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.

Firearms Act

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

I have been a member of this place for nearly 13 years. I am proud that over that time I have played a part in legislation that ensures Parliament is reaching three important objectives: first, that laws are put in place to protect the public from violent crime; second, that we are standing up for victims of crime and their families; and third, that law-abiding Canadians are treated with respect.

In this case, Bill C-71 misses the mark on all three of these objectives.

I recognize, and indeed our previous Conservative government recognized, how important it is to ensure that violent offenders and those who intend on using weapons to commit crimes are taken off the streets. I am certainly an advocate for legislation that targets dangerous offenders, protects our public, and ensures justice for victims and their families. I am proud that over my time here, I have been able to do my part to do just that.

In 2013, I introduced Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders. This legislation, which received all-party support, made certain that violent offenders who were clearly not remorseful or ready to be reintegrated into society could not drag their victims and their families before the Parole Board every year needlessly.

Indeed, any laws that aim to tackle violent crime must also seek to protect victims of violent offenders and their families from being re-victimized. They must also ensure that these offenders, those that are among the most likely to reoffend, do not get that opportunity.

By introducing legislation such as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and the Tackling Violent Crime Act, among many others, our Conservative government implemented productive, common-sense policies that treated firearms owners in the manner that any law-abiding citizen should be treated, while also cracking down on violent offenders and protecting the rights of victims.

The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act took the power to reclassify firearms out of the hands of the RCMP and officials and put it in the hands of parliamentarians, who could be held accountable by the public. In doing so, our government sought to prevent any law-abiding citizen from being criminalized due to an unsubstantiated classification change.

The Tackling Violent Crime Act mandated jail time for serious gun crimes and made bail provisions stricter for those who had been accused of such crimes.

The Organized Crime and Protection of Justice System Participants Act provided police and justices with crucial new tools to fight against organized crime and to target reckless shootings by adding a new offence for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, regardless of whether the person caused or meant to cause bodily harm.

Of course, who could forget that we repealed the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, which did absolutely nothing to reduce crime, but did waste millions in taxpayer dollars to treat law-abiding Canadians like criminals. In fact, I would challenge my Liberal colleagues to show me any data that would prove that there has been any increase in firearms crimes from legal firearms owners since the firearms registry was eliminated.

These are just a very small sample of the measures our previous Conservative government took to protect our communities and keep Canadians safe.

It is a shame now that the current Liberal government is trying to undo the progress we made. We have seen over the past two and a half years that the government cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the public, while also protecting the rights of farmers and recreational and competitive firearms owners.

Bill C-71 proposes a myriad of changes that would potentially criminalize law-abiding Canadians, while doing nothing to target violent offenders or organized crime. The bill would put firearms classification powers back in the hands of unelected officials who Canadians cannot hold accountable, and risks unsubstantiated changes that would indeed create legal problems for people who have done nothing wrong. For my colleagues across the way, we experienced that in the last session when changes were made. Some members of Parliament who possessed firearms were criminalized by the changes.

What is worse is that the Liberals are pretending they are not trying to bring back the long-gun registry, which is nothing less than misleading. This bill would create a registrar to keep track of transfers of non-restricted firearms, yet the government insists it is not bringing back the long-gun registry.

I took the liberty of doing a quick Google search for the word “registrar”, and right at the top of the page was a definition that read, “an official responsible for keeping a register or official records.” That certainly sounds like a long-gun registry to me, and it sounds equally as wasteful and ineffective as the last one.

Originally, our caucus was optimistic about the government's intentions when it accepted our amendment at committee, which stated, “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.” However, much to our surprise, it rejected our additional amendments that would have ensured that the elements of Bill C-71 to bring in this new long-gun registry were taken out of the bill. The government can say that it is not bringing back the long-gun registry, and I have heard it say that many times, but that does not make it true.

Meanwhile, Bill C-75, the government's legislation that proposes to overhaul the Criminal Code, would reduce penalties for very serious crimes, in some cases down to simple fines. The penalties for crimes like participating in the activities of a terrorist group, advocating genocide, and participating in organized criminal activity are being reduced in one piece of legislation, while farmers are being potentially criminalized in another. That is absolutely shameful.

The riding I represent, Flamborough—Glanbrook, is home to many farmers, hunters and sport shooters. These are people who are legally and safely using their firearms to protect their livestock and their crops, and who are participating in recreational pastimes that are ingrained in our national heritage.

