Public Safety Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Yes, I totally agree with you.

There was a case, an individual release, I believe, from Saskatchewan, that was monitored. They found his monitor on top of a rooftop somewhere. He actually ended up in the United States. So in terms of monitoring that doesn't necessarily say everything is good, because this individual wanted to get back to the U.S. because he happened to be a U.S. citizen. So I think there needs to be some more process around that to tighten up the rules.

Anyway, I want to thank you all for coming today and for the important information you provided.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. McCormack. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Mr. Easter, you have five minutes, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all three witnesses for coming and presenting, I think, very heartfelt views.

Before I raise a question, Mr. Chair, when are we doing clause-by-clause on this bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The committee had adopted a motion while I was on government business to do this study, with clause-by-clause on February 27.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I would make a suggestion, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses first, Mr. Sullivan made a number of very sensible suggestions, and I think Ms. Lee's concern about recordings and video will be dealt with by amendments coming forward from committee members based on her testimony. But, Mr. Chair, there's been a number of, I think, very good additional suggestions for amendments by the witnesses today.

We need to see a transcript of that, of what the witnesses said, and I do think we need some time to prepare those amendments. We can't have them done by Thursday. We just can't. So I'd suggest maybe the committee—you and maybe the parliamentary secretary—reconsider, if we could, because we want to do the best job we can on the bill, and there are some good suggestions here.

In any event, to you, Ms. Lee, one of the suggestions that has come up a lot of times by several witnesses—and I think by Mr. Sweet as well—is that victims have no way of being informed of how well or not an offender is doing on their rehabilitation plan. There's always the privacy issue coming up, but I'm sure that can be dealt with somehow.

From anyone who wants to answer, how important is that to victims?

[Mona Lee]

As I mentioned before, I currently get information, or I was before he got out, on different programs that he had done or hadn't done. I found what he hadn't done was very interesting, and I would have liked to have more information along those lines. They were very cursory, just what the program was and whether he passed it or he didn't attend it. But nobody told my family and I what the plan was for him, how they envisioned his getting out and being a functioning member of society. It was only about these actual programs that he attended.

So I think if they could flesh that out and help us to understand their thinking about why.... None of us as victims wants them to be out of prison, but if that's going to happen, we want to make sure that everyone is as safe as they possibly can be when he does get out. The killer in my case was on a scale of two out of three on recidivism, that he wasn't going to reoffend, but they let him out anyway and that was how it worked.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. McCormack, do you want to come to that point, and can you add in—several witnesses—in terms of the timeframe? Mr. Sweet's bill goes up to five years.

But as I listened to you, Ms. Lee, this morning, it seems to be that the hearings are even in quicker periods than is already stated in the current act. If so, why is that so? How are we going to ensure that you can be assured when the next hearing is, rather than jeopardizing your life and changing schedules?

[Mike McCormack]

I think it's twofold. There has to be a demonstrated material change. It can't just be the current system now whereby, for instance, with Munro, as soon as he's denied parole on the first hearing he has already booked his next hearing date. Where is the material change? Where does that come forward? It has to be significant.

How do you demonstrate a material change when you don't have any information and they are all shrouded in this privacy interest?

You asked a great question to Ms. Lee, because with Munro, for instance, as I said earlier, one of the triggers for his homicidal and anti-social behaviour was drugs or alcohol. He had some prison issues and that was not disclosed. We had to find that out. There was no transparency there.

When you have a violent murderer, a sadist who is triggered by drug use, sure enough, they give him an escorted day pass. They revoked that, the escorted day pass, and gave him an unescorted day pass. His parole got revoked, and we are trying to get information about why. It is such a closed shop when it comes to victims. Victims are kept way outside it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. McCormack. Thank you, Mr. Easter.

We have now finished our first hour plus. On behalf of the committee the chair would certainly like to thank our witnesses for coming, taking their time, and sharing their story with us and helping us deliberate on this legislation that we hope will be most helpful to one and all.

We will suspend for one minute while we change the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

This committee will now resume for a second hour, although we may not have the full time due to bells. We will have to see how it all goes here, but certainly the committee would like to welcome our guests here today.

