Bill C-479 (Historical)

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims)

The purpose of this enactment is to amend Part II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in respect of the following matters:
(a) the parole review of offenders who are serving a sentence of at least two years for an offence involving violence;
(b) the attendance of victims and members of their family at parole review hearings;
(c) the consideration of victims’ statements by the National Parole Board when making a determination regarding the release of an offender;
(d) the manner of presentation of victims’ statements at a parole review hearing;
(e) the providing of information under consideration by the Board to a victim;
(f) the cancellation of a parole review hearing if an offender has repeatedly refused to attend, or waived his or her right to attend, previous hearings;
(g) the providing of transcripts of a parole review hearing to the victim and members of their family and the offender; and
(h) the notification of victims if an offender is to be released on temporary absence, parole or statutory release.

[Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-479, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would like to begin by providing you with a brief overview of our office's mandate. The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created in 2007 to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims, by promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime, by providing information and referrals, by promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime, by raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy makers about the needs and concerns of victims, and by identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact victims of crime.

The office helps victims in two main ways, individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

I would like to begin today by thanking Mr. Sweet for his work on this bill and for his efforts to recognize the valuable role that victims of crime have to play in the Canadian criminal justice system.

As mentioned, my mandate is to assist victims of crime in Canada. During my previous and current term as ombudsman, I have had the privilege of hearing from hundreds of victims across this country. I have found that victims are most concerned about their treatment, both within the criminal justice system and beyond. More specifically, I have found that, while the needs and concerns of victims are unique and do vary, on the whole victims want to be informed, considered, protected, and supported. It is clear to me that the intention of Bill C-479 is to further consider and include victims of crime in our criminal justice system. I fully support these aspects of the bill.

I think this bill puts forward some valuable changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would significantly enhance victims' treatment and consideration in the process. Many of these changes are, in fact, in line with recommendations that our office has made in the past. That being said, I think there are some minor modifications that would further strengthen the bill, and I would like to share these with the committee today.

Bill C-479 aims to address the lack of information victims receive by providing them with more information about the offender who harmed them. This is done in part through the bill's proposal to shift the onus on the Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, from providing the information to victims on a discretionary basis, to ensuring that victims shall receive it. I strongly support this amendment; however I would suggest a modification.

As written, the bill suggests that only certain items currently considered discretionary become mandatory. I would suggest, as a further modification, that all of the information currently listed as discretionary be given to victims automatically, unless there is a relevant safety or security reason not to. If the principle of the bill is to provide victims with greater access to information, then I see no reason not to include all of these items.

Additionally, the proposed list of information to be provided to a victim includes information relating to the offender's correctional plan. We have often heard from victims who wish to know more about the offender's progress towards rehabilitation. Through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10 in 2012, some information about the offender's program participation and serious disciplinary offences report, or the PPDO, was made available to the victim at the discretion of Correctional Service Canada, or CSC.

However, the PPDO provides very little information for victims outside of the names of the programs offenders may be taking, their status—for example, whether they are complete or ongoing—and blanket descriptions of the programs' overall goals. The PPDO does not provide information relating to the offender's risk, progress, and overall rehabilitation. This is the information that victims are most interested in obtaining.

The correctional plan, on the other hand, provides much more comprehensive information that would be more meaningful for victims in understanding the risks an offender may pose, how those risks are being addressed, and what progress, if any, he or she is making toward rehabilitation. Given this, I fully support Bill C-479 in its proposal to provide victims with more information relating to the offender's correctional plan.

As an additional note, many victims have expressed the desire to be informed of the commission of any new criminal code offences by the offender while under the supervision of CSC. Therefore, I would recommend that Bill C-479 be amended to include this information.

Finally, as a further modification to this area of the bill, there is an important technical oversight that could nullify the proposed benefits of the bill, once passed.

The bill proposes to expand the type of information provided to victims. It includes an amendment to section 142 of the CCRA, authorizing the parole board to provide information related to the offender's correctional plan. The correctional plan is a document under the control of CSC and is used to manage offenders over the course of their sentences. Accordingly, our office recommends that CSC rather than PBC be authorized to provide this information, through an amendment to section 26 of the CCRA rather than only section 142.

Further, the same pertains to notifications to victims related to the date and destination of certain absences and releases, as well as whether the offender will be in the vicinity of the victim while travelling to the release destination. This is all information that is currently provided to victims by the Correctional Service Canada under section 26 of the CCRA, which is not provided for in the bill. In other words, I recommend that the bill be amended to mirror the proposed amendments to section 142 of the CCRA in section 26 as well.

While ensuring that victims are properly informed is essential, it is equally important to create opportunities for victims to participate in the process and to create an environment to encourage that participation. This means providing choices and options for how victims can choose to participate in the criminal justice system without feeling intimidated or fearful, and without causing significant disruption to their lives and finances.

One example of this is the parole hearing. Parole hearings can be extremely important to some victims, given that it is often the first opportunity since sentencing for the victims to learn more about the progress, if any, that an offender has made towards rehabilitation. While some victims will find it important and even necessary to face the offender in person, others may find this idea intimidating or generally undesirable.