I have heard from a wide variety of firearms owners in my riding who are deeply concerned that the government is targeting them through this bill, while completely neglecting to address rising crime rates in rural communities across the country which are particularly derived from illegal imported firearms.

I personally enjoy going down to the range for recreational purposes, and I completely understand the concerns of my constituents. They are concerned that they could be randomly criminalized by bureaucrats who they would be wholly unable to hold to account. They are concerned that the government is increasing red tape and treating them like criminals when they have done absolutely nothing wrong.

As has already been pointed out by our Conservative caucus several times throughout debate on this bill, this new long-gun registry that the Liberals are bringing in through the back door is treating law-abiding Canadians like suspects, and that is just not right.

The tandem of Bill C-71 and Bill C-75 is symbolic of much of the last two and a half years, where the government has been terribly ineffective on numerous files. The Liberals introduced these two pieces of legislation with the notion that they wished to tackle gun violence. However, they are doing nothing of the sort. What these bills would do is potentially criminalize law-abiding farmers, hunters, and sport shooters, and reduce the penalties for very serious and violent crimes. What they would not do is make our communities safer.

Canadians want to feel safe in their communities and their homes. They want a government that ensures that those who pose a threat to them and their families are taken off the streets. Bill C-71, and Bill C-75 for that matter, would do nothing of the sort.

This legislation is not only deeply flawed, but wasteful, and quite frankly offensive to the thousands of law-abiding Canadians who it will affect. Our Conservative caucus is determined to ensure that the laws we produce in this place protect our communities and respect the rights of law-abiding Canadians. Anything less is not good enough.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes. This is a technical amendment. It's a modification to make a correction in the clause. As you will recall, the wrong version of private member's Bill C-479, , an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders was transmitted to the Senate earlier in the session due to an administrative error, and Bill C-479 has since been updated. The proposed amendment would ensure that this clause makes the correct reference to proposed paragraph 142(1)(c) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that is currently reflected in Bill C-479.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 58 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 59 agreed to)

(On clause 60—Ninety days after Royal Assent )

Bill C-479, An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House of an administrative error that occurred with regard to Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).

Members may recall that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security made a series of amendments to the bill, which were presented to the House in the committee's second report on March 5, 2014. The committee also ordered that the bill, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

On May 7, 2014, the House concurred in the bill as amended at report stage with a further amendment, and later adopted the bill at third reading.

As is the usual practice following passage at third reading, House officials prepared a parchment version of the bill and transmitted this parchment to the Senate. Due to an administrative error, the version of the bill that was transmitted to the other place did not reflect the amendment adopted by the House at report stage, but was instead a reflection of the bill as it had been reported back from committee. Unfortunately, this error was not detected until after both houses had adjourned for the summer.

I wish to reassure the House that this error was strictly administrative in nature and occurred after third reading was given to Bill C-479. The proceedings which took place in this House and the decisions made by the House with respect to Bill C-479 remain entirely valid. The records of the House relating to this bill are clear and complete.

However, the documents relating to Bill C-479 that were sent to the other place were not an accurate reflection of the House’s decisions.

My predecessor, Speaker Milliken, addressed a similar situation in a ruling given on November 22, 2001, and found on page 7455 of Debates. Guided by this precedent, similar steps have been undertaken in this case. First, once this discrepancy was detected, House officials immediately communicated with their counterparts in the Senate to set about resolving it. Next, I have instructed the Acting Clerk and his officials to take the necessary steps to rectify this error and to ensure that the other place has a corrected copy of Bill C-479 which reflects the proceedings which occurred in this House. Thus, a revised version of the bill will be transmitted to the other place through the usual administrative procedures of Parliament. Finally, I have asked that the “as passed at third reading” version of the bill be reprinted.

The Senate will of course make its own determination as to how it proceeds with Bill C-479 in light of this situation.

I wish to reassure members that steps have been taken to ensure that similar errors, rare though they may be, do not reoccur.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

It being 11:05, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great gratitude and emotion that we come to the final minutes of debate on this bill in the chamber. For me to bring forward these right and necessary changes on behalf of all victims, including, not least, my constituents, has been a great privilege and honour.

As all members of this House know, the process for private members' bills is a long journey. There are many steps and it can take years. This one has been no different.

I am proud that the bill builds upon the good work of ministers and the government since 2006.

I am grateful that the bill builds on the Canadian victims bill of rights that the Prime Minister announced in April, which would provide for victims the tools that a couple of my opposition colleagues said Bill C-479 was deficient of.

I am gratified that the bill would strengthen the voice of victims, provide additional support to victims, and give the Parole Board of Canada the tools it needs to ensure re-victimization is reduced and, in some cases, even mitigated.

