Public Safety Committee on April 26th, 2012

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I haven't heard it in the feedback I've received.

You're right. How people find out about this I don't know, but surprisingly I have some even from British Columbia, believe it or not.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It is from across the country.

I am sorry to hear that you were a victim. As you said, that would have been horrible.

I also grew up in a little town where we never locked the doors, but that's changed. It would have been horrible to have had your wallet stolen and to have had that invasion, but thankfully, you weren't harmed physically.

I cannot imagine people who are victims of horrendous violent crimes. You look at these individuals you cited who have murdered people. Lives have been lost. Families have been devastated forever, and now these individuals are getting this money and are not paying restitution.

That's my time. Thank you very much, Mr. Lauzon.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hoeppner.

We'll now move to Mr. Garrison and Mr. Rafferty, on a split.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Lauzon for being here. And I want to start by stressing that we don't in any way doubt your good intentions with this bill.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I appreciate that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

In fact, we voted to bring it to committee, because we think it raises important issues. However, we have some questions, and we are not yet convinced that it provides the solution it may appear to provide.

I personally have some questions about its constitutionality. I won't ask you to be a constitutional lawyer today and comment on—

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Good, I'm not a constitutional expert.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

—whether it infringes on provincial powers over civil rights. In fact, I have some other constitutional questions about whether it imposes extra penalties on offenders, but I won't try to get you to deal with those today.

When we knew this was coming up, and I knew you were coming to committee, I met with front-line parole officers in my riding and asked them about your bill. They gave me a very interesting perspective. They questioned whether this bill does what you think it does. They said that one part of rehabilitation is for prisoners to learn to take responsibility for their actions and to make responsible decisions themselves. They felt, from what little they knew about this bill, that it in fact took that decision-making out of their hands and made those decisions for them. It would be perceived by the prisoners as an extra penalty rather than as part of what they worked with, as parole officers, to get people to make those responsible decisions to make those payments themselves and see the positive consequences of taking accountability for their actions.

I wonder if you have had that point of view presented to you.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Actually, I haven't. But with all due respect, I think that a prisoner, a person who is incarcerated because of a crime he or she has committed.... Now, they've gone through the court system. They're not there by accident. Maybe they've even gone through the appeal process. They're there for a reason. They should not have preference over....

They should at least be operating by the same rules we are in an open society. We are not offenders, and we haven't committed any crime. If I owe money to my spouse or my children, I am responsible. I don't have any choice about that. I don't make the decision whether I pay or not. If the courts can find me, I pay.

I think that a criminal, somebody who's been proven to be a criminal, should have at least the same responsibility. What this bill does, in my mind, is give the person the responsibility. Listen, you haven't been responsible your whole life. You've taken money from me. You've hurt me. You've offended—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But with respect, Mr. Lauzon, that's exactly the point the parole officers are saying, that you're making the decision, that this law is making the decision for them and makes them less accountable unless—

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I think it's a little bit like having a child; this is a little bit of discipline. If you have a child who won't do what he's supposed to do, you sometimes have to take him and show him how it's done.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay —

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

With all due respect, your parole officer might have a point of view—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

This was 12 parole officers.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Pardon me?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

This was 12 parole officers.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Okay. I'll tell you, I've spoken to other people, victims groups, and I can assure you that they don't agree with the parole officers.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I guess one of the things I've learned in criminal justice, and we've heard at this committee, is that what seems like common sense to us often doesn't apply to those who are offenders.

So I want to turn it over to Mr. Rafferty at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Rafferty, go ahead please.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much, and I'm very pleased to be here today.

Thank you very much for this bill. It's an interesting bill and I know it will appeal to many.

I just want to ask you this first. How open will you be to amendments, to making changes, to making this bill better?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

You know, my intention is, as I really do feel that victims, and in victims I really include the families.... I think that for a lot of reasons some of these criminals have not looked after their families and the families have suffered, so they've been victims for many years. So I think that anything we can do—and I'm sure this committee has good ideas on how we can improve that bill, and I'm very open to that.

My intention is to help victims. That's my government's intention, but that's my personal intention too. I want to do what is right for victims, and in that I include spouses and children.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Well, I'm very glad to hear you say that. I noticed that in your first point in terms of being satisfied by payment, you talk about spousal and child support as being important. I was very pleased to see that.

I'm wondering if there may be situations that also need to be included in this bill, that will also come up if you're going to talk about spouses and children—for example, an older prisoner whose spouse has no retirement income. Or in another situation where support is needed for the family, it's not perhaps an official support through a court order, but it's support that the children and families need. Or indeed it might be the grandfather of a couple of children who also need support.

You're very clear here in the bill.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Yes.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

But I wondered if you'd be interested in dealing with some amendments that might deal with increasing the latitude.