In the current system, attending or observing the parole hearing in real time is the only way that victims can attain the most complete information about the offenders who have harmed them and the progress the offenders may have made. For those victims who are fearful of encountering their offenders, for any number of reasons, including fear of retaliation, there is a distinct lack of options for observing a parole hearing. Only in exceptional circumstances can victims request that they attend the hearing via video-conferencing technology or closed-circuit television. Attending a hearing by secure webcast or audio feed is not an option.

Bill C-479 aims to address this gap, by proposing that in cases where a victim or a member of his or her family has been denied the ability to attend a hearing, the board shall provide for the victim or family member to follow the hearing by teleconference or by a one-way, closed-circuit video feed.

I would recommend two modifications to this. I recommend that the wording be amended so that it doesn't merely permit victims to follow the hearing but allows them to participate by reading their prepared victim statements, and that the option for a victim to observe and/or participate in a parole hearing via teleconference, one-way circuit video feed, video conferencing, or other technology, be extended to all victims, regardless of whether they have been denied attendance. We must keep in mind that for some victims it is work commitments, child care, caring for elderly parents or family members, financial restraints, or their own emotional anxiety about being within close proximity to the offender that may prohibit them from attending a hearing.

While the proposals in Bill C-479 are well intentioned to provide victims with greater access to the hearings, they neglect to take into account the fact that for many victims attending a parole hearing is not always an option, regardless of whether their attendance has been approved.

The lack of options for attending a parole hearing wouldn't be as problematic if a victim who did not attend a hearing had choices and options for reviewing the proceedings at a later date. However, the reality is that there are no alternatives for victims in these cases. There are no transcripts provided, and victims cannot access an audio recording, even when it exists. The only further material available to a victim who is not able to attend a hearing in person is a copy of the decision registry, which outlines the decision taken and main supporting reasons. It is in no way a full depiction of the information that is provided during the parole hearing.

Bill C-479 recognizes this need and attempts to address it by providing that if a transcript of the hearing has been made, on written request, a copy of it shall be provided by the parole board free of charge to the victim, a member of the victim's family, or the offender. Unfortunately, while this clause has the victims' needs in mind, our office understands that it is not currently the practice for transcripts to be made. Instead, audio recordings are kept as records of the parole hearing proceedings. As such, this legislative change would not result in further access for victims to the proceedings of any given parole hearing.

Previously our office has recommended that victims be granted access to listen in, not keep, audio recordings of the parole hearings, and that there be potential funding support, as necessary, to travel to the locations at which these recordings are stored.

As such I would recommend that the wording of the bill be amended to state that victims, members of the victim's family, and the offender have access to, at no charge, any recordings, be they audio, audio-visual, or otherwise, of the parole hearings.

In addition to increasing the information victims receive and their role in the system, Bill C-479 proposes to increase the time between parole hearings for violent offenders who are denied parole or who have parole cancelled or terminated.

In 2010 our office released a report entitled “Toward a Greater Respect for Victims in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act”, which recommended that the time between hearings be extended to five years for those serving life and indefinite sentences if an offender's request for conditional release is denied.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

We will reconvene.

We have our second witness on Bill C-479. We'd like to welcome Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and ask her to make an opening statement of 10 minutes. I believe members have it in front of them.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But anyway, with regard to the bill, Mr. Sweet, Bill C-479, under clause 2, proposed subsection 5.01 says that “the Board shall conduct another review”, and the key words are, “within five years after the later of the day”, and it goes on from there. Mr. Norlock raised this question earlier.

We know that the maximum the bill proposes is five years. What's the minimum period that the parole board could act on? Is it two years? Is it three? Is it four? Does this really mean much when it says “within”? It doesn't say “five years”; it says “within”.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Sweet for joining us today to tell us more about Bill C-479, which he introduced. Today, we are examining the extremely important issue of victims' rights. This study should be taken very seriously.

Today, during the question period in the House, a question was put to the Minister of Public Safety regarding the Victims Bill of Rights, promised by the Conservative government over a year ago. That bill was actually included in the 2014 budget tabled by the government.

Is it wise to go ahead with a private member's bill, which calls for minor amendments to victims' rights, before considering the Victims Bill of Rights that has been announced? Do you know to what extent this bill will be related to the upcoming Victims Bill of Rights? If not, why not wait until the Victims Bill of Rights promised by your government is introduced?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, Madam Ombudsman, ladies and gentlemen, it's an honour to be here today before this committee to talk about the important amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that I proposed in Bill C-479.

First, I'd like to acknowledge the honourable parliamentary secretary, MP Roxanne James, and those honourable members of this committee who rose to speak to Bill C-479 during the second reading in the House of Commons. I sincerely appreciate your commitment to victims and the comments you made during debate, and I have taken them to heart.

Mr. Chair, let me also recognize the good work of our professionals in our correctional system. They deserve our gratitude, particularly those at the Parole Board of Canada, who work hard and make extraordinarily difficult decisions to keep our communities safe.

Speaking of professionals, I'd like to thank and acknowledge Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who will speak to the committee after me today. I am grateful for her advice and wisdom in crafting this bill. Her work in the police services as deputy chief and in the community working with victims has been a tremendous asset to her current role—an asset to all Canadians and to me in the development of this bill.