I strongly believe all these things are worth fighting for.

I will not belabour the point. I thank all members for their support and interest. Once again, I reiterate three key points. One is that this is about the worst kind of offenders: violent offenders. This is about giving victims a stronger voice and role in the process, something we have heard time and again in public consultations, in letters and emails, and calls. This is about giving the Parole Board of Canada tools.

Please allow me to close, as I have before, with the words of The Hamilton Spectator editorial from March 2, 2012. It sums up the decision before us now, the decision that the victims of Jon Rallo, the victims of Clifford Olson, and the family of Constable Sweet have been calling for, for years.

...the PBC also has a responsibility to victims of crime. For those victims, the parole board is virtually the only source of information about the status of the person who committed the crime against them.... some local victims of crime don’t feel well-served by the board. That must change.

Indeed, that must change. With the vote of this House on Bill C-479 we will be a good part of the way saying it will change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have another chance to speak to Bill C-479. I think this is a very important bill, and I am glad we had a chance to talk about it in committee. I would like to thank the Conservative member who introduced this bill.

The witnesses who appeared before the committee were very interesting. We heard from some victims who, sadly, have been affected by what is going on with the Parole Board and the way parole hearings work. Many of them shared their very personal stories, and there were certainly some touching moments in committee. We also heard from Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who appeared once again to provide her enlightening perspective. We really appreciated that.

The only other witness we should have heard from was a representative of the Parole Board, but unfortunately, the board was unable to testify. That is really too bad because the Parole Board people are the ones who will have to implement Bill C-479 and comply with the new requirements in the Criminal Code. We really missed the Parole Board's testimony in this debate. The committee meetings went well except for the fact that we were unable to get testimony from the Parole Board.

As the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca mentioned, we proposed an amendment, but the Conservatives rejected it. I was quite surprised by that. We proposed an amendment so that victims could observe parole hearings through means other than attending in person. There are various reasons for that. Victims sometimes do not want to be in the same room as a perpetrator or inmate, or they would have to travel to be there. They may have to travel from one end of the country to the other. For example, if the offender is a francophone woman, she could be being held in Joliette because there are not a lot of prisons for women. Meanwhile, the victims might live in Vancouver or New Brunswick. The victims could have to do a lot of travelling.

We therefore tried to present a completely reasonable amendment to resolve this issue. We proposed that victims be able to attend these hearings by videoconference or teleconference. The Conservatives rejected the amendment.

I was surprised by that, particularly since Sue O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and one of our witnesses, had this to say in committee:

Our recommendation is that every victim or family member who wants to attend a parole hearing should have a choice and an option about how they wish to attend. That can be in person, or they may choose to attend by video conference or by another use of technology.

Other witnesses said much the same thing, but I do not want to spend too much time on that. We decided to follow the advice of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and other witnesses who appeared before the committee. Unfortunately, the Conservatives opposed our amendment. This is a flaw in Bill C-479 that we could have addressed earlier in the debate.

Bill C-479 also responds to certain recommendations made by the former ombudsman for victims of crime and many of the recommendations made by Ms. O'Sullivan regarding the right of victims to attend parole hearings. We are happy to see that.

The NDP supports enhancing victims' rights. We think that is very important. These rights can be enhanced through various channels.

The NDP supports greater victim involvement in the parole process. That is extremely important.

We support a number of the recommendations made by the former ombudsman and the new one, and we are working to make our communities safer. One way to do so is to develop a parole process that enables offenders to safely reintegrate into society, in order to reduce victimization.

That brings me to my next argument. Everything we have here today is good. It is also good that the government has introduced a Canadian victims bill of rights. However, every witness we heard from in committee told us that if we want to reduce victimization, we need to focus on rehabilitation, programs and investments in our prisons. We need to ensure that there are good programs in place and that offenders are not released unless they are rehabilitated and prepared to reintegrate into society.

Reducing victimization also means developing good public safety policies. For example, Public Safety Canada is focusing its efforts on reaching out to kids between the ages of 5 to 18 to prevent them from getting caught in the vicious cycle of crime and street gangs.

The government needs to step up and adopt public safety measures. It should not be cutting essential services, such as rehabilitation services for offenders. It must invest in our youth to ensure that kids do not get caught in the vicious cycle of crime.