Steve Sullivan, thank you, sir. Catherine Latimer and Terry Prioriello Armour, thank you very much for coming before this committee to discuss Mr. Sweet's bill.

We will start for up to 10 minutes, if it's less that's fine as it gives us more opportunity for interaction. Mr. Sullivan, we will have you up first, please.

[Steve Sullivan, Executive Director, Ottawa Victim Services]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the invitation. I'd like to congratulate Mr. Sweet for his efforts to address some of the concerns that victims of crime have expressed. I'll try to keep my comments brief so we can get some more questions. I'll quickly touch on a few aspects of the bill that we support or have concerns about.

The first is with respect to the extension of the parole hearings. I would encourage all members to understand, and I'm sure you all know this, that parole is actually an integral part of public safety. We often talk about parole as people are getting out of prison early. Quite frankly, I think we want people to get out of prison early. If we wait until someone's sentence is over, we have no controls over them. It's better to have someone released early with a little bit of control where you have a parole officer you're reporting to, and you can be brought back into prison if you're violating the rules, as opposed to waiting or detaining somebody or gating them, as Mr. McCormack said.

I think it's important to frame the context that parole is actually an important part of public safety. When I was ombudsman, one of the recommendations we made was to extend the parole hearing or to have a system where you could extend the parole hearings for lifers from two to five years. I look at lifers as a bit different. Those are people who don't, by law, ever have to be released. If they've met the conditions and they're a good risk, they can be released. But unlike someone who has a six-year sentence and after six years whether dangerous or not or whether we think they're dangerous they're getting out of prison, with lifers we have the ability to keep those people in prison for longer.

As Ms. Lee mentioned and I'm sure Terri will, I've been to a lot of parole hearings with a lot of families. I've been to parole hearings with families several times for the same offender. It is a very difficult process and many people feel they need to be a part of that process. So I think there could be some room for extending the parole hearings for lifers to five years without impacting public safety. I think doing it for offenders with finite sentences could have a negative impact on public safety.

I'll move on to the other parts of the bill. I certainly support the suggestions to legislate some of the practices and provisions that are in place now for victims of crime to attend parole hearings, for example. I've been involved in very few situations where victims have been denied that right, but I think it's an important right to legislate. If we believe that victims have a right to attend the parole hearings, then I think we do have an obligation to legislate that right. I found the wording of the provision a little awkward. I'm not a legislative drafter, but I think I would make that provision a little clearer. Obviously, a right to attend a parole hearing is not unlimited. If someone presents a risk or there are reasons not to, then I think that's an important limitation to have and would be in the provision.

I remember one case where there was an individual we worked with whose mother had been murdered and he had made some unfortunate comments and their decision was not to allow him to attend the parole hearing. But he was allowed, through our efforts to help him, to attend via video conference, which was a good compromise.

That brings me to the next provision. I think it's been repeated by others, but I would not limit the right to attend the parole hearing via video conference to people who were denied a parole hearing. I think that's an important right for people who can't travel. When I was the ombudsman, we worked with a family where the victim had a serious physical injury as a result of the offence, couldn't travel or found it very difficult to travel long distances, so we worked with the parole board, with Corrections, to arrange for his family to be a part of that parole hearing through video conferencing. It was the first time it had ever been done for a victim. They had done it for board members. I'm actually attending a parole hearing coming up in a few months where the parole board members can't attend at a prison, so it's going to be done via telephone conference. I'll be with the family and we'll be in a different location from the parole board and the offender.

So it can be done and it is done when it's necessary for parole board members. I would extend that to victims as well. There may be situations where the equipment is not available, but I think when it is it should be provided.

I would support the requirement that the parole board consider victim impact statements. That would be consistent with the Criminal Code provisions where judges are required to consider them. It doesn't mean they have to follow recommendations or provisions that victims bring up, but I think it is an important legislated right to actually consider those statements.

I do support and when I was ombudsman we did recommend expanding.... Currently under the provisions right now of the CCRA, there is certain information victims must be given. It's very basic information. Then under section 142 there are provisions that victims can be given further information if it doesn't violate—I forget the wording—the privacy of the offender.

