Evidence of meeting #13 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Pursuant to the last vote that we just had with regard to admissibility, has the chair found, after consultations, that these amendments are admissible?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
No, No. This one is definitely admissible.
Before I give the floor to Mr. Garrison on that, I would just note that of course, there is a line conflict with G-1. If this motion is adopted, G-1 then cannot be proceeded with.
We're clear on that point?
Mr. Garrison, you have the floor.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I hear Randall, and quite frankly I've given a lot of thought to this. As of last week, because of a ten percenter I sent out, I've received some very troubling phone calls from people. In this case, a five-year old child had been violently sexually assaulted by a relative and this is, Randall, why I'm saying what I'm about to say. I also heard from another lady who had been sexually assaulted as a child and has been for years and years going through therapy...and the feeling of victimization. The perpetrator of the five-year-old unfortunately received a provincial sentence because it was two years less a day.
My fear is that if we're too restrictive in what we're doing...I understand where Randall is coming from, I really, really do, but it's very difficult for me, and I'm being frank here, to accept that we limit it to only murder and designated offenders. I'm just fearful we're being too prescriptive here and that while you're afraid we will have many victims one way, my fear is we'll have many victims, you know...
I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't think we need to be that prescriptive at this particular point. I think the schedule 1 is sufficient.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It's not exactly on this amendment, Mr. Chair, so you can cut me off if you want. I took it to mean that the government recommendation 1 dealt with this issue somewhat. I still think I'm in line with Randall here, and I hear what Rick's saying, in that I think if we're too broad we're going to run into public safety issues that are unnecessary for us to run into. The question, I guess, is to find the balance between what I think Randall's resolution, NDP-1, is trying to do, as well as what government is trying to do. We do need to find the right balance. I understand what Mr. Norlock is saying, but if we are too broad, I believe we are going to jeopardize public safety, and that's not what we want to do either.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Just to address this concern, Mr. Easter did indicate that our government amendment, G-1, does include some of what you're saying in tightening up the type of offence, but additionally to that I just wanted to remind everyone that the actual window that someone has to be heard, we're extending it to four years and also to five years. But that doesn't mean that someone can still have it heard in a shorter period of time.
We heard testimony from a witness who said they actually had to go back to one in six months. So there is some discretion within the Parole Board of Canada to make that judgment call as to when the next Parole Board hearing would be. What this bill proposes to do is to extend that window so that the maximum amount of time is longer than it is today, to prevent the situations that we heard of from the witnesses who were here with us in the committee. I do agree, their stories were very sad. I was over here myself in tears, and I can't imagine being in their shoes or having to go back to a hearing at six months, a year, two years, when in fact the Parole Board of Canada knows that that individual is not going to be released.
Again, we keep thinking that someone's not going to get the opportunity to integrate back into society and it's going to cause more victims, as you're hearing from the opposite side. I just want to reiterate that this is not the case because the Parole Board of Canada could still hear, could still have that happen. It doesn't have to wait for five years; it doesn't have to wait for four years. It could actually do it in two years. It could do it in shorter than that as well. I just want to make sure that's not what you think the contents of this bill are about.
I do agree with Mr. Easter, obviously, a government bill has changes to this section as well, so we will not be supporting that amendment from the NDP.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What we have heard from some witnesses, victims, especially—not just during this study necessarily but also as part of other studies the committee has undertaken with respect to victims—is a cry for help. I think we can all agree on the need to give victims more rights and services.
That is why we are anxiously awaiting the government's bill on victims' rights, a bill they promised more than a year ago. I find it unfortunate that, yet again, we are studying a bill that has a minimal impact on victims, despite the government's promise to deliver a victims' rights bill, which would be much more comprehensive, from what I have gathered. It may include—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Madame Doré-Lefebvre, will you just keep your comments close to this bill, please?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Very well.