One of the witnesses we heard in committee was Arlène Gaudreault of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, who does incredible work in Quebec. She condemned the fact that we did not have enough time to study a whole aspect of victims' rights as important as attending parole hearings. She made a lot of recommendations during her testimony. She thinks we unfortunately did not have enough time to propose amendments or implement them. I wanted Ms. Gaudreault to be heard today in this debate.

Bill C-479 looks good on paper, but money will be needed in order to implement it. People will have to travel in order to attend parole hearings. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against our amendment to allow people to attend by means of videoconferencing or other technologies. In addition, because this is a change in the process, additional funds will be needed.

I hope that the Conservative government will follow these recommendations. The parliamentary secretary was very much in favour of this bill, but frankly, the Conservative government has to put up the money.

Massive budget cuts have been made at the Department of Public Safety and in all the departments. I understand that. However, if we want to set up a process for victims, then we must put words into action and invest the necessary money to ensure that victims get the good service they deserve. They have suffered enough. The least we can do is provide them with suitable service.

Again, I am pleased to support the bill of my colleague across the way. I am also very pleased to say that the NDP is in favour of a fair and equitable process for victims.

It is very important to use rehabilitation and reintegration to ensure that there are fewer victims and that our communities are safer for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure today to speak about our government's unyielding determination and commitment to support victims of crime in our country.

As members of the House know, we recently took a big step forward in this regard with the introduction of Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act. This particular legislation, developed and designed to respond to the long-standing concerns of victims of crime would, for the first time, enshrine in law four important rights: the right to information, the right to participation, the right to protection, and the right to restitution.

In fact, many of the concerns expressed earlier by the opposition parties are actually addressed in this particular bill. It is also historic in that it would transform the way in which the criminal justice system interacts with victims of crime. Quite simply, but also quite profoundly, the victims bill of rights act would ensure victims have a greater voice in the criminal justice system. We are grateful for the support we have seen for that legislation and we look forward to further debate about its many merits.

However, today we are here to discuss Bill C-479, the fairness for victims act. It is yet another example of our government's strong commitment to standing up for the victims of crime. It would build on the significant action we have already taken in this regard, including the victims bill of rights act and many other initiatives put forward since we came to power in 2006.

Not only have we instituted and permanently funded the federal victims strategy, but we have also passed several legislative measures to strengthen the parole process and give a greater voice to victims. Indeed, with the passage of the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, we enshrined in law a victim's right to present a statement at parole hearings and ensured a victim's access to timely information from the Correctional Service of Canada about offenders' transfers.

Additionally, we have put in place measures so that the Parole Board can proceed, with some exceptions, to a decision even if an offender withdraws a parole application within 14 days of the scheduled hearing. Before our changes, a victim would have been inconvenienced travelling to a hearing that did not even take place.

Bill C-479 is also in line with the promise our government made to keep Canadians and their families safe. As ever, we remain focused on tackling crime and creating a fair and efficient justice system. Our government has continually placed the interests of victims ahead of those of criminals, and I would hope that the members opposite will start to support these important measures. I am pleased to hear today in the House that both parties will be supporting it.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again commend the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his tireless work for victims and for bringing this important legislation forward.

As members know, there were some amendments adopted at report stage. We are confident that we now have before us the best legislation possible for the good of all victims. We thank members for their support in getting this legislation to where it is today.

Let us discuss the ways in which it would modernize the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as how it would help victims.

First I would like to speak to the changes we have proposed in regard to mandatory review periods for parole for offenders convicted of violent offences, including murder. When such offenders are denied parole, the Parole Board is currently required by law to review their case every two years. This legislation would now extend this period of review from two to five years.

We have also proposed to lengthen the mandatory parole review periods when parole is cancelled or terminated for offenders serving at least two years for an offence involving violence. It would increase this mandatory period to within four years in which the Parole Board must review parole, and for later cancellations the mandatory period would be increased to five years.

Why is this so important to victims? Let us not forget that many of them participate in hearings. If we pause and reflect for a moment and try to imagine the anxiety and distress that victims might feel leading up to the process of a Parole Board hearing, it becomes clear why a longer period of time between these hearings is desirable. Indeed, giving victims a longer period of time in which to rebuild their lives and heal from their ordeals is a reasonable, measured change that we can offer them. When we studied the bill at committee and heard from victims who chose to attend hearings as a duty to honour the lives of the loved ones they had lost, this was one of the most critical changes in their minds.

The bill would also require the Parole Board to take a number of further steps to better accommodate victims and respond to their needs.

