Bill C-48 (Historical)

Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code with respect to the parole inadmissibility period for offenders convicted of multiple murders. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

[John Giokas]

I want to preface my remarks by saying I'm no draftsman, but proposed section 745.51 talks about making all of the relevant parole ineligibility periods consecutive. Let's not forget that that's all Bill C-48 does. It takes the existing rules in paragraphs 745(a) and (b), as I've explained, which call for a mandatory 25 years, and it allows the judge to make them consecutive.

In this particular instance we're talking about all of the parole ineligibility periods. But as I mentioned, the reference to section 745 confuses me. The periods in section 745 are mandatory, and proposed paragraph 745.51(1)(b) purports to make them optional as the judge deems fit in the circumstances. I see a contradiction there. As I went on to say in the case of a second murder and a second parole ineligibility period, if this is right, then the judge could theoretically give one year.

[John Giokas, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I don't have any statements to make about the policy of this bill, but I would point out that it is recognized—and this committee has discussed it—that the circumstances of multiple murderers are quite varied. The criteria that have been imported in Bill C-48 are designed to recognize that the mental state of those who kill, even those who kill more than once, can carry varying degrees of moral culpability and varying degrees of remorse.

The criteria in the bill are designed to militate against the imposition of these kinds of orders, except in the most extreme cases of remorseless serial killers or the type of organized crime killers whom Mr. Ménard has just mentioned. These are people who are unlikely candidates for parole in any event.

I would suggest that the criteria in the bill will limit the number of times a judge will impose such an order. That's a technical matter having to do with the criteria I discussed when I gave my evidence the last time I was here.

As a technical matter—I'm no drafter and I only received this motion a short while before I came to committee—I would point out that if this motion is adopted in the terms in which it is drafted, I see three technical issues, and I wonder whether I could ask the committee for its indulgence while I go through them. It won't take very long.

The first is that it appears to me on the face of it—and I want to say again that I'm no drafter and I have yet to confer with our drafters—when you look at proposed 745.51(1)(b)(i) and (ii), saying in the case of a first-degree murder in proposed subparagraph (i) that the period may not exceed 25 years, and in proposed subparagraph (ii), the case of a second-degree murder, that the period must be at least 10 and not more than 25 years, it's entirely possible on the face that a judge could give one year for a first-degree murder and would have to give ten years for a second-degree murder, on the wording of this.

The very first period of parole ineligibility, for the first murder, would be between 10 and 25 years, depending on whether it was a first- or second-degree murder. If the second murder was a first-degree murder, the judge could conceivably give one year, because it would “not exceed twenty-five years”, according to the wording of proposed subparagraph (i). But if it were a second-degree murder, the judge would be obliged to give ten years as a minimum.

I see that as being an anomaly.

Second, I would point out that the wording of the motion refers to...for example, in proposed paragraph 745.51(1)(b):

but the period with respect to the conviction that is the subject of sentencing under section 745 is of such duration as the judge deems fit in the circumstances

As I explained the last time, section 745 is mandatory, so the reference to section 745, I would suggest, brings in the mandatory 25-year periods that I discussed when I was here the last time.

In the same way, it seems to me that the same problem arises with respect to proposed subparagraph (ii), because it also mentions “section 745.4”. Section 745.4 refers to the period determined by a judge for a second-degree murderer. Section 745.4 says “at the time of the sentencing” in accordance with section 745. So once again section 745.4 imports the mandatory nature of section 745.

Proposed paragraph 745.51(1)(b) says that a second, third, or fourth second-degree murder automatically gets 25 years, but here we're saying that a judge has the discretion to make it between 10 and 25.

The third point I would mention is that if we were to adopt this motion, we would need to make some other amendments to Bill C-48. Clauses 3 and 9 will have to change to give a right of appeal to the crown, because the way they're worded right now, the crown may only appeal the imposition of the order and may not appeal the length of time.