We recommended—or I recommended as ombudsman—that all those provisions be mandatory with, again, the assumption that, if there are cases where the parole board or Corrections feels that it would be a risk to release that information, it can be withheld. Certainly it would be very rare, but in situations where victims have made threats or where there's a situation of organized crime or gang involvement, you would have discretion not to release. But I think the presumption should be that you would release those.

I would release all those provisions in section 142. I know the bill specifies a few of them, and I think that, if you're going to amend section 142, you also then have to amend section 26 because the CCRA is sort of focused on two things. There's the parole board side and the Corrections side. Both agencies release information to victims. I don't think it would make much sense to allow the parole board to release more information than the Correctional Service would.

As far as the correctional plan, to be honest with you, I've never seen a correctional plan. I don't know what is in correctional plans, so I would have a hard time saying I support that. I'm sure there's information or maybe summaries that could be provided. But as far as what's in a plan, there may be a lot of information that victims, you know, private information about members of family.... Again, I don't know what a plan is, so I would encourage you, before you debate the bill, to find out what's really in a plan. Catherine may have more information on that.

I can tell you, I did bring.... We're registered to receive information on behalf of some victims. I've removed all the identifying factors. This is what victims would get now about an offender. It's just really a list of all the programs that he has taken or he has signed up for, whether they're completed or not. It just tells you what it is, for example, anger management awareness. It says when. It says whether it's completed or not. That's the kind of information that's available for victims now. Whether there's more information in a correctional plan that's of value, again, I just don't know enough about those plans.

My understanding is that the parole board doesn't actually prepare transcripts, but I can tell you, having been to a number of parole hearings with the same offender, that every parole board hearing I've been at where there have been new members, they know exactly what happened at the last hearing. The notion that new members wouldn't know what was said or done at the previous hearing, that isn't my experience. The parole board members, especially in the case of lifers, have stacks of files of the offender's entire history in prison, so they have a pretty good understanding of what he has or has not done. They also have a pretty good understanding of what he has and has not said at previous hearings. I think that's an important point to make.

I think that requiring the parole board to prepare transcripts could be quite expensive. Frankly, I don't know that.... We made recommendations at the ombudsman's office—and actually in 2005, it was introduced by the previous government—that victims have the right to listen to an audiotape of the hearing. I think that's a more practical and frankly useful provision to have, to allow victims to attend a parole office to hear those hearings.

I think I'll leave my comments there. If there are other issues, we can certainly address them during the question period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan.

Now Catherine Latimer, please, if you would.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you very much.

I'm with the John Howard Society of Canada, which is a community-based charity whose mission is to support effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The society has more than 60 front-line officers across the country offering many programs to support the reintegration of offenders and to prevent crime. The objective of our work is to make communities safer.

I want to thank you very much for the kind invitation to speak to you about Bill C-479, which proposes amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act affecting the role of victims at parole hearings and lengthening the time between parole hearings in certain cases. The stated intention of the bill is to bring fairness to the victims of violent offenders.

I think we all share an interest in supporting victims with adequate programs and services and with information about the criminal justice system. I'm sure that information about the paroling system can be greatly enhanced. More challenging is finding agreement on the appropriate role of the victim in the criminal justice system to ensure the fundamental principles of justice are maintained and fairness is upheld for all.

The John Howard Society of Canada looks forward to the government's announced victims bill of rights, which will hopefully provide clarity on some of these important issues. Bill C-479 is being considered before the government has revealed its comprehensive strategy for victims in the criminal justice system. If passed in its current form, the likely consequences of this bill raise two categories of concern: first, its practical implications for the effectiveness of safe, graduated release generally and victim prevention; and second, its implications for the theoretical foundations of criminal law and corrections, particularly in the proposed role of the victim in the parole hearing.

I'll deal with the practical effectiveness issues first.

The research is clear, and I agree with Steve on this, that supervised and supported graduated release of prisoners back into a community promotes community safety by reducing recidivism. If prisoners are unmotivated to participate in rehabilitation programs and be guided on parole at the end of their sentences, they may well return to our neighbourhoods lacking the skills and guidance needed to live crime-free lives. Eroding supervised and supported graduated release of prisoners imperils community safety and increases the number of victims in our society.

