Public Safety Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

If you would, just close up.

[Mike McCormack]

—between April and May, and the offender is content with that window, then why not consult with the victims to see if there are times within that window that they cannot attend?

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Our time has been shortened. We have time for only one round of five minutes each.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank all three witnesses for appearing today, especially Ms. Lee, for the courage to appear before committee and for bringing your story to us. It is very important that it be told. Thank you, as well, to all three of you for bringing forward some suggestions on amendments that we will be looking at.

Ms. Lee, I do have a question for you. I wrote your statement down. You said that you are now a registered victim, with all its entitlements. You also had said that you have to relive the events each and every time you have to go to a parole hearing. The question I have to ask is this, and I know it's such a difficult issue and a difficult time to have to go to parole hearings. Why do you, and so many other family members of victims, do it?

It's a question that we need to ask, because it's terrible all around for you to have to prepare your statements and go to the hearings, yet everyone does it. Why is that?

[Mona Lee]

As I said, this is not something I ever wanted to be an expert in, but unfortunately I am. Why I do it is for the memory of my sister. As someone said to me, she didn't die, her life was taken from her, and nobody is there in these parole hearings to represent her. As I told you, I couldn't even show a picture of her. It's about her, she's the one who's gone, and these parole hearings are all about them and how well they're doing. As the other panellists have said, they change their statements all the time.

It is our choice; we have the option not to. But if we don't do it as family members, there is nobody there on their behalf.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

You've also mentioned—I don't know if I wrote it down correctly—that since 2007, when the person who committed this crime was eligible for day parole and was denied, you've had to attend six parole hearings. That's a lot in a very short period of time. The question to you is this. If this legislation had already passed and become law, and the Parole Board of Canada could extend that period of time from two years—you've actually indicated that sometimes it's been less than two years—

[Mona Lee]

Sometimes it was six months.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

If the opportunity had been there to extend it to five years instead of the two years, or six months as you've said, how different would your life have been in the last number of years?

[Mona Lee]

It would have been so much better. It's really hard to describe what happens when these letters come. Once you become a registered victim, they give you so much information. Sometimes I even had to tell them to stop. I don't want to know every time he gets out, because it just makes you so angry that he's out on unescorted temporary absence. It's too much information. I just needed to know this.... My life would have been so much better if I hadn't had to do this every single time, every six months. You have to go through all your files, you have to live all these emotions all over again.

It's not something I can deal with on a daily basis. If I started to think about this on a daily basis, I wouldn't be able to function. But once you have to do this and get back into it, it just takes its toll.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think Mr. McCormack actually said it quite well when he said that the way the current system is, no sooner is one parole hearing over, and you're preparing for the next one. I really appreciate your making those comments as well.

Within the bill there are a couple of sections that deal with mandatory disclosure to victims, including the disclosure to victims of the date, time, conditions, and location regarding an offender's conditional release. Do you support those measures?

[Mona Lee]

Yes.

Even though I don't live in the same city as the offender, it was still important to me to find out where he was and what he was doing at this time, because I do have other family members who are in that city.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Also with regard to this bill, there's a discretionary disclosure to the victims regarding information on the offender's correctional plan. I know another witness did touch on that and the progress on the plan. Do you think it's important, where it's feasible, where it's possible, to obtain that information? Do you believe the victim's family should be entitled—let's talk about the victims here and not the perpetrator. Do you believe it's important that you have access to that information?

[Mona Lee]

Yes, I do, because in the present system I get sheets of paper every so often that say he did this or he didn't complete this program, but we need to know more. No one has ever told us the plan for him, which obviously didn't work because he's back in. So I think the more we know, the more prepared we are to comment on it in our statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre, go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to start by thanking you, Ms. Lee, Mr. McCormack and Ms. Gaudreault, for joining us today to discuss this bill. It is very important to discuss the rights of victims. I think your testimony was very enlightening.

My questions are especially for you, Ms. Gaudreault. You did not have time to finish your presentation. I think you left off at the amendments on parole hearings.

Would you like to add some things right now?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

I think it is important to say something about the concerns of the victims we meet with and the organizations that work with them.

After offenders are sentenced and serve time, their release must be gradual, they must be monitored in the community and they must be supervised. That is the best guarantee for the safety of victims and society in general. The major concern is that offenders are released without supervision. That is the risk with the proposed amendment.

I would also like to add that this amendment does not come from victims' rights groups. I also read carefully what the ombudsman said last week. This is a major change and the amendment is not proposed by the groups.

What victims want is for individuals released from prison to show they followed programs that led to a result. We want them to follow their plans under the charge of supervising officer. If the released individual breaches the conditions, there will be consequences. The release could be gradual. However, this amendment to the schedule pertaining to all the violent crimes does not provide this guarantee.