The wording of the appeal provisions for the offence is a little bit different. If the judge is going to make such an order, I'm assuming--and I stand to be corrected--that he or she will want to read a notice to the jury asking for their advice on the length of time. That will require another amendment to clause 4, because the judge will be asking the jury two questions: “Should I make the order, and, if I make the order, how much time should I give?”

As I say, I'm making that assumption about the reading of a notice, but I may be wrong on that.

Let me just say finally that, as I said, I haven't had a chance to talk to the drafters, so I don't want my comments to be taken definitively, but these are my preliminary views based on what I've been able to see on the face of the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll resume the meeting. We're proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

To assist us we have officials from the Departments of Justice and National Defence. First of all, from Justice we have John Giokas, counsel, criminal law policy section.

Welcome back.

Also we have, from the Department of National Defence, Bruce MacGregor, director of law in military justice policy and research.

Welcome back as well.

You have before you two amendments, LIB-1 and LIB-2, and we'll refer to them as such.

First of all, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 has been postponed, and we are on clause 2.

Is everyone ready to move forward with clause-by-clause?

Is there any discussion on clause 2?

Mr. Comartin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 42 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, December 9, 2010.

You all have the agenda before you today. We'll be dealing with two items. First of all, during the second half of today's meeting we'll be proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

Before we do, however, we have with us again, for an hour, our Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson. The minister is here to review and respond to questions regarding the consultation report on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Minister, thank you for coming.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here today.

To Ms. Rosenfeldt and Mr. King, I want to express my condolences on the loss that you both suffered and that your families suffered, and for the pain you've been living with all these years. I am sorry that from time to time you're forced to relive those events through these parole hearings.

Ms. Rosenfeldt, I want to address a few questions to you. You were here during the first hour of today's session and you heard from the other witnesses. One of those witnesses, Professor Manson, said that he had never heard any victims say that we need this legislation, Bill C-48, and I noticed that you reacted somewhat when you heard that statement.

Could you comment on that?

[Raymond King]

I would like to think that the judges we appoint would have the sensibility to determine who would qualify for Bill C-48 and who would not. Given the discretion that was mentioned, they could give a lighter sentence and they could also give a longer sentence. It's not a problem. They can determine that.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, President, Victims of Violence]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before the committee. Good afternoon to everybody.

It was very quick notice to get to this committee, and I apologize that I don't have notes to hand everybody. I can certainly type up what I've quickly typed up and email it out. However, I have one piece that I will give you later for all the members. It's in a suggestion that I'm going to put forward.

This long-sought-after reform on sentencing made its way through the House in Bill C-247, which was authored by Liberal MP Albina Guarnieri 10 years ago. This is not a new issue; this has been around a long time. The bill died in the Senate, but we are very glad to see it returned through Bill C-48, introduced by the current government.

I know the current government. I've heard them speak many times, and they also give tribute to Ms. Guarnieri. As I said, this is a very important issue and has been around for a long time. I think it would be really good at this point to be able to settle it once and for all.

As you can tell, the bill simply gives a sentencing judge, in the defined circumstances of sentencing a person who is convicted of more than one murder, the discretion to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for the multiple murders. This is accomplished in proposed section 745.51 of the Criminal Code.

From our reading, this would apply to cases of persons who are convicted of a second murder, or more murders, following an early murder conviction, such as Daniel Gingras--if you're not familiar with Daniel Gingras, I'll be happy to answer that during questions--and also apply to persons who are convicted of multiple murders at the same trial, such Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, or Russell Williams. That is our reading of the section, but we urge you to make sure this is the case, because it makes no sense to not allow both scenarios.

We understand, in following the discussion on other bills, that there has been concern expressed by some members of Parliament over mandatory minimum sentences because they reduce judicial discretion. As you know, murder already has a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, although, with parole eligibility, the “life” part of the sentence does not necessarily mean being imprisoned. Bill C-48 would actually give judges more discretion at sentencing, so hopefully those MPs who have taken the position opposing a reduction in judicial discretion will support this bill, because it actually increases it.