This bill is very sweeping in its effect. It proposes lengthening the time between parole hearings for those prisoners who have committed offences listed on schedule I of the act, which includes 76 current offences and 18 historical offences, not all of which are violent or cause serious physical harm to offenders.

Right now there are 11,286 federal offenders that are covered by schedule I. These aren't a few murderers or dangerous murderers. This is a whole whack of federal offenders who are covered by these provisions.

If these prisoners are denied parole at a hearing, they would only be entitled to another hearing within five years. But since most federal prisoners are serving sentences of less than five years, this would mean just one chance at parole for them. The majority of prisoners would thus not be released through the parole's graduated, supervised, and supported release process, but instead would be abruptly dumped back into the community at statutory release or at warrant expiry.

While it may be comforting to believe that the longer you keep prisoners in custody the safer communities are, this is simply not true. Those released at the end of their sentences have not prepared themselves with skills and are not being supported and supervised through community corrections. Bill C-479 would put in place a system where more prisoners would be denied the benefits of graduated release and that would reduce the chances of those returning to the communities remaining crime-free. This would compound an already growing problem in the corrections system. Just to let you know, more than half of offenders now see their first release at statutory release or warrant expiry, not through the benefits of the paroling system, and this will exacerbate this problem.

The second set of concerns posed by Bill C-479 deals with the appropriate role of the victim at the parole hearings, consistent with fundamental principles of justice. Essentially, a parole hearing is to assess whether a prisoner has made progress on his or her correctional plan, what level of risk might be posed if the sentence were managed in the community, and whether conditions could be imposed that would make the risk manageable in the community. It is not to revisit the punishment, which has been imposed by the court through the sentencing process, where victims have already had an opportunity to provide a victim impact statement.

Input from a victim at a parole hearing would need to be relevant to the decision before the quasi-judicial body. But since the parole hearing is to assess progress on the prisoner's correctional plan and to assess risk management issues in the community, a statement by the victim, who may not have knowledge of the prisoner's progress on the correctional plan and may have limited expertise on community risk management, hardly seems appropriate at this stage.

There is, of course, a legitimate role for victim statements relating to possible conditions on release, but this should be clearly detailed and set out in the bill. If the victim has received threats directly or indirectly from the prisoner or if the prisoner will be returning to the same family or the same community as the victim, conditions like no contact orders could be included as conditions of parole and this seems entirely legitimate.

More challenging is the notion that the prisoner's entitlement to regular reviews once he or she is eligible for parole should be reduced in order to provide fairness for victims. This interest of victims not to have to attend regular parole hearings compromises the prisoner's right to have a level of reduced liberty in the management of his or her sentence reviewed consistently with fundamental principles of justice.

The legitimacy of trading liberty rights and protections based on fundamental principles of justice with victims' interests will no doubt be discussed more fully when the government releases its victims bill of rights.

The general reconstruction of crime, bail, punishment, and parole as a battle of criminals' rights against victims' rights is part of a wider transformation of rights-thinking in Canada, which some of us consider to be an unfortunate direction.

Where before rights were understood as protections of the individual dignity of all humans, even criminals against the state, now they are increasingly presented as weapons employed by one group against the other with the state choosing the victor. We must ensure that even in this new rights ideology, convicted criminals are still treated with the humane respect required by the long traditions of the common law.

In conclusion, the John Howard Society of Canada urges you to postpone your consideration of private member's Bill C-479 until after the government has introduced its own bill, which is expected to deal more comprehensively with the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. The potential for overlap and inconsistency of proceeding first with this bill is strong.

The John Howard Society of Canada also urges you to consider a more fundamental review of the current effectiveness of the current paroling system in Canada. Promoting rehabilitation and a successful reintegration through an effective system of graduated release is a good way to reduce future victimization.

Implementing this bill with its intended denial of many prisoners to a second parole review before statutory release and warrant expiry will effectively gut the existing parole system. The system of one shot parole for the majority of federal offenders will be ineffective in meeting the statutory goals of graduated release.

