Evidence of meeting #12 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hearing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
For the second hour of witnesses, the first round goes back to Conservative, then NDP, Conservative, Liberal.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
My apologies. Thank you very kindly.
Yes, Mr. Norlock, please. My apologies, sir.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
No need. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to the witnesses, thank you for being here.
To the victim of Mr. Dobson, I have to say we must as legislators look at this dispassionately, but it sometimes is difficult to do so when you hear certain stories.
I want to just start my questioning by realizing that this is somewhat like a parole hearing in that you're being asked to revisit it again. But I can assure you, and I think I speak for all parties, it is not in vain, and we appreciate your doing so, as well as the other witnesses who are here.
I did take advantage of the No Freedom Dobson website, to look at it, and of course, I recently read your family's experiences with hearings, where it stated that you ripped up your victim impact statement in frustration during the review because you weren't able to say what you wanted.
I quote from it:
They said, “Well you can't say the word monster, you can't call him a product of the devil—it's disrespectful,"....
And then you further said:
Well where was my sister's respect when he was murdering her?
I think you're completely right to say that.
There's been an imbalance in our system. What we're trying to do is bring back balance. It seems that part of the goal of this bill is tilted so that the balance is somewhat backwards when we're dealing with rights of victims.
I wonder if you could comment on how you felt your rights were violated through the process and how parts of this bill might and could help you during those hearings.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I think if the system was balanced where.... As I've said, the hearing has to start being looked at as being our hearing as well, not just the offender's hearing. Thankfully, he didn't get parole. But if they honestly were considering parole at that point in time, I had something I felt very strongly could have helped them to make that decision to not release him. When you can send a threat through your sister...he literally gave the message to his sister to deliver to me that when he got out of jail, he wanted to visit me and it wouldn't be nice. Then in his letter, “Catch me if you can”, as we call it, as you may have seen on the website, he promises to kill again every year possible.
Do you really think in a parole hearing I shouldn't have the right as the family of the victim to let you know this? I think this is pertinent information. I think the parole board should have to hear that. If he's in jail for 20-some-odd years at this point—I think 22 years at that point—and he can still send a threat to my well-being, to my home for me, is he really ready for parole, with his own wording, promising to kill again every year, to back that?
The parole board wouldn't hear it. The balance has to be put there where this is our hearing, too.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you for that. I have one other question. The clock is running very quickly.
Why do you believe it's important for the public, and especially the victims, to know about the offender's correctional plan and evaluation on the road to his or her rehabilitation?
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I think it's important for us, as the family, to know what courses he's done. We do get that, but it's important to know that some are mandatory. Just to say, “Here's a list of things that will help you reintegrate back into society and that we hope you'll take advantage of” is not good enough.
You have to remember that when they are in jail, they lose the right to use money, to wait for a bus, to just do common courtesies and common pleasantries. They need to know this stuff. I'm all for a criminal who has served their time coming back out onto the street, but make sure when they come back out that they are ready to tackle the world. Make sure they know what they're in for, so that they don't come out, freak out, get scared, and recommit the only crime they know to get back in again.
As Dobson said in his own parole hearing—it's on our website—jail is the only home he has ever known. If you want to go back home, you just get in your car and go and see the old neighbourhood. For him to go back home as he knows it to be, which is jail, he has to kill again.
So it's important that we know that they have taken these courses, that they are mandatory courses, and that they are completely and totally ready to face society again, safely and securely.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you very much.
Given that the bells may go at any minute, I'll be a bit rushed here, but I do want to thank all the witnesses today. We've certainly heard much to consider on the frequency of hearings for those convicted of murder. I assure you that we'll take that very seriously.
After what we've heard today, I do share the concern raised by Mr. Easter that we're proceeding to clause-by-clause on the 27th. We've heard some very good suggestions for amendments, and that's—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you, Mr. Garrison. The committee practice has been that when the bells go, obviously we adjourn. It would take unanimous consent to carry on for a couple of minutes.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Could I ask for unanimous consent? They are 30-minute bells, and we are in the Centre Block.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
I realize that, but it has been the committee's practice to do that. I have not set a different standard, so the chair will enforce that. However, if the committee wants to give unanimous consent to allow you to finish your questioning, that would be up to the committee.
Do we have unanimous consent?
5:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you very much.
So I do share the concerns. I hope we'll have committee business on the agenda for Thursday so that we can revisit the question of how quickly we proceed, especially with the concern I raised earlier about the parole board apparently declining to appear on legislation that will affect their operations to a very large degree. We'll have a look at that correspondence to see if that is in fact true.
Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Latimer, I want to focus my questioning on a couple of things you raised. We heard previously from a representative of the Quebec victims group. She made a distinction in this bill between those convicted of murder and the schedule I offences. I think both of you also made reference to that.
When Ms. O'Sullivan was here as the victims ombudsman, she said that it was not her original recommendation. Hers was limited to murder only, and not the schedule I offences.
Perhaps I could hear just a bit more from both of you, Ms. Latimer and Mr. Sullivan, on that distinction between those convicted of murder and the schedule I offences.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Ottawa Victim Services
Thank you for the question.
Actually, I was the ombudsman when we made that initial recommendation. It was limited to those doing life sentences. It wasn't for anyone doing a violent offence.
I think the proposals in the bill could have a negative impact on public safety, for some of the reasons that Catherine pointed out. Some guys may only get one chance at parole. Although it may not be publicly popular, we do want to see people get on parole, because it does enhance public safety.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I agree with that.
In fact, I think you could even parse the categories of murderers. A lot of murderers, not the psychosexual serial killer types but a lot of one-off murderers, are actually your lowest-risk people when they are actually released on parole. I think you need to distinguish among them—the serial killers, the sado-sexual and others—and maybe have a very narrow category for the highest-risk people, the dangerous offender types.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you.
Ms. Latimer, you raised the interesting question that if we created what you called a “one-shot” system, it would reduce incentive for offenders to participate in rehabilitation activities. Can you say more about that for us today?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Given the length of what most federal offenders are actually serving, it would be extremely unlikely that they would get out on parole. Most people do not get parole on their first appearance. If you're going to have to wait another five years, then what is the point of participating in the programs to fulfill your correctional plan if you're going to wait until statutory release or warrant expiry in any event?
I think you lose the part of the incentive or the motivation that encourages people to prepare themselves for release if a progressive release system is not in place.