I'd also like to make special note of my former legislative assistant, Stephan Rose, who's here today. He took the day off his present job. He spent multiple hours helping me with this bill and deserves public commendation for his investment into helping victims in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start off today—just as I have at every opportunity in the House of Commons to speak to this act to bring fairness for victims of violent offenders—by talking about the reasons I brought this bill forward. I know you may have heard it before, so I'll spare you all the details. However, for the record, it's what focused my efforts and instilled in me the passion for this bill.

Over the years since my election in 2006, I had a number of people call, email, and come to see me face to face about the imbalance in our justice system as it pertains to the treatment and rights of offenders versus those of victims. This became a policy concern of mine, which began conversations with my colleagues and ministers on what could be done.

However, none of my previous conversations so focused my efforts as did an unforgettable experience in the summer of 2010. Constituents from Ancaster, Ontario, the community in which I live, invited me to attend a hearing of the Parole Board of Canada with them. The matter at hand was the case of Jon Rallo, an offender who is the brother-in-law of my constituents, and the murderer of her sister, her niece, and her nephew. This well-regarded couple known for their generosity in the community wanted their federal representative to see first-hand what they had to go through on an annual or biennial basis for far too long, to see the extent of the voice they had been given primarily through the victim impact statement in that meeting. They wanted their federal representative to see all the aspects, raw as they are, of a parole board hearing. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, the anguish of my constituent reading her victim impact statement was something one could not imagine without being present to experience such an event.

Every time Mr. Rallo has reapplied for parole under the current process, my constituents have been there. I joined them again in 2011 and again last summer, in 2013, at the federal penal institution at Gravenhurst, Ontario, where the most recent parole board hearing for Mr. Rallo took place. The hearings are never easy. Each time my constituent tried very hard to be composed, inevitably, before uttering a word, she'd start weeping as the memories of a crime committed over 30 years before always came flooding back. It was a grizzly triple murder: her sister, her niece, and her nephew had been murdered by her sister's husband, Mr. Rallo, violently and viciously. After killing his wife, this violent criminal suffocated his two young children, a six-year-old boy and a five-year-old girl. To this day, his son's body has never been recovered.

At each Parole Board of Canada hearing, my constituent would ask the same question of Mr. Rallo. Why did you kill your family, and what did you do with your son? She has yet to get a response. Despite being convicted on evidence that was very substantive and clear, Mr. Rallo does not feel any remorse, nor has he admitted any culpability. Each time, he has sat stone-faced through the victim impact statement.

Mr. Chairman, despite the obvious pain of my constituent, her husband, and her parents, they feel an overwhelming duty as a family to attend each hearing. They must do so to honour the memory of their daughter, sister, grandchildren, niece, and nephew.

Mr. Chairman, I believe they're an appropriate representation of every family that deals with a similar situation here in Canada. I can attest today that, having been robbed of their loved ones, certainly all victims I have spoken to have shared similar trauma, pain, and feelings of helplessness, as well as a steadfast feeling of duty.

For me, Mr. Chairman, this underscores so resoundingly that our federal parole process—unwittingly, I believe—makes the revictimization of victims and their families an all too frequent occurrence. Determined to help strengthen the voice of victims and modify the parole process, I talked to victim's advocates, law enforcement officials, and legal experts in researching this bill. It was a common theme that the provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that may have made sense in the past—it was established in 1992—no longer affect Canadian society today, in particular in offering respect and dignity to victims.

In developing a well-researched and well-thought-out bill, I spoke numerous times to the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. When her report came out last June, entitled “Meeting the needs of victims of crime in Canada”, I took an extensive look at it. Her recommendations on the rights of victims to have good communication throughout the system, the use of technology for victim statements presented at parole board hearings, and ensuring that the parole process is more accommodating to victims' needs, are reflected in Bill C-479. I will defer to her expertise to make these parallels more clearly.

However, it wasn't her expertise alone that underpinned this bill. My office and I spent a lot of time speaking with legal experts, and we believe this bill has a sound legal and constitutional foundation. It has brought support to the modernization of nine provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

This is reflected from a look at what other jurisdictions are doing as well. The Victims' Rights Act of New Zealand, instituted in 2002, has been a model for the world. Under the corresponding provisions of New Zealand's Parole Act 2002, rights of victims are also enshrined, much as is being proposed in Bill C-479. Similarly, the basis of the act is support and respect for victims.

In 2009, the New Zealand Ministry of Justice launched an extensive public consultation to further enhance its victim support within the justice system. Mr. Chair, that's why I was very happy that the parliamentary secretary and the minister did this just last summer.

I won't list every area of commonality. However, one of the areas they looked at is echoed in Bill C-479, which is the modernization that I proposed to reflect the use of technology, through video conference and links to oral statements delivered in regional offices via telecom. This is expressly addressed to ensure that victims have a strong voice in the process, but also to mitigate the revictimization of victims and their families. The victims of crime reform bill, introduced to the Parliament of New Zealand, includes this provision.

Mr. Chairman, the New Zealand victims of crime reform bill that was passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 2013 included improvements to their victim notification system, which are also reflective of provisions in Bill C-479 to Canadian victims' increased access to information about how offenders are progressing with their correctional plans and pertinent documents.

However, our Kiwi friends aren't the only ones looking at this issue. The report by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime looked at U.S. legislation at the federal and state level, the U.K. code of practice, and 2012 European directives on victims support and protection were also studied.