For example, it would require the Parole Board to provide victims and their families another means to observe hearings remotely if they have not been permitted to observe in person. Similarly, it would obligate the Parole Board to take into account any victim statements presented, especially when considering what conditions may be appropriate to ensure the safety of the victim. We know, because this government has listened to victims, that many wish to lend their voices in a more significant way during this process. These changes would allow this to happen.

Finally, it would obligate the Parole Board to provide more information to victims. This is important, because here again, we have heard from many victims that they want and need to be more informed about a number of issues that relate to the offender. With this bill, we would have an opportunity to allow for some of this information to be provided where it made sense to do so. For example, if a transcript of the parole hearing were available, it would be provided to the victim, barring third-party information and any portion of the hearing that was not open to observers. Similarly, upon the victim's request, it would also provide information within 14 days of the offender's release, where practical, about the date, location, and conditions of an offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence, but only when it was clear that there would be no negative effect on public safety.

Simply put, this bill would improve the parole process for the sake of victims, making it more compassionate and responsive. I am proud of our government's track record in supporting victims and their families as they navigate the criminal justice system. We are getting closer to where we need to be. We are a government of action. We have listened to victims and their families and to advocates. We have consulted directly with them and have made sure that their concerns are reflected in the legislation and measures we have introduced. We have listened, and we have acted through the federal victims strategy, through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, through the victims bill of rights act, and now through the fairness for victims act. This bill would help us continue on this path and take one more step toward a system that helps victims heal and rebuild.

I once again would like to thank the members opposite for their support, and I urge all other members in the House to support this important piece of legislation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I too congratulate the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale on bringing forward this legislation and getting it to this stage. I do expect it to pass in the House. The Liberal Party will be supporting the bill at this stage.

I want to draw on a couple of points that were mentioned by the NDP member who just spoke. He indicated there were amendments by opposition members—and very good amendments, I believe—that did not get the consideration that they should have at committee.

I agree with the member that video conferencing for victims was a sensible request. It would reduce cost and reduce stress on victims from having to appear in the same room with an offender. Turning down that amendment was a mistake.

The other point the member raised, which I will also not elaborate on, is that at the end of the day, public safety is key. If offenders, because of the longer time between hearings, find themselves unable to enter a rehabilitation program, that is a dilemma in terms of public safety. It could increase the risk of those offenders reoffending when they get back into society.

Given that the key element of the legislation, namely that the discretion of the parole board to conduct its tasks would not be infringed, it is our intention to support the bill.

The intent by the mover to ensure that victims of crime are considered remains. This was the cornerstone of previous Liberal initiatives and came into strong focus with the 2003 Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime that was negotiated between federal and provincial governments at that time.

The problem with this legislation, as with many private members' bills coming forward from government members relating to public safety, is the extent to which the government, through Department of Justice lawyers, has had to intervene to amend the legislation to bring it into line both legally and constitutionally.

The trouble begins in part with the statements at the beginning, when the legislation is brought into the House. I see it this way. This legislation was brought in and went to committee. Witnesses came before committee based on the original bill. They were supportive of the original bill because it proposed to do a, b, c, and d in terms of victims rights. After the hearings were over and the witnesses left town—and I have said this with previous bills—legal counsel with either the Department of Justice or Public Safety Canada came in and made a number of government amendments that, in my view, substantially changed the legislation. As a result, the bill has ended up not being the same as it was when the mover of the bill talked about it at the beginning.

Even at report stage, the government is still trying to clean up the bill in an effort to bring it more in line with what is legally acceptable. By my count, the government introduced and passed nine amendments to what was originally a seven-clause bill. This ensured that the legislation would be in conformance with the legal requirements of any legislation.

It should be noted, for example, that the legislation now before the House does reinforce the idea that the requirements for Correctional Service of Canada, or in this case the Parole Board, to disclose certain information to victims related to offenders are not requirements without limitations. The power of the Parole Board to use its discretion has remained with the provisions of the act and within Bill C-479.

One of the concerns that has arisen is the contradictory nature of private members' legislation that is related to the government's tough on crime agenda and that comes from government members. I have raised this issue in the House and at committee. It relates to government members having a somewhat confused agenda. I cannot understand it. My colleague as well previously mentioned that there needs to be more coordination with the government itself in terms of legislation coming forward.

Why does the Minister of Justice not coordinate all these interests and private members' bills in a substantive way? That way, they would perhaps not be in conflict with one another, and the government would also be less likely to see legislation turned back by a superior court.

The principle behind Bill C-479 was to reduce the number of Parole Board hearings to which victims would be subjected. During the course of testimony before the public safety committee, it was emphasized that this legislation was necessary to minimize the re-victimization of victims.

