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.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

There's also the question that I had asked about whether the wording in this bill overrides references to two years elsewhere, which I believe relates to (b) in the comments by the parliamentary secretary. Could I ask for a clarification of that?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I thank the officials for appearing here. I think it's quite helpful.

I want to go back to the question I was asking about (a) in the amendment. I believe what I heard is a confirmation that the offences originally contemplated in Bill C-479 will all still be covered; this prevents inadvertently pulling others who may be serving a sentence for another crime under the umbrella of Bill C-479.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm still posing the same question to Ms. James. I understand that point (a) is a technical improvement in the language, but by my reading I still don't see that it changes any of the offences that were originally listed in Bill C-479. What it does, I believe, is that it prevents inadvertently pulling someone into that net because it'll include their sentence, but it doesn't change the offences that are actually involved, so again I would pose that same question.

I would also like to go on to point (b) here. I heard the parliamentary secretary say that this was necessary because something would happen despite what it says in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. That was the question, of course, that I had here. Is this not creating a contradiction between the two acts? As for the failure of Mr. Easter's earlier amendments, which would have coordinated some of these things, I don't know whether that has an impact in this case, but it's another illustration of how these two are very closely related.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is, is this attempting to deal with a contradiction between the two acts?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, colleagues. We will call meeting number 13 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to order.

Today we are doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-479, and hopefully taking some time at the end for some future business in order to get our agenda set.

Without further ado, we'll head right into clause-by-clause. I would certainly like to thank our clerks and our analysts at this time for putting all the motions that were submitted ahead of time for the consideration and courtesy of the committee into sequence, which certainly will help us deliberate. We will certainly head down that road.

Of course, the first clause that we have before us in short order of sequence, of course, is consideration of the short title, C-479, An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders. At this point, we have consideration from our legislative clerk here that consideration of clause 1 is being postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

We will go directly now to the new clause 1.1, and from the Liberals, please.

[Terri Prioriello Armour]

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those who love, time is eternal.

Thank you.

[Terri Prioriello Armour, As an Individual]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

I'll deal with the practical effectiveness issues first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

[Mike McCormack, President, Toronto Police Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon and thanks for the invitation to come up and speak before this committee on this very important piece of legislation.

I'm here on behalf of the 8,000 members of the Toronto Police Association and also on behalf of Karen Fraser. She wanted to come up with me to Ottawa, but she couldn't make it as unfortunately she was in Florida for the last several months, had a fall, broke her neck, and is now confined to a wheelchair.

I appreciate that my time is short so let me give you important context as to why we in Toronto support this bill.

One of our own police officers, Constable Michael Sweet, was murdered on March 14, 1980, by Craig Munro. Michael Sweet was only 30 years of age, and he was survived by his 29-year-old wife and three children, aged one, four, and six.

Now, all murders are brutal, but the murder of Michael Sweet was particularly brutal and cruel. As he pleaded for his life, Michael Sweet begged Craig Munro to think about Michael's children. Munro did not care, and after abusing Constable Sweet even further, Munro let Constable Sweet bleed to death.

Craig Munro made a decision that day. The passage of time does not change that decision. The pain and anguish of Michael's widow, children, parents, brothers, and sisters continue to this day. They do not get parole from the suffering.

Munro already had an extensive criminal record. He was a very dangerous and violent man. He was charged and convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Life means life.

After 25 years, Munro was eligible for parole, but parole does not change a life sentence. What it does, however, is potentially relieve an offender from the full consequences of their life sentence and their murderous act.

We are all committed to the open court principle that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done if our criminal justice system is going to command public respect. The parole system is an integral part of our criminal justice system. It is the back end of the sentencing process. Parole is not a private remedy. Parole is a public remedy, and every aspect of the parole system must be as transparent as the rest of the criminal justice system.