I raise these, not to suggest that we in Canada should be followers rather than an international leader on victims' rights, especially when it comes to victims of violent offenders, but because they illustrate that this is a debate taking place around the world in other commonwealth and allied countries. Our efforts here today are timely and appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, colleagues, it's imperative to understand that this bill is targeted at helping victims have a more clear voice within our justice system as well as giving the Parole Board of Canada more tools to deal with offenders. However, this is not regarding just any offenders. Please keep in mind that when we discuss this bill and the new latitude we're giving to the Parole Board of Canada that these are offenders who have caused grievous physical harm; maimed someone for life; or were attempting to murder, or did murder, victims or a victim. I'm talking primarily—not entirely exclusively, but primarily—about the likes of the Clifford Olsons, and his devastatingly painful victim count; the David Shearings, who killed an entire family; the David Dobsons, who savagely killed Darlene Prioriello; and the Munro brothers, who shot, held, and killed Constable Michael Sweet.

The parole board should have the capability to extend reviews in the kinds of cases where heinous crimes are committed and parole is either a faint option or a very distant one. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, after the Parole Board of Canada grants parole and the offender breaches parole or outright reoffends, they should have more discretion than they presently have now.

This is not just a matter of victim fairness, but of overall public safety as well.

Mr. Chairman, for me this is where it comes full circle. When we look at the facts and the previous experience of countless victims, we can look at the precedents and at what other countries are doing, and we can debate the language in the clauses of the bill, but ultimately when we're talking about victims of violent crime, we're talking about people. Victims are not a number, nor are they a burden to our system. The justice system is daunting enough, and victims should never feel they're just a cog in the process. It's very personal. It's very emotional.

I urge the committee, throughout the study of Bill C-479, to never lose sight of this point. Yes, let's study the bill. Yes, let's make sure it makes the modernizations to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that are necessary.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I welcome any amendment that is well-intended and will strengthen the language and the principle of this bill, so yes, let's work together to strengthen it with amendments that are required, but let us never ever dishonour or diminish the experience of people most affected by the perpetrators of violent crime—the people who never asked to be in this unfortunate circumstance and who would give anything to turn the clock back. These are the victims and Bill C-479 is for them.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Randall Garrison), Conservative, David Sweet]

I call the committee back to order. I understand we are now televised and we will proceed with the order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Bill C-479, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).

We'd like to welcome our first witness today, Mr. David Sweet, MP for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

Mr. Sweet will have 10 minutes for his opening statement.

Please proceed.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour in the House to speak to Bill C-479, an Act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders. I am dedicated and passionate about seeing this bill through because the changes it would bring about for victims and their families are overdue. Today marks one step closer in the legislative process in seeing these changes become a reality.

First, I would like to thank the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, for her strong support the last time we debated Bill C-479 in the House. In her role, she has been a strong advocate for victims in her community and across the country, and I congratulate her on her work.

The parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice were busy this past summer, hearing from victims across the country. We look forward to hearing more from them in the months ahead on the federal government's support for victims.

I am proud that Bill C-479 complements our government's work to support victims and their families from coast to coast to coast.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge the hon. members for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Winnipeg North, Alfred-Pellan and Abitibi—Témiscamingue for the support they offered in the House to bring this bill to committee. I appreciate their kind words on my intent in bringing forward this bill. While they have raised some points that will be further debated in committee, I have no doubt that their hearts are in the right place.

All of us on both sides of the House should desire to do everything we can to bring about fairness for victims and their families and act on some of the recommendations of the victims ombudsman. Contrary to the member for Malpeque's comments, this bill is not about the Criminal Code, but the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and victims' rights. This is all about that.

I offer special thanks to the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan, for meeting with me and my staff and for all of her advice and support in the development of this bill. Many of the provisions of Bill C-479 stem from the recommendations made by Ms. O'Sullivan and her office. I appreciate and respect the work that she and her team do on a daily basis to advocate for victims. It is tough, emotional and unrelenting work and they do it effectively, professionally and compassionately.

I have also heard from victims. To me, that is the ultimate litmus test of this bill. When they tell me that it will make a difference and that we are on the right track, I know that this makes sense.

Please allow me to conclude this debate at second reading where I began. That is by reiterating my intent in bringing forward this bill. As I have said at each stage of the process, it was an eye opening and heart-wrenching experience at a hearing of the National Parole Board of Canada in the summer of 2010 that led me to introduce this bill. Invited to observe as a guest of my constituents, I witnessed first hand how the system revictimized the people who had already suffered enough for a lifetime. Since that time, I have witnessed many more meetings, all just as gut-wrenching and painful.

Constable Michael Sweet's story and his family's reasonable request to have more information has profoundly affected me as well. Their point is well taken that their father and husband's life was taken from them publicly. The offenders were tried publicly, with all of the evidence being introduced publicly. Victims, their families and all Canadians should have some public assurance that those convicted of violent offences are doing what they can to be rehabilitated and become contributing citizens.

If an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders eases the revictimization of just one family, it will be worth it, but I am convinced that it would do much more.

Merry Christmas. Joyeux Noël.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to speak to the bill we have before us today, Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).

This bill is based for the most part on the recommendation made by the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime and seeks to pay special attention to the perspective of victims in the criminal justice process.