This bill will apply, thankfully, to relatively few offenders, but that does not diminish its importance. Our system should have the sophistication, integrity, honesty, and discretion to treat multiple murderers differently. A consequence of this bill will also be, at least once it's passed, to possibly prevent victims' families, such as Ray and me, from having to go through the two-year nightmare of our children's killer demanding parole. This bill, as currently drafted, won't help us. Other changes are required for that, but it is a very important step to prevent the unintended and needless revictimization of victims' families in the future.

While I appreciate that it may be too late to incorporate into this bill the changes I just mentioned, I want to leave the committee draft amendments to the Criminal Code modelled directly on the judicial screening mechanisms that the former Liberal government enacted when it restricted the right of access to the section 745 advanced parole release of convicted murderers. It basically replicates the judicial screening process for a future parole hearing for murderers like Clifford Olson if they are denied parole at the 25-year point.

The screening judge would consider the request and could deny it, if unrealistic or without grounds, and disentitle the murderer from reapplying for a period of up to 15 years. It has narrow application to these horrendous cases, but it will prevent the revictimization that our families have just endured and the revictimization of others in the future.

Frankly, we are capable of better than what the current law permits. I hope that Bill C-48 can either be amended to include these provisions, or that one day, before Olson's next parole hearing, I will be back before you to urge passage of these measures.

I urge all members of the committee to support this bill, which provides judges with greater discretion to recognize the increased severity of multiple murders at sentencing by providing consecutive parole ineligibility periods.

That's all I have to say on that.

On a personal level, I can tell you one thing: it's tough. It's tough after 29 years, it's tough after 26 years, and I'm not so sure why we have to go through it. I have been around a long time; I understand laws and I understand people who work with offenders. Honestly, I'm not a vindictive person. I know all offenders aren't like Clifford Olson. I know that.

Honest to God, it's tough. I'm still coming down from it. I'm turning 65. When can I put my son to rest? My husband is gone. The last time he had his eyes open, he had brain tumours. He was right out of his mind and rolling on the floor. He climbed out of his bed and he was screaming, “Parole? Clifford Olson?” I don't think I can take it anymore.

I'm so sorry; I know we're not supposed to be emotional. I know better than that; I truly do. I know better than that. I didn't mean for this to take place. It really is tough, though. There has to be a way. If this bill isn't passed, maybe....

This is what I brought. Our policy adviser quickly drew this up for us. We're getting pretty desperate. There are five family members, five parents who have already died. When can we bring some justice for our kids? We don't have anything for them.

People talk about Clifford Olson all the time. He talks about himself. We're in a real catch-22. We attend these parole hearings because we have to put a face to the children he murdered. We're serving a life sentence along with him—we are—and it's not just us and it's not just Clifford Olson. His name makes me sick, because everything seems to relate to Clifford Olson, when there are other characters like him that we're talking about in this bill. It isn't only a Clifford Olson, and there are other families that will come after us.

Oh God, I didn't mean to do this. I really apologize, committee; I really do. I haven't done this in.... I'm sorry.

[Ed McIsaac, Interim Director, Policy, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you.

I thank the committee on behalf of the John Howard Society of Canada for the invitation to appear. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss Bill C-48.

The John Howard Society, as most of you know, is a non-profit organization whose mission is the promotion of effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The society has 65 front-line offices across the country delivering services to support the safe reintegration of offenders into our community.

The John Howard Society does not support this legislation. We do not believe that there is, within the Canadian public, an informed consensus in support of 50-year minimum sentences. In addition, we do not believe that such sentences can be reasonably seen as effective, just, or humane responses to the causes and consequences of multiple murders.

As was evidenced by testimony before this committee on Bill S-6 dealing with the faint hope clause, the current periods of incarceration prior to release on parole in this country for those convicted of first-degree murder are already twice as long as in most western democracies.