While we support programs, services, information, and define participation of victims in the criminal justice and corrections systems, Bill C-479 will undermine a graduated release system intended to promote community safety and reduce victimization generally. This bill is certainly not fair to future victims.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Latimer.

Ms. Prioriello Armour.

[Terri Prioriello Armour, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everyone. It's an honour to be here today to speak to Bill C-479, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).

I would like to first thank Mr. Sweet for inviting me here today to speak to you about Bill C-479, and for bringing forward this important legislation on fairness for victims.

I am the sister of a murdered victim, Darlene Prioriello. Since Darlene's murder, our family has had many occasions to feel revictimized. Some of these would include hearing the man who killed my sister brag about his bedroom with a doorknob that can be locked from the inside. Another example would be watching a video of Mr. Dobson being interviewed by the parole board, saying, “Time is easy to do”. It made us feel that our justice system is not punishing these offenders but simply housing them. It is like sending a child to their room and letting them know at the same time that they are still loved.

When David Dobson had his first parole hearing in April of 2007, I remember doing my impact statement and feeling so revictimized. At times I could only write a paragraph and then I'd have to stop. At times I would stop for hours, and sometimes it would take me weeks to be able to sit back down and do my impact statement. When I finished my impact statement, I called my mother to ask if she had completed hers. She said she couldn't get it started. She asked me to read mine to her, and as her daughter I felt I had to do something to help her, so I read mine to her, and she cried and she sobbed all through my reading of it. Then I sent her my impact statement afterwards, and I said, “Mom, personalize it and make it your own”. I felt like I needed to help her. I needed to do something for her.

I thought I lost a sister. Being a mother myself, there's no comparison between losing your sister and losing your daughter or your son. There's no comparing. I had to start my impact statement all over again.

Some weeks later my mother called and said she had finished her impact statement. She sent it back to me and asked me to read it over and give my opinion. Much of my original impact statement was there, but she turned my two-page statement into many pages. I couldn't believe that she had survived this, the stress, the heartache. My mother was hospitalized several times during the making—just during the making—of her impact statement due to having to relive the crime all over again and relive her daughter's death.

The entire family felt very helpless. We couldn't tell her that her health was more important than a statement or a parole hearing. She didn't see it that way. She saw this as something she had to do for her baby, for Darlene.

We had to then send our statements to the parole board for them to review, and then they'd send them to David Dobson, my sister's killer, for his approval. We were then asked to make changes to our statements as Dobson didn't like some of the things in our statements. We also got reminded that we must show respect for the killer at all times.

The impact statement should be about our feelings. It should be about what was taken from us. It shouldn't be about worrying about his feelings and his emotions. This is our impact statement, not his. When we talk about respect, respect is something that is earned. It's not something that should be demanded. It's not given; it's earned.

Where was my sister's respect when he brutally sexually assaulted her and beat her head into the ground with a concrete building block?

We found it also very victimizing that David Dobson got to read our statements, but we had to go into this parole hearing with no idea of what he was going to say, as we didn't get to see his statement. We didn't get any heads-up. We had no way to prepare ourselves emotionally for what we might hear in that hearing. My question would be, why after a brutal attack on a loved one that resulted in their death does it appear that the perpetrator of the crime is treated so well in our system? Remember: “Time is easy to do”, he said.

Before the hearing, we had been told that David Dobson knows he's not getting parole but that he said he wanted to see how the system works. He had no place to stay, if released, no job, no way to shelter or feed himself or care for himself. We went through hell and back for his entertainment because he felt that he needed to see how the system works.

Why does legislation allow this? Shouldn't this be re-examined?

At the hearing, my mother, my husband, my daughter, my uncle, and I sat together. David Dobson came into the room. He looked straight into the eyes of my mother and then into my eyes. I can't tell you how that felt. I felt his look take my breath away. I was looking into the eyes that last saw my sister alive. I was looking at the last face my sister ever saw as she begged and cried and pleaded for her life.

His eyes were so cold and empty of feeling. He sat in his chair, and shortly after, started to cry and cried continuously through the whole hearing. We felt that this was for the purpose of drowning us out as we read our impact statements.