Bill C-479 broadens the rights of victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It incorporates into law some of the elements that are already part of the current practice in parole hearings. Some of those elements are in fact consistent with the recommendations made by the former ombudsman in his special report.

Under this bill, victims would have more opportunities to attend parole hearings, and offenders would have considerably less access to reviews.

The NDP, however, is concerned that the bill adds five years to the interval between parole reviews for violent offenders.

This goes against the ombudsman's previous recommendations that this extension apply only to dangerous offenders and those serving a life sentence.

The people working with victims and those working with inmates agree that parole is an essential component of public safety. This change could prevent some offenders from having access to parole and, by extension, deny them the benefits of a supervised release in the community.

This amendment therefore would lead to a situation where many violent offenders would reach the end of their sentence without having had access to supervised release. They would then be out in the community for the first time, fully free and without any supervision at the end of their sentence.

On our side, we work tirelessly to improve the safety of the public. We believe that one way to achieve this goal is to implement a parole process that helps people reintegrate safely, and I emphasize the word “safely”, into the community to reduce victimization and the risk of reoffending.

We also support the victims and their families, and we want to work with them to ensure that in addition to taking legislative action to help them, we also provide them with the services they need.

Instead of focusing on the shortcomings of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as a whole, this is yet another Conservative piecemeal bill that actually does very little to ensure the safety of our communities.

I will briefly run through the changes, or, more specifically, the amendments, proposed in Bill C-479: the parole review of offenders who are serving a sentence of at least two years for an offence involving violence; the attendance of victims and members of their family at parole review hearings; the consideration of victims’ statements by the National Parole Board when making a determination regarding the release of an offender; the manner of presentation of victims’ statements at a parole review hearing; the providing of information under consideration by the Board to a victim; the cancellation of a parole review hearing if an offender has repeatedly refused to attend, or waived his or her right to attend, previous hearings; the providing of transcripts of a parole review hearing to the victim and members of their family and the offender; and the notification of victims if an offender is to be released on temporary absence, parole or statutory release.

We think that this bill has several good points. That is why we will support it at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.

We also believe that it is appropriate for victims to attend parole board hearings, for example, when it is likely that the offender will return to live in the community where he committed the crime, or when a victim is asking for specific condition to be placed on the offender after release, such as a non-communication order. We also think that allowing victims to attend hearings via video conference or teleconference is a valid point in Bill C-479, especially for victims with mobility problems.

We also want victims and their families to feel that they are really involved the process. However, we must also ensure that offenders have access to appropriate services, whether in the correctional system or the parole system, such as supervised release, so that recidivism rates fall after offenders have served their full sentences.

We do see some weaknesses in Bill C-479, however, and it is important to point them out. For example, an offender who serves a sentence of less than five years might have only one chance at parole under Bill C-479. If his first application is denied, it is quite possible that he will serve his entire sentence without ever having been granted conditional release. This means that offenders will be released at the end of their sentences without any conditions, and more importantly, without the benefit of any rehabilitation or reintegration programs. It goes without saying that this poses a risk to public safety and that such a practice would likely result in higher recidivism rates and therefore an increase in the number of victims of crime.

Society would be better served by the gradual, supervised release of offenders who pose a risk. Such release helps offenders reintegrate into society safely and with the supervision they need to facilitate their reintegration, thereby reducing the likelihood that they will commit other criminal acts. If the Conservative government is truly serious about helping victims and their families, it will provide them with services and reintegrate criminals into society in such a way as to prevent the risk of victimization and recidivism.

In closing, the NDP's message to victims and their families is simple: we support greater victim involvement in the parole process. We also support many of the recommendations made by the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, as well as his criticisms of Bill C-479.

We are working tirelessly on making our communities safer. Our plan goes beyond the Conservatives' simplistic ideology and really gets to the heart of the problem, rather than just scratching the surface. We want to help victims create a safer process that will reduce the risk of recidivism.

We hope the government will be receptive to the suggestions we will be making in committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second hour of debate on this legislation, which was introduced in the last session of Parliament. It is Bill C-479, the fairness for the victims of violent offenders act. I will support this legislation going to committee for consideration and, where necessary, for amendment. I want to underline the fact that Liberals want some amendments to this bill.

Again, the intent of this bill is to provide additional measures for victims of crime, in this case the ability to ensure that victims of violent crime have a greater legislated role in any parole actions related to offenders.

The major elements of the bill are that the bill would extend the period between parole reviews from two to five years for violent offenders who are not granted parole at first or subsequent reviews or whose parole has been revoked. This change would apply only to offenders incarcerated for violent crimes.

Ostensibly, this bill is aimed at relieving the victims of violent crimes or their families from having to attend frequent parole hearings. That is a good intent.

The bill does not alter the rules governing initial parole eligibility. The bill also contains uncontroversial changes that codify victims' rights already recognized and applied in the parole process.

However, the bill's evidentiary basis remains entirely unclear. The rationale for choosing a maximum interval of five years between parole hearings for those denied parole instead of, for example, four, as in the previous iteration of the bill, remains unclear. The impact of extending the maximum time between parole hearings on offender rehabilitation is also unclear. Study at committee would allow members to debate the bill's merits on the basis of evidence from expert testimony.