For murderers like Craig Munro, privacy rights in parole hearings cannot be greater than what they were during their trial and sentencing hearing. To the contrary, they should be less, because at trial Mr. Munro was presumed innocent. At a parole hearing there is no such presumption. Quite the opposite, he is a convicted murderer, and the difference is significant.

Mr. Munro has had three parole hearings: February 26, 2009; March 16, 2010; and March 30, 2011. His fourth parole hearing was scheduled for August 2012, but his privileges were revoked on August 28, 2012, because he breached conditions of his unescorted temporary absences, which we believe he should never have received from the parole board in the first place.

In addressing Bill C-479, let me start with the proposed section 144.1, which states:

If a transcript of a hearing has been made, a copy of it shall, on written request, be provided by the Board free of charge to the victim, a member of the victim’s family or the offender.

Time does not permit, but we have been stunned, as have Michael Sweet's widow and children, at the changing testimony of Craig Munro at each of his parole hearings before different panels of the parole board. This has led to inconsistent and contradictory findings of the board placing Craig Munro on the fast track to freedom. But for his own predictable breaches, he would have been paroled by now.

The anguish and despair this causes to Craig Munro's victims are extreme. They see and hear for themselves the lies and the deception of the different stories Munro tells to different panels of the parole board, but the parole board does not.

In our experience we have never seen a transcript of a parole board hearing. We do know the hearings are recorded. All of our attempts to obtain a copy of audio recordings of Mr. Munro's parole board hearings so that we could prepare a transcript at our own expense have been denied to us and to the victims on the basis of Munro's privacy rights.

These are public hearings. We were at all three parole hearings. Members of the media were at some of the hearings, and there is nothing private about this nor should there be.

In our respectful view, while we support this proposed amendment, it can be improved by amending proposed section 144.1 to include a copy of the audio recording of the hearing in the event that a transcript is not available.

The annual reviews for those offenders convicted of first-degree murder cause enormous hardship for the victims. No sooner is one parole hearing over than the victims have to prepare new victim impact statements and confront the person responsible for the loved one's murder, as we've heard from the other witness. For many family victims, not to attend a parole hearing is unthinkable. To do so would amount to abandoning their loved ones. Such a possibility is unspeakable. Unless there is some material change in circumstances, a violent offender or murderer sentenced to life, after their first post-25-year parole hearing, should not be entitled to another hearing for five years and certainly for not less than three years.

Without going through each section of the bill, I will say that we support extending the period of time between each hearing. We have not had a chance to review the 100-plus offences in schedule I regarding the meaning of “an offence involving violence”, but in principle, this legislative change is necessary.

With respect to subsection 130(3) and proposed subsection 131(1.1) as it relates to gating applications—that is, keeping the offender in jail beyond two-thirds of the statutory release date—we ask you to consider, for context only, the case of Karla Homolka. She received a 12-year sentence, so she reached her statutory release date after eight years. She was gated and stayed in jail for her full 12 years, to her warrant expiry date. At minimum, extending the review time from one year to two years is a must, but once you meet the criteria for gating in the first place after spending so much time in jail to begin with, absent a material change in circumstances, why should we, the taxpayers of Canada, pay a dime for a further hearing?

We fully support proposed subsections 140(5.1), 140(5.2), and 140(10.1). With respect to proposed subsection 140(5.1), you might consider changing the positioning of some of the sentences. The second complete sentence reads, “The Board or its designate shall permit a victim or a member of his or her family to attend as an observer...”. That is the important point. We fully support this.

We are concerned, however, that the first sentence of the proposed subsection detracts from this, because it deals with a question of the board determining “whether to permit a victim...to attend as an observer”. Either it is mandatory or it is not. You may want to bring greater clarity to this, given the ingenuity of lawyers to exploit an arguable ambiguity. Nothing personal....