Offenders can also be significantly affected. This amendment may have an impact on their motivation to change. There can be a financial impact on the system. I am not sure whether the costs have been assessed. In short, we are very concerned about this amendment that has not been requested by organizations. On the contrary, victims want the offenders to be supervised, released gradually and monitored, meaning that a watchdog follows them when they are outside on parole.

I think that is something we often hear and it is important. The safety of victims is important when someone is sentenced, especially for violent crimes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Great, thank you.

I know that the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes is the voice of many victims of crime in Quebec. I am pleased to hear you talk about gradual release and that you are reassured by the supervision that is currently in place for gradual release.

I would just like to know one thing. Would the victims you are representing be worried now that the time for parole reviews will increase to five years, which might even mean sometimes that offenders would not even have the opportunity to get parole?

How does that affect the correctional plan? What tangible impact do you see?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

We hear that a discretionary measure is needed. From what Mr. Sweet said when he introduced his bill, we understood that this concern was present in the bill.

For instance, parole must be available to people who have changed, who followed their correctional plans thoroughly and who have experienced things in their lives that would make it appropriate for them to benefit from supervised parole.

I don't think anyone has an interest in keeping people in prison if they can be released. At any rate, most offenders will end up in the community again one day. So it is better if they are supervised when they come out. That principle has been recognized for a long time.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you. I greatly appreciate your view.

Do you think parole is key to reintegration into society and to supervision with a view to improving public safety?

[Arlène Gaudreault]

Absolutely. That opinion, which is shared by many groups, has been expressed during the review of Bill C-10.

Various groups that work with victims of domestic violence or sexual assault have reiterated the importance of parole. This system must clearly have rigorous support. We also expect the correctional system to do its job well, to treat victims well and to protect them.

I think the parole system is beneficial because it ensures follow-up and it acts as a watchdog.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. We're over time, as well. Thank you, Madame Gaudreault.

Go ahead, Mr. Payne. You have five minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming.

My questions are through you, Mr. Chair, to the witnesses.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. McCormack. You said something about the transcripts not being available to the victims. One of the things that popped into my head right away.... You also talked about new members on the parole board for these different hearings.

Would you know, or is there any way to tell whether, in fact, those new members on the particular hearing have actually read the previous statements from the previous times the individual who committed the crime was trying to get parole?

[Mike McCormack]

Again, the fundamental flaw in the current system right now is the lack of transparency, especially for the victims going through this process. There is so little disclosure to the victim, whether or not the new board.... It's our information that the....

Every time we went through this process with Munro, we didn't even know what information was being shared. But it was our information that the boards were not aware of any of the other boards' findings. What made it worse for us was that the family, Karen and her family, was feeling that Munro or somebody else could tailor their statements—what didn't I get right with the first board?—for the next board because we had brought in a completely new panel. That's where we get into the lack of transparency. At least if we had the transcripts we could ensure.... Again, we've asked for the transcripts.

We've asked for that transparency not only in his testimony but also with regard to what was happening while he was incarcerated. For instance, one of Munro's triggers was alcohol and drugs. When we asked if he had been involved in any drugs or alcohol while he was incarcerated, we were not allowed to get any of that information. He's trying to get access to be allowed in public again, and here was one of the triggers he had. We found out subsequently that he failed the drug test. How does that help the victims? How does that help protect society? It befuddles me.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

The criminal in this case.... It's just absolutely unbelievable that, in fact, the members on the board wouldn't have read the previous statements to find out all the contradictory evidence, and then even allow individuals to go on unescorted paroles. To me, it is totally outrageous.

I know that as a police officer you've probably encountered a number of these things. I wonder if you could tell us about some other incidents this has created, as a result of your duties as a police officer, and of course, as the head of the association.

[Mike McCormack]

As a police officer, again, fundamentally we support rehabilitation. We understand parole. We understand you have to give hope to people who are incarcerated. You have to train them. You have to reintegrate them into society.

But when we're dealing with this most violent portion of offenders, I have to ensure that when I'm going out there and policing.... I worked 20 years in Regent Park, one of the most challenging policing areas in Toronto, where we dealt with people on parole.

I appreciate the concerns about having this monitored, as you say. But there are a lot of costs associated with having people monitored once they are released on parole. Again, when we're talking about policing dollars, who's going to pick up that cost and who's going to do that?

We have several halfway houses in, well, the largest density in all of Toronto. Being able to monitor those people 24 hours, when we're talking about people who have substance-abuse issues and those are the triggers, it creates a very difficult position for policing. We have to be really sure that when we're releasing people into the community, they will be reintegrated. There has to be that support structure. But again, the costs around that are going to be very challenging.