Right.
Evidence of meeting #76 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was illness.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #76 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was illness.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Did you also know that it's only three years if the review board says it should be three years?
6:20 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Yes, I noticed that. But you will find that if you give very burdened organizations like parole boards and review boards an option to extend the review periods, they always take it to the outer limit. At least this is certainly the case with the parole boards, even though they could have capacity to—
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Are you suggesting that the review boards aren't going to do their job properly because they don't want to work?
6:20 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I'm saying that they will likely have more people there for extended periods of time and therefore more pressure on them to do reviews.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
I don't see how that jibes with your statements and previous statements that the review board is doing a very good job.
You talked about how you think this legislation will say that a person can be designated high risk by one brutal event.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
People have been saying that at the committee today, and I think they're cherry-picking words in the legislation. I don't think that's accurate.
The proposed section actually says if “the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person”. So it's not just brutal, first of all. Second, it then goes on to say that in deciding whether to define the person as high risk, which dovetails back to brutal, the court has to look at a whole host of circumstances, which include “any pattern of repetitive behaviour”, for example, “the accused's current medical condition,” and “the opinions of experts who have examined the accused”.
It's actually not going to be based on just one brutal event. It's not what the statute says, and it's not accurate.
6:20 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
But it could be, and that is what the statute says.
In fact the statute doesn't even suggest, by my reading of proposed paragraph 672.64(1)(b), that you're looking at future behaviour. You're looking at a past incident. At least in proposed paragraph 672.64(1)(a) you are looking at the likelihood that a person would “use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another”. It has “will use violence”.
Here you have a retrospective observation saying “...the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person”.
You have one incident causing harm.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
The judges are going to make that assessment based on.... It's not a limited section. It doesn't say that it's based on these factors alone; it says, "consider all relevant evidence, including...".
What I find curious is—and I know you've come to the committee before to oppose things like mandatory minimum sentences, because you say that judges should have discretion to make decisions—this section gives judges incredible discretion. They can look at a whole host of factors before they make that determination. Now you're saying that we shouldn't give the judges discretion to make decisions.
6:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
The point of the John Howard Society is that when it's within their range of expertise, they should be the ones making the determination. With sentencing, a judge is aware of the particular set of factors and the individual. They're in the best position to shape a sentence that best reflects the severity of the offence and the degree of responsibility.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Proposed paragraph 672.64(2)(e) says that. It says, “the opinions of experts who have examined the accused”. The experts are going to give opinions that the judge is going to use before making that decision.
6:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
He's not necessarily bound by them. He only needs to consider them.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Well, they're not bound by them. We're giving judges discretion, which is what you think judges should have.
6:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I do think that they should have discretion, but I think that the efficiency and economy of the courts are best served by allowing boards to make determinations in specialized cases where specialized knowledge is needed. The review boards are ones where particular knowledge of causality, likely future risk, and mental health issues is vested.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
But the review board will make that decision. If the person is declared high risk, the review board will then determine a year later or—
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
No. They have to make that decision that it's three years later, and they only do that if they think the person is a substantial risk. Within a year, a review board can say that a person is no longer a high-risk offender and that they're going to transition them back to the former system. I don't see how that is such a terrible imposition.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
That's the time.
I'll give you a chance to respond to that question.
6:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I was just going to ask why you need it, then. What you're describing is pretty consistent with the existing structure, so that the review board would make the determination. I don't understand why this is an advance.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Mr. Rankin. It looks like he's going to share his time.
June 5th, 2013 / 6:25 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Chair. I'm going to share my time with Mr. Jacob.
I want to say to all three presenters how thoughtful your presentations were”. In particular, Dr. Triano-Antidormi, I was really moved by what you had to say. Thank you for coming and saying it.
My first question is for Ms. Latimer. It's a very simple question, and I have asked other witnesses the same one.
Having analyzed the bill in its current form, would the John Howard Society support Bill C-54?
6:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
No, the John Howard Society would not support the bill in its current form.