I would reiterate the concerns expressed by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis with respect to the constitutionality of the legislation. I note that the courts are now beginning to challenge the efficacy of the mandatory minimum sentencing and the manner in which the government has attempted to alter the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to support an ideological agenda based on public fear of criminal activity.

This is another in a long list of private members' bills coming forward from Conservative backbench members. They all may be great in terms of their intent, but these are members of the government, and this is the Criminal Code that we are dealing with. It is a complex, massive code. Coming forward with off-the-wall requests for legislation could jeopardize the very intent of what members want to do with this legislation.

I see members smiling on the other side. This is not a joking matter. We are talking about the Criminal Code of Canada. What is happening on that side of the House is that they are allowing Conservative members to come forward with little private members' bills from their own riding so they can cater to their own power base. Do they not realize that they could, in the process, have a court throw out the legislation and make a victim of the very person we do not want to make a victim? That is the possible consequence.

I will turn to the Correctional Investigator's message in terms of how the government is really dealing with its tough-on-crime agenda. In the beginning of the report, he speaks of the time in 1973 when the first correctional investigator was appointed for federally sentenced inmates. It was a time when there was rioting in prisons. There were burnings and real trouble within the prison system.

He made a point in his report that I want to quote.

He stated:

Today, as my report makes clear, many of the same problems that were endemic to prison life in the early 1970s – crowding; too much time spent in cells; the curtailment of movement, association and contact with the outside world; lack of program capacity; the paucity of meaningful prison work or vocational skills training; and the polarization between inmates and custodial staff – continue to be features of contemporary correctional practice.

He is basically saying that what we are seeing under the government's justice, as it calls it, is moving back to a time that created riots in the prison system in the first place. That is not the answer to dealing with the justice system in a smart way.

With this specific bill, I would request, and will do so at committee, that the member present a list of experts and the evidence they provided, which he referenced in his remarks on May 10 of this year, as to his claim that “this bill has a sound legal and constitutional foundation”.

I will also be requesting that the member provide the evidence upon which this legislation was based. For example, upon what evidence did the member opposite base the determination that a period of five years between subsequent applications is justified? I trust that the member will provide that evidence at the committee.

I make note of the concern, given the recent case of Bill C-489, introduced by his colleague the member for Langley. In the course of second reading of that bill, the member gave the House the assurance that the bill was well drafted and was adequate. He did acknowledge that he was open to amendments, and indeed the elements of the bill were subsequently amended.

With regard to the amendments, there were six amendments to a bill with five clauses. Let me repeat that: six amendments to a five-clause bill. They were moved by members of the government on behalf of the Government of Canada. During this process, a representative of the Department of Justice was in attendance to ensure the amendments accorded with what even the government determined was the need to ratchet back on some of the extreme and likely challengeable features of the member's original bill.

It goes to my point. The government has all these backbenchers over there, but it is not bringing forward legislation in a comprehensive way on an issue as important as the Criminal Code of Canada. I believe we are getting 16 private members' bills on various subjects by members. As this bill clearly shows, it needed to be amended or the Department of Justice knew the bill would be thrown out by a court. The extent would be that it would create new victims as a result of the bill.

In the end, the bill was attempting to institute a mandatory minimum distance for offenders to have to maintain from the dwellings of the victims of specific crimes. It was amended in such a way as to add to the list of locations already in the Criminal Code from which a judge can currently apply a limitation on that of dwelling. We were told the whole intent and purpose of the legislation was so the judge could not use discretion, but the end result was that the ability of the judge to use discretion remains within the code.

In conclusion, we will support the bill going to committee. We will see if there will be amendments.

In closing, I want to underline that while we see some merit in this bill, we would prefer to see legislation from the government after they have talked in their caucus on various proposals in an all-encompassing way, in a way that fits legitimately within the Criminal Code of Canada. We do not want to see it add more risk to what a court might do in terms of challenging that legislation and throwing it out. It should be done in a comprehensive way, rather than these simple bills coming forward to play to the Conservative base.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-479 under private members' business.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-479, An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders.

To begin, I would like to point out that this bill proposes measures for victims, among others. The bill extends mandatory review periods for parole. If an offender is denied parole, the Parole Board of Canada would then be obligated to review the case within five years rather than the current two years.

The bill gives the Parole Board of Canada up to five years to review parole following the cancellation or termination of parole for someone who, for example, is sent back to prison following bad behaviour. The bill also emphasizes that the Parole Board of Canada must take into consideration the needs of victims and their families to attend hearings and witness the proceedings.

Furthermore, it also requires that the Parole Board of Canada consider any victim impact statement presented by victims, as well as provide the victim, if requested, with information about the offender's release on parole, statutory release or temporary absence.

It also proposes that victims be given information pertaining to the offender’s correctional plan, including information regarding the offender’s progress towards meeting the objectives of the plan.

First, I would like to talk about the weakness of the Conservatives' approach in general, since they chose to address this issue using a piecemeal approach. They did so by mentioning victims' rights in a number of small private members' bills, such as Bill C-479, which is before us today, and Bill C-489.

In my opinion, we need to take a much more comprehensive approach in the form of a charter for the public and victims in order to better meet victims' needs overall. It would be much more effective to address the problem in a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal fashion.

