who obtains it. Do you have any statistics on the subject? Do multiple repeat offenders request a pardon? No, those who do so are people who commit one offence in their life and who ultimately decide to make that request. So why withdraw a measure that is already... Look, it's a screen—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm sorry. Your time is up.

Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Katz, thank you for being here today. I want to ask you a couple of questions.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark recently said she supports much of Bill C-10. We heard today from the New Brunswick Attorney General that she is supportive of Bill C-10. Your own NDP Attorney General has come out saying that he strongly supports Bill C-10 and added that when young offenders are released on bail, he pushed for tougher drug penalties aimed at curbing gangs and organized crime.

I take it from your testimony today that you're also very supportive of these measures.

[Sam Katz]

You are 100% correct. Actually, I came to Ottawa to lobby for these changes many years ago, and I certainly hope that in this go-round these changes will be made. We are definitely in sync with the Attorney General right now, as well as the previous Attorney General, plus the premier of the province.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I also had the opportunity to read an article about an unfortunate incident that took place. Linda Kozlowski's son was just murdered. She said she had a message to send to judges and politicians. She said that it's time for change in our criminal justice system. Do you think Bill C-10 has the kinds of changes that are going to help in situations like that?

[Sam Katz]

There's very little doubt in my mind that it is time for change, and this change will have a very positive impact for the citizens of our city and our country. We've had way too many situations where either repeat offenders or people on parole have been involved in a murder. You explain that to the family who just lost a loved one.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

What would you say to those who claim Canada already has enough laws to deal with our criminal problem, and specifically youth crime and violent crime?