The overarching principle expressed earlier is that, to the extent practicable, parole hearings must be open and transparent. When an offender is seeking a public remedy from the parole board—that is, to be released back into the community—the offender cannot be permitted to hide his or her records under the pretext of a privacy interest. If Mr. Munro wanted to stay in jail, he could have his privacy, but the moment they seek parole to be relieved of the consequences of their very public act—a murder of a police officer or a violent offence—and be released back into the community, they have no privacy rights. We fully support the disclosure to the victims as stated in proposed subparagraphs 142(1)(a)(v), (vi), and (vii).

We also support proposed subsection 140(11), but leave you with this observation. If the victim cannot attend a hearing, they “may” submit a written and/or video impact statement to the board, but you might consider adding that the board shall receive it as evidence, so that the victim has the option of submitting such a statement, and if the victim so chooses, it is mandatory that the board receive it into evidence, underscoring its importance.

Finally, there is proposed section 140.1 about the offender refusing to attend the review hearing and waiving his right to a hearing. Let me leave you with this factual scenario. Michael Sweet was a Toronto police officer murdered in Toronto in the line of duty. Craig Munro was from Toronto and the trial was held in Toronto, but Craig Munro is incarcerated in British Columbia. The Sweet family must fly from Toronto to Vancouver and then travel to the B.C. Interior to attend Mr. Munro's parole hearings. This is a very expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining exercise. On one occasion, at the last moment, after all the flights and accommodations were booked, we were told that Mr. Munro might seek an adjournment.

The point is, you may want to consider a separate provision when there's a significant geographical gap between where the victims reside and where the government chooses to incarcerate the prisoner. Victims don't book flights and accommodations and make arrangements with their employer at the last minute.

As you know, the federal government has a program to pick up the expenses for the victims, so Canadian taxpayers have a right to know that their tax dollars are not being wasted. Offenders convicted of serious criminal offences, who lack empathy and feelings, cannot cancel parole hearings at the last minute without consequences in this regard. Victims should be consulted when the parole hearings are scheduled, and their schedule accommodated to the extent practicable. So if there's a window—

[Arlène Gaudreault, President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes]

Mr. Chair, I would first like to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for allowing us to participate in the consultation on this bill and to contribute to its work. I would particularly like to thank David Sweet, MP, for his commitment to this bill and his interest in the rights of victims of crime.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes has been in operation for 30 years. The mission of the association is to defend the rights and interests of victims of crime. The association brings together over 200 organizations that provide psychosocial support to victims and guidance through the justice system.

To begin with, we support many of the proposals for Bill C-479. Our presentations seek to express some of our questions and to propose some amendments that would likely improve the rights of victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

If I may, I will present our proposals in sections. First, I will talk about the amendments related to the attendance of victims at hearings and their participation. My first comment deals with the presumptive right to participate in hearings. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made that recommendation a number of years ago. The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has made the same recommendation in recent years. We therefore support this proposal.

We have only one comment to make. In French, the current legislation talks about permitting victims to attend whereas the proposals on the table refer to authorizing them to attend. But “permettre” and “autoriser” have the same meaning. That would be something to check. It is a suggestion, not a substantive issue. It is a question of semantics.

Of course, we support the proposal on understanding why victims of crime need to attend hearings. However, we have a few concerns about how it will be applied. Perhaps we will be able to talk about them during questions.

My third point has to do with the options for victims who are unable to attend the hearings. If their attendance is not permitted, our suggestion is to allow them to follow the hearings by teleconference or by one-way video feed. We feel that this option should be available. Generally, victims are allowed at hearings. However, there may be exceptional cases where the safety of the facility or of the people might be at risk. We propose that the following words be added at the end of the clause: “except in cases where the safety of a facility, of an offender or of any other person may be at risk”.

We have a proposal that is in line with the one made by Ms. Lee and by the National Office for Victims. When victims are permitted to attend hearings and when they request to follow the hearings by teleconference or one-way video feed, we propose that the request be accepted; so the legislation should be amended. That would be a very good solution. I think that addresses a request made a very long time ago by victims’ rights groups.