I will say that we are proposing this amendment because of the current situation. The testimony we have heard throughout this study underscores how difficult it is for victims to attend parole review hearings. However, nearly all the witnesses have talked about the importance of rehabilitation in order to help victims feel safe. That is something we need to focus on. Rehabilitation is extremely important to victims. They want to make sure that when the offender does reintegrate into society, they don't commit the same crimes. Various experts talked to the committee about that. And parole workers also stressed that point when I visited a number of institutions in my riding.
We are talking about a very big impact. So I think we would do well to approach the issue of access to parole review hearings with a certain degree of openness. I do not mean in terms of offences that are necessarily less serious because they are all serious. But I just think it would be a good idea to establish parameters around those crimes. That would be an important measure to include in this legislation, for victims, for those who will be administering the bill and, from a public safety standpoint, for Canadian society in general.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
February 27th, 2014 / 4:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I know we're on clause-by-clause so our discussion has to be fairly narrow, but I'd like to echo what Madame Doré Lefebvre had to say in terms of .... What we're suggesting is expanding the time limits on the interval for parole is something we're doing to serve victims and she makes a good point that there are many other things that might serve victims more effectively.
But what I really want to talk about is the point that was raised by Ms. James, which is the question of discretion. It's one of the reasons I very much wanted to hear from the Parole Board. I've read through the bill probably as many times as anyone else around the table, trying to make sure that it is in fact completely discretionary for the Parole Board. I think we need to hear from the specialists to know if that is true. In some places I cannot determine that.
The second question I would ask the Parole Board—which I have heard many times while away from this table—is about some of the big restrictions on the activities of the Parole Board, which are their backlogs and budgets. Right now the law requiring a hearing every two years for something up to about 11,000 offenders is the priority by which they allocate their budget resources. Because they are statutorily required to provide an opportunity for those hearings every two years, that's the first thing they apply their resources to. They have many other things they're charged with doing, such as the pardon process and other things that have huge backlogs.
The question I would ask the Parole Board if they were here is, if we change this legislation so that what is required is four or five years, will that not in fact change their allocation of budgetary resources and therefore inevitably lengthen the period? Whether or not there is discretion, it will inevitably lengthen the period between parole hearings for all those others serving offences less than murder because they simply will have to apply their resources in ways that are dictated by the legislation.
I think we may be creating an unintended consequence by giving them an instruction that now says that instead of doing these parole hearings, they should deal with the other backlog, and the other things they have to deal with, and they should let these go for up to four or five years.
That's a question I'm very serious about that I would like to be able to ask them before I am confident that we're not having this unintended consequence. We know that their resources are constrained and we know that given the current fiscal climate and the government's view, their resources are not likely to expand. So we may in fact be doing something here that has a very big impact on the practices of the Parole Board which, despite the discretion, will in fact delay parole hearings significantly and then lead to those things I talked about before—lead to people saying, “Well, there is no need to participate in rehabilitation because I'm not going to get my hearing before I get out” and it will lead to more people being released without supervision.
I'm going to continue saying today that I take the issue of public safety on this very seriously. Most people around the table know that I spent most of my professional career working in the area of criminal justice and working in and out of prison, parole, and with police. If we had more time there are a lot of people I would like to have talk to us about what the reality of this bill will do, about what it will actually do in fact, and not the theory that we're providing discretion, but the impact it will have on Parole Board practices.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to comment on something that was said in the previous statement with regard to this being a private member's bill that may or should not have or should have been included in the victims bill of rights.
I have to say that I had my own private member's bill come before this committee and I was asked the questions why did you choose this, why didn't you choose something else?
Private members' bills are very personal and in this particular case Mr. Sweet has actually brought this bill forward. This is not the first time in this session that he's brought it forward. This is a personal issue to him. He has been to multiple parole hearings with a particular family who has had to deal with this very type of situation.
Are you suggesting at all that the government should not allow members to bring forward private members' bills that are personal to them in the event that government comes forward with their own legislation at some point in time? Yes, we are doing a victims bill of rights, and yes, it will be all-encompassing.
Just to clarify something as well, many of the things that our victims' ombudsman brought forward—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
No, Ms. James, you need to keep your comments to this bill, please.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative