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.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I probably have time for just one question.
We heard from a couple of people that the legislation should be amended to insert a requirement that the parole board consider victim impact statements.
I'm going to stick to Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Latimer again. Would you be supportive of that provision, that the board be required to consider those statements?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I have no problem with that, but I would prefer that the comments made be relevant to the decision that the quasi-judicial board is considering at that time. As you've heard from many of the victims who have appeared before you, it's very difficult not to go back to the original offence and want to continue to hold inmates accountable for that initial deed. But information such as whether they've issued threats is all relevant and I think it should be part of an accepted statement.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
Mr. Richards, you have two minutes, and then that is it.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today but particularly Ms. Prioriello Armour.
Thank you so much for being here today. I can only imagine what it's like for both you and Ms. Lee. As I said to Ms. Lee after her testimony, I just wanted to come and give you a hug when I listened to you, because I'm sure that you've needed many hugs and many helping hands over the years. I can only imagine what it must have been like to have to share your story a number of times and to be revictimized in that way.
I think really I'd like to ask you for a little bit more. You have talked about it a bit already. You mentioned specifically the “Catch me if you can” letter that you posted on your site. Obviously the intention of this bill is to deal with the revictimization process that victims have to face when they have to continually go to these further and further parole hearings. Ms. Lee put it very well. She talked about how it seemed to be the case almost every six months.
Could you comment on how much difference you think it would have made to you had this bill been in place, in terms of ensuring that maximum, that window of five years? Would that have made a pretty significant difference for you and your family?
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
It would have made a huge difference, because we've only had one parole hearing, but we've prepared for three of them. Two other times he has said he wanted his parole hearing, so we went through the process of doing the impact statements. We put everything in and sent it all in, and then he cancelled. He didn't want to do it anymore.
So three times within six years, we relived what we didn't have to.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you for your answer, and thank you for your courage.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you to all of our witnesses, on behalf of this entire committee, public safety and national security, as we deal with legislation that is important to public safety. Thank you very kindly for attending, and I thank my colleagues for the courtesies here today.
The meeting is adjourned.