The second section has to do with amendments to the victim impact statement at parole hearings. Section 101 of the current act indicates that the board must take into consideration the information received from victims. The victims' statement has been explicitly added and we think that reinforces the importance of the statement. We support that proposal.

The proposals currently on the table clarify how statements must be presented. Right now, the policy manual defines how statements are presented. It says what is acceptable. Audio and video recordings are generally acceptable right now, but we see in the board’s performance report that some statements are presented by videoconference or even on DVD.

We support this proposal, but we would like a clarification. In fact, this clause reads as follows:

If a victim or a person referred to in subsection 142(3) is not attending a hearing, their statement may be presented at the hearing in the form of a written statement, which may be accompanied by an audio or video recording, or in any other form provided for by regulation.

According to current practice, when there is a video or a recording, the statement must be reproduced. Would it be acceptable to have a written statement in addition to a video where a parent could show family scenes or pictures of their child? I think it is important to clarify that point because victims have expectations in that regard.

Like many other groups, our association proposes that the victims be authorized to read their statement by videoconference. We support that proposal.

We would like to submit other proposals regarding the victim impact statements. We would like to see the right to read a statement explicitly stated in the act. Section 722 of the Criminal Code deals with victim impact statements before the time of sentencing. We would like to see this right stipulated in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

We would also like another addition to this act. In paragraph 12 of section 9.7 and section 9.8 of the Policy Manual of the Parole Board of Canada, in the event of a waiver or postponement, victims may present their statements to the board, if the offender does not attend the hearing and the board proceeds with a review. We recommend that this practice or policy be included in the act.

I have one last recommendation for an addition. In the policy of the board, paragraph 6 of section 10.3 allows a victim's support person to present the victim's statement at the hearing. In our view, that is a great practice. It humanizes the process and facilitates the testimony of victims. Once again, that should be more than a policy; it should be a right for victims.

I will now talk about the amendments to the discretionary disclosure of information on the offender's temporary absence, the related conditions and destination. We support those proposals. There are also proposals on the disclosure of the correctional plan. We have some concerns about that. I just want to attest to that here.

Victims have been asking for a long time to have access to a lot more information, specifically on the risks associated with the detained person and the rehabilitation programs that the person is taking in the institution. The correctional plan may contain medical, psychological and psychiatric information, which is protected under the Privacy Act.

I would also like to remind you that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, chaired by Mr. DeVillers in 2000, had drawn attention at that time to the importance of continuing to apply the test weighing the rights of both parties. For the sake of clarity, let me quote Mr. DeVillers:

...because some of this information may be detailed and complex, it should be made available to victims or their families in a form adequate to assist them, while being minimally invasive of the offender's privacy rights.

These are complex and delicate issues. We therefore recommend that the committee call on the expertise of the board or of the Correctional Service for a balanced perspective and that privacy and safety issues be reviewed. That is our proposal.

The last item dealing with the transcription of discretionary information has to do with the transcription of parole hearings. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reviewed this issue in 2000. At the time, the committee concluded that parole hearings would not be transcribed and that it would be preferable or desirable that victims listen to the audio recordings of parole hearings. The ombudsman also made that suggestion. We have too in recent years. It comes back to the table often. That is why we are reiterating this proposal to amend the act so that victims can subsequently listen to the audio recordings of parole hearings, without keeping copies.

The last point has to do with amendments to the timeframe in life sentences. In 2010, the ombudsman made some proposals in that sense. The proposal on the table seeks to limit the number of automatic reviews for offenders who committed violent crimes, by extending the time between those reviews. I think Ms. Lee did a good job of explaining the resulting hardship for the families of victims, especially in the case of life or very long sentences. Perhaps I can explain this further.

I will just say that we know that victims have to be very brave to keep going to parole hearings. Of course, it places a heavy burden on victims.