How do we as a country justify doubling this already excessive time in prison? What will motivate a 20-year old caught by this legislation to work towards rehabilitation, when their first eligibility for parole will be at the age of 70? At what risk are we placing those who work and live with individuals serving a minimum 50-year sentence? What message are we sending, as a criminal justice system, about our commitment to timely and effective reintegration in support of public safety?

The backgrounder on Bill C-48 that the Department of Justice released in October of this year, entitled “Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers", reads in part:

Families of victims argue that the fact that life sentences for multiple murders are served concurrently devalues the lives of victims and puts Canadians at risk by allowing multiple murderers to be paroled earlier than merited...

This document goes on to say:

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would address this situation by allowing judges to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on individuals convicted of more than one first- or second-degree murder.

I do not believe we can place a value on human life. The grief and hurt of family members following the murder of a loved one cannot be reasonably addressed through amendments to the Criminal Code. The process of addressing this pain begins with the provision of individualized support and services within the local communities, and through the assurance that timely and relevant information concerning the specifics of their circumstances is made available by the responsible government agencies.

Second, we currently have within our criminal justice system a conditional release process that has as its priority the protection of society. Although the timing of conditional release reviews is governed by legislation, the decisions to release an individual are governed by the assessed risk the individual poses to the community. As we know, the existing system is quite capable of extending periods of incarceration well beyond parole eligibility dates.

The proposed legislation potentially extending ineligibility to a minimum of 50 years addresses neither of these two concerns, nor does it enhance the concept of truth in sentencing or the public's confidence in our justice system.

I thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll resume the meeting.

We're returning to our study of Bill C-48, an ct to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.

We have with us for the second hour of our meeting Ed McIsaac, who is the interim director of policy for the John Howard Society.

We also welcome back Sharon Rosenfeldt, president of Victims of Violence. Welcome back, Sharon.

We also have with us, as an individual, Mr. Raymond King. Welcome to you as well, Mr. King.

We're going to begin with Mr. McIsaac. Then we'll move to Mrs. Rosenfeldt and then to Mr. King.

Please go ahead, Mr. McIsaac.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you very much.

We're at the end of our time for the first panel. I want to thank Professors Doob and Manson for appearing. Your testimony will be helpful as we continue our review of Bill C-48.

Rather than suspending, members, we'll continue.

You have two items before you. First of all, we have a budget for Bill C-48.

Monsieur Lemay, we have a couple of items to deal with before we go to the next panel.

You have before you a budget for Bill C-48. It's in the amount of $7,750. I would need a motion to—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The other reason for this bill—and you'll hear this from Conservatives—is to avoid having victims' families and friends repeatedly go through hearings, whether it's under the faint hope clause or the parole system. We saw this with Olson last week.

I believe there are alternatives to using this approach. Have either of you considered what some of those alternatives might be, as opposed to using the approach in Bill C-48?

[Prof. Allan Manson]

Thank you.

I am not bilingual, so I can articulate my remarks and ideas in English only, if that is okay.

I want to start by agreeing with Professor Doob that our sentencing system in Canada is in chaos. We lack workable principles. We lack appropriate guidance. We lack appropriate resources for options, including the state of our penitentiaries and prisons. All of this is being exacerbated by these piecemeal amendments to the Criminal Code.

I want to look at Canadian penal policy for a minute before we look at this particular bill. I would like members of this committee to recognize that for decades, for much of the past century, a lot of very thoughtful and serious work was done by a lot of people in developing Canadian penal policy. They were experienced, open-minded people, and included parliamentarians and even people from this committee. Behind that were consultation, debate, study, and data.

Look at the 1938 Archambault report: the principal author was J.C. McRuer. For those lawyers in the room, he subsequently became Chief Justice McRuer. The principal author of the 1969 Ouimet report was G. Arthur Martin, the dean of Canadian criminal lawyers, who later became Mr. Justice Martin of the Ontario Court of Appeal. A few years later, this committee worked very hard and very creatively in its examination of the legislation to replace capital punishment, and the members of this committee at that time deserve enormous credit. A few years after that, the McGuigan subcommittee, which came from this committee, also did an excellent study that produced changes to penal policy.