At one point, David Dobson looked at my mother and said he was sorry, and my mother replied, “I don't believe you and I don't buy your tears for one minute.” One of the parole board members reminded her that she was not to speak to the inmates, but there was no direction given to David Dobson about speaking to my mother at this hearing.

I would like to think that the parole board would see how hard this is on one's family and demand that the killer show the same level of respect that we are demanded to show to him. Again, where was the respect for my sister when he was killing her? Before she died, he didn't show her any respect. The last act he committed was to pee on her. He called it the best urine he'd ever had.

Dobson made it a point to tell us during this hearing that he had hung a cross in a chapel in Darlene's memory. When we called the facility, they said that this was absolutely not true. We believe this was his way of getting a thrill, of reliving his crime. This is typical of a killer, to want to revisit the murder in any way possible. The hearing gave him that opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Please be brief, Ms. Armour.

[Terri Prioriello Armour]

We gave him that opportunity. This may be the inmate's hearing, but this is our loss.

While we sat in the room, my mother felt ill. She was taken out and shortly later brought back. This was just too overwhelming for her.

Some time before the hearing, I had met with two of David Dobson's sisters. One of them told me that during a visit with him, David Dobson told her that upon his release he wanted to visit with Terri Prioriello and that it wouldn't be nice.

If you check our website, www.nofreedomdobson.com, you'll see his letter, “Catch me if you can”, in which he promises to kill again every year possible on the anniversary of my sister's death. Keep in mind that he didn't know her and had never seen her until the day he killed her. But it's their anniversary.

If you put those two things together, his promise to kill again and his threat to me through his sister, it's no wonder that when I sat in that room, no matter how many guards were there I couldn't help but feel that I still wasn't safe. Yet in our statement I wasn't allowed to tell the parole board about this, because it wasn't my hearing and what I had to say was not allowed to be used to influence the board's decision concerning his parole or lack thereof.

I believe that a serious offender should earn the right to a hearing. Our family asks that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act include an amendment that gives parolees an earned right to a hearing every five years, rather than the current two years, without grandfathering. Make the amendment retroactive for all offenders. I see the system, the same system that is meant to protect us, as a flawed system.

I know that serious offenders are given the option of courses to help them reintegrate into society. I believe that these courses should be mandatory, not optional. I also believe that the list of courses to reintegrate into society should be lengthened, with more courses—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry; we have to close to have a little bit of time for questions. Thank you.

Is there a point of order?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I hesitate to do this, but it must have been incredibly difficult for her to do this today. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to allow her to finish her statement, if she can make it through.

[Terri Prioriello Armour]

It's not much longer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

If that consent is available, the chair is certainly comfortable with that.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The committee is comfortable. I thank you for the intervention.

Please carry on.

[Terri Prioriello Armour]

Thank you very much.

Economics or lack of space should not be the driving force leading to an inmate's release. It appears at times that some of our inmates are treated better than some of our seniors.

In closing, I would like to ask that Bill C-479, the fairness for victims act, be named after two people.

The first is my sister Darlene Prioriello. Her murder was so brutal. I have been a long-time lobbyist fighting for victims' rights, as Steve Sullivan can attest. It would be an honour to have Darlene's name stand for more than just being a victim. To know that her name stands for fairness would be so fitting to who she was in real life. As the headstone on her grave reads, “She gave so much and she demanded so little”.

The second name is Constable Michael Sweet, a six-year veteran of the Metro Toronto police department who was murdered by career criminals Craig and Jamie Munro. Constable Sweet was shot by Craig Munro and held hostage by the robbers. Constable Sweet pleaded for his life, but the robbers refused to even give him medical treatment.

It would be an honour to have this bill named after two strong and remarkable people.

I thank you for listening and for giving your consideration to fairness for victims in the naming of this bill.

For those who love, time is eternal.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Well, the chair and the committee certainly thank our witnesses for your heartfelt testimony. I know just from listening and talking and watching the faces of the witnesses here today, obviously, on all sides of the occasion, there are some deep concerns and challenges that we all face, both as legislators, and certainly you, as family.

We have a very brief time right now depending on when the bells will go.

But, Mr. Easter, you have the first round with the witnesses. You have five minutes, please.