It would be better to address this issue in a government bill than in a number of small private members' bills. That is one of the weaknesses of the Conservative government's approach to protecting victims and the bills that address that issue.

From an ethical standpoint, criminal sciences professor Robert Cario has said that it is important to take into account three fundamental rights when talking about fairness and effectiveness. These rights have a dual purpose: to protect the individual's dignity and human rights and to solidify the victim's position as a stakeholder in the criminal justice system. What we must do is acknowledge the victim's suffering, provide support for them and help them heal.

Sometimes, acknowledging the victim's suffering goes beyond the pain inflicted. It may be a matter of someone telling the victim that he understands the distress the victim is experiencing as a result of the crime. Sometimes, it could be a matter of the criminal truly understanding the extent to which he hurt a family. This can help victims feel that their suffering is acknowledged.

Since I am out of time, I will finish my speech during the next sitting.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-479.

Given that I am rising for the first time in the second session of the 41st Parliament, I would like to start by simply saying that I am very pleased to be back to defend the interests of the constituents of Alfred-Pellan and, at the same time, of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to greet you and your entire team, all my colleagues in the House and all the staff who tirelessly support us as we carry out our responsibilities as MPs. I would also like to welcome all the new pages. I hope they will enjoy this wonderful experience.

Today, I am pleased to say that the NDP will support Bill C-479 at second reading. I am certainly not in favour of rubber-stamping this Conservative bill. However, we do agree that it should be sent to committee, because it is based for the most part on the recommendations made by the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, Steve Sullivan.

He wanted the victim's viewpoint to be given greater consideration in the criminal justice system, and the NDP agrees with that. The NDP's objective has always been to make our communities safe and to ensure that our children grow up in a world characterized by mutual respect and safe neighbourhoods. Putting in place a parole process that allows people to reintegrate into society in a manner that is fair and safe for everyone, in order to reduce victimization and recidivism, is one way to achieve that objective.

With regard to victims' rights in particular, the NDP wants to strengthen the victim's right to personal safety, establish a support fund for victims and invest in a special fund to help communities with high crime rates.

We support victims and their families, and we are working with them to ensure not only that legislative measures are taken to help them, but also that they receive appropriate services.

I would also like to say that we recognize the work and expertise of the main stakeholders. We consult them on an ongoing basis in order to develop well thought-out positions that include all affected sectors of our society.

The NDP also wants to change the rules to allow for stiffer sentences for violent crimes in accordance with the principle of judicial discretion. We therefore agree that this bill should be sent to committee for a more in-depth review.

Bill C-479 proposes changes to certain aspects of part II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We believe that many of the changes proposed by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale are good.

For example, the bill has the tangible effect of allowing victims to attend parole hearings by videoconference or teleconference, which is particularly beneficial for victims with mobility issues. Many victims' groups have recommended that victims be given the right to attend hearings by videoconference. It is a practice that already exists but that should be more widely available.

We believe that victims and their families should feel as though they are an integral part of the corrections and parole system and, at the same time, offenders must have access to fair and equitable judicial services, such as probation, that will reduce recidivism and victimization rates.

The NDP believes that, in certain cases, victims have the right to attend board hearings, for example, when there is a good chance that the offender will return to live in the community where he committed his crime or when the victim asks that specific conditions, such as a publication ban, be placed on the offender's release.

I must also say that we have some reservations about this bill. First, Bill C-479 constitutes only a fraction of what our justice system needs to help victims. Unfortunately, the fact that this bill makes piecemeal changes to the system and comes from a private member shows that the Conservative government does not really take the fight against crime or helping victims seriously.

Second, almost all of the key stakeholders in this debate recognize how important a progressive release system is to public safety in our communities and the benefits that such a system brings.

We cannot shut offenders behind bars without readying them to rejoin society. It has been shown that that approach does not work and that it is a threat to public safety. Abandoning the benefits of gradual release back into society under the pretense of alleviating victims' suffering would only lead to an increase in the number of victims of crime in this country. We benefit from the gradual, supervised release of individuals who pose a risk.

That brings me to what I feel is the most controversial part of Bill C-479.

An offender who serves a sentence of less than five years might have only one chance at parole. If his first request is denied, it is quite possible that he will serve his entire sentence and be released without condition, which is a threat to public safety. That could result in a considerable increase in the number of victims. If the Conservative government is truly serious about helping victims and their families, it would offer services and reintegrate criminals into society in such a way as to prevent victimization.

I have no doubt that there are a number of stakeholders that will want to take part in the debate in committee, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.

To conclude, I would like to say a few words about the problems victims experience in our justice system. As my colleague from Gatineau pointed out to the House, these problems go well beyond parole.

The legal process may be long and complicated, especially for victims. Trial hearings can go on forever, there may be a long wait before the trial begins, and often victims are not informed of what is happening. It is difficult enough to be the victim of a crime, but feeling victimized by the legal system only adds to the suffering. In addition, as Professor Waller stated to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the $16 million in funding allocated to victims in the last government budget was far from adequate. We should immediately begin working with the provinces to study these shortcomings.

I have the feeling that the Conservatives are not addressing the root of the problem, as they deal with small pieces of it through backbenchers' bills. I sincerely hope that the minister will shoulder his responsibilities and take meaningful action to assist crime victims, who are in dire need of help.