We believe that what Bill C-479 proposes would make it possible to address the needs of those victims. However, such measures should not be applied arbitrarily and without being able to take into account the changes or progress that justify offenders' right to a new review.

[Mona Lee, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you to give a voice to victims and their families in support of Bill C-479, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).

I would first like to thank Mr. Sweet and his staff for all their hard work in getting this bill to this point and for his support for victims of crime in Canada.

I would also like to thank Sue O'Sullivan, federal ombudsman for victims of crime, for her submission and I fully support her minor modifications to enhance the bill.

By way of background, I wish I wasn't, but unfortunately, I have become an expert in many of the issues dealt with in this bill by way of personal experience. My sister was savagely murdered in October of 1997. He pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, as he covered it up to appear to be a robbery, and was sentenced to life with no parole for a minimum of 12 years.

We were spared the agony of a long-drawn-out trial, but it was not until six years later, in 2003, that I was able emotionally to bring myself to even find out where he was located. Once I did that, I became involved in this system and became a “registered victim”, with all its entitlement.

Beginning in 2004, a mere seven years after the conviction, my family and I have endured the hardship that comes with being a victim involved in the parole system in Canada. From June of 2007, when his first application for day parole was denied, to the present time, there have been six parole hearings, involving six victim impact statements and the torture that goes with them. Forget about every two years, ladies and gentlemen. Some of these hearings were held six months—yes, six months—apart.

If I may, I would like to take this time to read some excerpts from my victim impact statements to show the gut-wrenching nature of these hearings and what families of victims of crime have to endure. The first is from September 2008, only one year after his first application for day parole was denied.

“To the members of the national parole board, I want you to imagine the revulsion that I felt when I came home recently and opened yet another letter from the parole board advising me that he had submitted yet another application for day parole. I was told last July that it would be another two years, in 2009, before he would be able to apply again, when the minimum 12-year sentence was up. But, no, I was told that this case was special and an early decision was being requested.”

Then I go on to say in the statement, “There is currently a petition to the federal government, a copy of which I attached, which is asking for parole hearings every five years instead of every two years. It states in part, and I emphasize, that families of a homicide do not get parole for their suffering, and that repeated parole hearings can have tremendous negative effects on the families of the victims.”

There was another hearing a year later, in September 2009, when he applied for full parole and was denied, and another hearing less than a year later, in April of 2010, where he was finally granted full parole, unfortunately.

But the story is not over, ladies and gentlemen. Last July I got a phone call in the middle of the night to tell me that he had been arrested and had his parole suspended. It has now been revoked and he is back in prison, thankfully, but I am now back in this system, unfortunately.

At the time, last summer, I was asked to do another victim impact statement, wherein I said in part, “We all know how disheartening it is to hear the phone ring in the middle of the night, so you can imagine how upset I was to find out by a 3:30 a.m. phone call that he had a warrant out for his arrest yet again. The next day I found out that he had been arrested and sent to the penitentiary.”

In spite of strong efforts on my part and going down many avenues, I have not been able to find out what he did to cause this to happen. Person after person told me, “Sorry, he has his right of privacy, and we can't tell you what he did.” How fair is this, I ask you? As I pointed out in my previous statement, where are my rights and the rights of my family? No wonder parliamentarians have brought forward Bill C-479, which aims to change, among other things, the right to have a parole hearing from every two years to up to every five years. Each time these hearings come up we are revictimized, and we have to relive the events that caused the brutal death of our loved ones.

That brings me to the points about the hearings themselves. As they were held in another city, and for the reason that I had never been face to face with my sister's killer, I chose to do these statements by audio tape at first, and then video tape. I had several occasions where I had difficulty with the execution of these at the hearings. In one case I was really frustrated by the fact that because I had inadvertently forgotten the last part of the written transcript, they cut the tape off before the end of it in mid-sentence. No one even called me to ask me to fax the rest of the statement to them. It was about the killer's right to see it first, and my voice was not heard.