Now we've got Bill C-48. I'm going to talk about it conceptually rather than mechanically, but I first want to say something about making good penal policy.

It seems to me that there are two reasons one would reshape an aspect of penal policy. One is to fix a problem--to “address mischief”, as lawyers sometimes say. The second is to add a new direction, or maybe a new dimension, consistent with the goals of sentencing.

What's the mischief that this legislation addresses? I look at the short title, which reads, “Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act.” I was involved in my first murder case in 1974. I started studying sentencing as a graduate student in 1972. Until I saw the predecessor of this bill, I had never, ever, seen the notion of discounts for multiple murders. I don't know who can see that. I've never seen it mentioned. I've never heard a judge, a lawyer, a police officer, or a victim suggest that Canadian sentencing provides discounts for multiple murders.

What we do is provide a life sentence with 25 years of parole ineligibility. I can tell you from participating in murder trials, including ones in which people were convicted of first-degree murder, that the people in that courtroom appreciated that this is a life sentence, and that it is grave and harsh. I don't hear people suggesting it's lenient. I don't think there's any problem that needs to be fixed.

Moreover, let's look at the current system. The current system does respond to multiple murders. Section 745 says that any person convicted of murder who has also been previously convicted of murder is automatically sentenced to life with no parole for 25 years. In other words, two seconds equal a first automatically. That is taking into account multiple murders.

As well, in sentencing for second-degree murder, for which the parole ineligibility could be anywhere from 10 years to 25 years, judges are clearly required by the jurisprudence to take a look at the number of victims, as well as prior record.

So why is this bill here? Given the history that I outlined, I have high expectations for the people on this committee. I'd simply like to try to understand why it's here.

I see, Mr. Petit, that you were the sponsor of this bill, and I have some of your remarks. Why do we have this bill? I quote: “...to balance the need to protect society and denounce unlawful conduct...”. Professor Doob has explained that the risk represented by paroled murderers is almost non-existent. Where is the protection? Is there not sufficient denunciation in a life sentence? Are we now going to look at life-50, life-75?

Mr. Petit also said that “...the proposed amendments reflect the fundamental principle of sentencing that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility...”. That's true. That's subsection 718.1 of the Criminal Code. A life sentence with no parole for 25 years is our harshest, gravest sentence. It certainly achieves that.

However, later he comments about groups in the community. I note the very felicitous language Mr. Petit used: “I am confident that the measures proposed in Bill C-48 will be supported by police and victims advocates...”. I don't want to challenge his confidence--that's up to him--but I've never heard police officers or victims' advocates saying we need life-50 or life-75.

Moreover, there's a suggestion that this is cost-neutral. Professor Doob went through some analysis of cost. He didn't mention one thing. What about the added cost to the penitentiary system? On the weekend I bumped into a group of former and now-retired and current senior CSC officers in Kingston, because I live in Kingston. I asked them what it's going to be like admitting someone to an institution when they show up with a warrant that says their sentence is life-50? What are you going to do for that person? It's mind-boggling. What is the correctional plan for a 30-year-old who might be able to go to the parole board when he or she is 80?

Then I also said to them, “What are you going to do if you don't have just one? What are you going to do if you have 12? What's that going to do to the environment in that penitentiary?”

Not only are the costs of this kind of proposal enormous, but no one has thought about them. That's my biggest concern. No one is thinking about this criminal legislation. What we are seeing is the parroting of remarks, starting over a year ago from the minister, that we know what Canadians want and what victims need.

Victims don't need this. Canadians don't want this. Talk to victims' advocates. They have concerns about being treated with respect, being treated with dignity, having opportunities to voice their concerns. They're not out there looking for harsher and harsher penalties. Let's be respectful to victims, and let's not use selected anecdotal comments to frame Canadian penal policy.

The last thing I want to say to this group is that Canada has a tradition of thoughtful, considered development of penal policy. What's happened to that tradition? Is it here still? If it's still here in this building, this bill should be rejected out of hand.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. O'Sullivan, for being here and for the good work you're doing to represent victims.