Lastly, I would add that many victims' associations have contacted me in recent weeks and a large number of them wanted to talk about Bill C-479. They had many questions about this bill. Several of these associations will be more than happy to come and discuss some of the issues in committee. Some of these issues are positive, such as those I previously talked about, while others are somewhat more negative, for example those relating to the mandatory five years.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak up for the rights of victims. Far too often, victims are not given a voice when it comes to our criminal justice system. Violent crimes place a heavy burden on individual victims, their families and our communities. Our Conservative government recognizes that for individual victims and their families, it is a burden that may never be completely erased.

We have heard the calls from victims and victims' rights groups in this country for a greater voice and a greater balance in the criminal justice system, and we have taken decisive action to support them. As part of our commitment to fighting crime, protecting Canadians and holding offenders accountable, we brought in the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Through this legislation, we have already made significant improvements to the way victims are informed of an offender's progress in the correctional system, as well as ensuring that the victims' concerns are taken into account at parole hearings. Our government has also provided more than $90 million to a number of initiatives that provide support to the victims of crime.

While we have made real progress in this area, we are taking action to accomplish even more. Early this year, in February, we announced our plan to bring forward legislation to develop a Canadian victims' bill of rights. We have been working diligently to better understand the various views of what rights should be recognized and protected for victims and their families. We have sought input from the public through online consultation processes. We have held in-person consultations with victims of crime and justice advocates from across the country. Input from all of these consultations will ultimately contribute to advancing victims' rights in our country.

I would now like to recognize my colleague, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, for his dedication to bringing about meaningful changes in supporting victims. As part of this dedication, he has introduced Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders. I would also like to thank my colleague for bringing forward the bill, one that our Conservative government is very proud to support. The bill would help our government fulfill our commitments under our plan for safe streets and communities, including our promise to strengthen victims' rights.

Members of the House have heard heart-wrenching accounts about the impact of violent crimes on victims and their families. We have heard the bill's sponsor speak so passionately about one of his own constituents, who is one of these victims of violent crime. She is a woman who not only had to endure the pain caused by the murder of her sister, niece and nephew, but also the pain of revisiting those memories when delivering her victim impact statement at the offender's parole hearings. One cannot help but be moved by such accounts. Tragically, the experience of this particular constituent is but one of many relived every day by victims of all types of violent crime all over the country.

Our government is committed to supporting these victims. That is why I am honoured to rise today and lend my voice in support of Bill C-479. The bill's proposed changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are important and would provide for a greater level of input from victims. In fact, some of the provisions the member has proposed in his bill are similar in spirit and scope to those of the Safe Streets and Communities Act. For example, the ability of victims to present statements is now enshrined in law, as is a necessity for the Parole Board of Canada to consider them. In this way, victims are being given an effective and permanent voice.

Bill C-479 contains a number of measures to help and support victims. First, in the case of offenders convicted of more serious violent crimes, it would increase the amount of time in which the Parole Board conducts a review of parole following a previous denial of parole. This change would mean that after these offenders are denied parole in a review of their case, it would be required every five years rather than the current two years. We believe that two years is simply too short a time period for some victims and their families to have to relive the events that brought them into contact with the criminal justice system.

Another important way the bill would support victims is by ensuring the parole process is more accommodating to their needs. The bill would ensure that victims are provided with additional information and the opportunity to be more involved in the parole process. The bill would recommit to the importance of enshrining that the needs of victims and victims' families are taken into consideration at parole review hearings. This is an essential element of the parole process that we are implementing, one that I would note is already enshrined in law, governing the Parole Board of Canada.

In support of this, the bill would also require that in instances where it is not possible, for various reasons, for a victim to attend a parole hearing, the proceedings would be made observable by an alternate means, such as by teleconference.

We have heard about the challenges for victims in the face of these parole hearings. To address these challenges, the bill would give the Parole Board the authority to cancel a review hearing to which the offender would otherwise be entitled if the offender had refused, without a valid reason, to attend or had waived review of a scheduled hearing on short notice more than once.

This bill will also require that victims be provided, at least 14 days in advance, with details such as the date, conditions, and location of the offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence. This is an important step being taken to ensure that victims and their families are kept informed and are aware.

Further, this bill will ensure that victims are provided information about the progress being made by the offender toward meeting the objectives of the offender's correctional plan. These measures will provide meaningful improvements in the lives of victims. These changes will further ensure that victims' voices are heard. These changes will bring us closer to a parole system that gives victims a greater voice in our criminal justice system.

In conclusion, I would like to note the support signalled by the hon. colleagues across the floor during the first hour of debate on this bill in this last session. So often we are used to seeing the Liberals and NDP members putting the rights of criminals before the rights of victims. It is encouraging at first reading and also today to see opposition parties come to their senses and realize the importance of putting victims first. With this bill we have an opportunity to see to it that victims are able to participate in a parole process that is more responsive to their needs.

At committee we intend to propose amendments to ensure that the bill may be implemented effectively. I believe that we can all agree that victims deserve to benefit from the provisions proposed in this bill. In every criminal offence, it is the victims who suffer most, and as such, it is the victims who deserve our greatest support.

I therefore call on all members of this House to offer their support for this very important legislation.