There were also occasions where they were not even prepared with the right equipment to show the tape. I was also not even allowed to show a picture of my sister in the video that I made, as I was told that the hearing was about him, and not her, if you can believe that.

As I mentioned, the true flavour of the hearing was conveyed to me only by the kind person from the victims' group who attended on my behalf. The decision register that we receive is so sanitized as to protect the killer, with pertinent facts blocked out to protect his privacy rights. That is why I urge you to include the provisions of access to teleconferencing or closed-circuit video feed, and to be able to read our victim impact statements at these hearings. We need to be heard, and to be able to hear.

Therefore, I would ask that one thing you consider is an amendment to this bill, because the way it's drafted here it provides for teleconferencing only if the board decides not to permit a victim to come. I would ask that you consider it to apply to all hearings, and not just the ones where the access has been denied. For somebody like me this would have been very helpful.

As I had not seen the offender in person, other than in a 15-year-old picture, at the time of his full parole I asked both the Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada for a picture of him. Once again I was told it was against his privacy rights. This man could have shown up at my door and I would not have known who he was. It was only when I turned to the police that they sent me a copy of a picture of him. This is a matter of safety for me and my family, which was denied to me. I would urge you to consider adding this provision with the other information to be given to victims. The more information we have, the better we can be prepared to participate in this system. This would also include receiving a more conclusive plan for rehabilitation.

In conclusion, I thank you for your consideration, and would say that this bill is a great beginning for helping victims of violent crime. I would urge all parties to continue to work together to allow our voices to be heard.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you.

I want to thank you, Ms. O'Sullivan, for your passion, the same as Mr. Sweet's, in regard to the presentation on Bill C-479. We can certainly appreciate your direct understanding of the need for a bill like this. I sense that you have a desire to see greater victim rights here as well, obviously.

With the multiple media stories we've heard lately and over time regarding victims and victims' families, where they're shocked, maybe even horrified in some cases, about the release of offenders, about offenders receiving parole and being released close to their homes, do you feel that the measures in this bill will help to prevent that situation from occurring and prevent situations where they'll be placed in a detrimental position?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Similarly, should protection measures be adopted in anticipation of information disclosures under Bill C-479? Will measures be implemented to protect victims from retaliation by offenders who would learn that the victims sought information about them, since they will have the right to that information?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The real issue I have with this bill is that it creates a single category of offenders, of criminals. Offenders serving a sentence of less than five years could end up with only one opportunity for a parole hearing, under the bill. Consequently, if their first application was rejected, it would be fairly likely that they would serve their whole sentence and be released unconditionally. I think that would constitute a risk for public safety. For instance, a reckless driver who was arrested for driving while impaired by alcohol and found not criminally responsible for a death would serve three or four years of their sentence even if they are a repeat offender. In cases of domestic violence, some men who are repeat offenders may serve a sentence and be released without having a hearing or being subjected to a rehabilitation follow-up.

With Bill C-479, how can the system rehabilitate those who are serving a sentence of less than five years and help victims find closure? In my opinion, those offenders will always be a risk to public safety.

What do you think about that?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Ms. O'Sullivan for joining us today to discuss Bill C-479 and victims' rights.

I know you are doing a great job as ombudsman for the rights of victims of crime. I would like to thank you for that.

I think your presentation was cut short. Unless I am mistaken, you were talking about amendments to the terms between parole hearings.

Before I begin with my questions, would you like to add anything on that topic? Would you like to summarize what you did not have time to say over the last few minutes of your presentation?

[Sue O'Sullivan]

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my support for Bill C-479 and to commend the bill's efforts to address some of the gaps in information, participation, and consideration that exist in our current system for victims of crime. I feel that with the modifications I have suggested today, the bill could significantly help to enhance the treatment of victims of crime in Canada. I would encourage the committee to seriously consider my amendments and suggestions for technical modification to make the bill as sound and as effective as possible.

I thank you for your time.