Like you, I don't want to give Clifford Olson any more publicity than he should have. However, a number of the families of his victims spoke at the parole hearing you attended about Bill S-6, which we dealt with a week ago, and about this bill, Bill C-48. I think their words should be heard.

I'm reading from an article that was posted on the CBC website on December 1. The headline is “Olson victims' families want tougher parole law”:

The federal government as well as families of Clifford Olson's victims say the process by which serial killers can seek parole has to change.

Inmates like Olson have the right to request a parole hearing every two years once they have served the bulk of their sentence, but the families of their victims must be put through the process of restating their opposition to any release.

“Oh, it's very painful,” Raymond King, whose son was killed by Olson, said after the hearing Tuesday. “Every time we hear his name, we live this all over again. And to have to come all this way for this...it's really hard.”

Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of another boy killed by Olson, said no family should have to go through this every two years.

“If they can pass some kind of a law, so that the families don't have to go through this grief and aggravation every two years, that would be great.”

Those words were also reiterated by Michael Manning, who is the father of another girl who was killed by Olson.

“People like him, multiple murderers, will not be able to have a hearing every two years,” said Rosenfeldt.

Michael Manning, whose daughter was killed by Olson, came to Tuesday's hearing to support fellow families and the proposed law. “If they can pass some kind of a law, so that the families don't have to go through this grief and aggravation every two years, that would be great.”

I think those are important quotes that people need to hear.

There are people in this room and people representing the criminal defence bar who would say you don't have to worry about people like Clifford Olson because he's never going to get out; he's not going to get out, so he's not going to revictimize the families.

But I think we need to hear his words. This is what Clifford Olson said on Tuesday:

I'm here because I have a right to appear, he said. I'm not asking the board for parole, because I know I'm going to be turned down.

He made those victims' families come all the way to that parole hearing from across Canada to relive the pain again because he had the right.

The article points out that he will have that right again in two years' time. Do you have any comment on that?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Don't get me wrong. Sincerely, Ms. O'Sullivan, I prefer to see victims receive more rather than not enough information. I prefer to see them advised that a criminal has applied for parole and that the application has been rejected, rather than having them learn that he has been released. Unfortunately, that happens. We are talking about murder, but in the case of a break and enter, for example, victims suddenly learn that the man who was sentenced to 30 months in prison has been released after three months, and no one has been informed.

I know that this is perhaps not the time to talk about that, as we are talking about Bill C-48, but I think that work remains to be done regarding information provided to victims. Does too much information lead to greater victimization? Does less information lead to victimization? Victims suddenly learn that the person has been released and the situation explodes. I am of two minds on that.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I understand what you're trying to very delicately speak to, and I think that anybody who has suffered a loss as a result of murder will be scarred for life. Those families will be addressing those.

I think what you're trying to address is that each case may have its unique merits and set of facts that need to be considered in decision-making. I think most victims would recognize that the same three criteria—my understanding that you're speaking to—would be applied in this legislation as well, which is that the judge will have the discretion and must consider the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any jury recommendations that come forward. So in fact the same set of criteria exists in Bill C-48 as does that.

I think we all recognize that there are different circumstances and facts and issues in each case, that discretion lies with the judges in the same set of criteria, as I said. But as far as devastation to the families, I would argue that every victim has unique needs, and those needs need to be met. I would not in any way impose as to what those needs would be; that's the victim. What I can tell you what they want is option and choice.

This legislation has really been put forward, I believe, to address those very small number of cases where there is little chance of any kind of rehabilitation, and it would prevent victims from having to go through.... As I said, it isn't about the day of the parole hearing, or the two days; it's all of the trauma that goes with the lead-up: Are they going to apply? Are they not going to apply? They choose to apply. Is it going to happen on that day. I have to go through it and relive it.

In response to your question, I think this bill allows for that discretion with the same set of criteria.