The House needs to understand, and rightly so, that we heard some pretty sad stories from victims before the committee. When they have to prepare victim impact statements, go to a Parole Board hearing—sometimes practically without any notice—and then have to do it again in two years, it is the re-victimization of victims.

However, as members will find out later in my remarks, it appeared that the intent of the bill was to change that period to five years. That did not really happen at all. There is the possibility it could go to five years, but it could also remain at two. It is at the discretion of the Parole Board.

My concern, as I stated earlier in my remarks, is that victims who came before the committee actually believed that it would be five years. It is not so now. It could be two or it could be five or it could be four. It is at the discretion of the Appeal Board. The intent and the stated fact of what the bill would do did not really happen.

However, we then have the contradiction that I also want to mention. The principle of Bill C-483 was to increase the number of Parole Board hearings related to escorted temporary absences, thus creating further hearings to which victims would be subjected.

On the one hand we have a bill that is trying to reduce the number of Parole Board hearings, and on the other hand we have another bill in contradiction to that, trying to stretch them out.

The question victims and victims' organizations should ask themselves is straightforward: since government members speak to each other, why do they not coordinate this in a substantive way so that we have an overall strategy that works in harmony rather than in conflict?

Let me close by saying that my concern with this process is that when the bill is presented, it states one thing, but then, after the witnesses leave town, justice lawyers come in and amend it. We then have a substantively different bill, one that does not do what backbench Conservatives claimed in the first instance it would do. We have seen this on several bills now.

However, there are some good points in the bill. It is a step forward, and at the end of the day we will support it. However, I want to tell victims that it is not all they were told it would be in the beginning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-479 at third reading. As I said just a few minutes ago, we believe Bill C-479, as amended, contains important improvements in victims' rights.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his efforts to bring this improvement to victims rights before the House and to third reading, where it now seems assured to pass.

There are many provisions in the bill which would be of clear benefit to victims. Indeed, some of these have already become a normal part of the practice in the corrections and parole system. However, we agree that it is a good idea to entrench these rights for victims by placing them in legislation.

These rights include: the right of victims or members of their family to be present at parole hearings; the right of victims to have their statements considered by the Parole Board of Canada in its decisions regarding offender release; expanding the manner in which victims' statements can be presented at parole hearings through the use of technology, among other things; and requiring that the communication of victims' information be considered by the board. In other words, the victims would have a right to see what the board has looked at, so they can understand how that decision has been made.

Also, they include making it obligatory to provide transcripts of parole hearings to victims and their families, and making it mandatory to inform victims when an offender is granted a temporary absence, or parole or is released at the end of their sentence.

These are all good things, but there is one area in which we remain disappointed. That is the unwillingness of the government to go further in a very important area. We were surprised to see the government reject an amendment from our side, which would have expanded victims' rights in a proposal that would have allowed victims to choose other means of observing parole hearings than appearing in person.

We believe victims have the right to observe parole hearings by video or teleconferencing if they so choose. Strangely, with the way things work right now, victims only have the right to observe those hearings by video or teleconference if Correctional Service Canada has banned them from appearing in person.

It is a strange quirk in the rules. If victims have made threats or been disruptive and Correctional Service Canada says that they cannot attend the parole hearings, they are then allowed to attend by videoconference or teleconference. We believe this right should be extended to all victims.

There are many good reasons why any victim might not want to make use of the right to observe in person. Some victims would prefer not to be in the same room as the offender, whether out of fear or revulsion.

It would also allow those victims who would otherwise have to travel to attend a hearing. Perhaps an offender has been transferred across the country and a hearing is in British Columbia and the victims live in Ontario. If they could attend by video or teleconference, they would not incur travel costs and they would not have to take time off from work.

Hearings far from home have become a problem for many victims. Again, we believe that if we extended them the right to choose to attend by videoconference or teleconference, it would be an important improvement.

We remain concerned about one aspect of the bill, which is the provision that was just mentioned by the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale in his answer to the question from the parliamentary secretary. This is the provision that would give the Parole Board the discretion to extend the interval between parole hearings for those convicted of very serious crimes.

We have no problem with this provision when it is applied to those serving life sentences. In fact, we proposed to amend the bill to do just that. However, there is a risk that lengthening the discretionary period between reviews for those serving shorter sentences may inadvertently remove incentives for offenders to participate in rehabilitation programs.

In other words, if offenders are told that their hearings have been put off for four years, what would their incentive be, when they are in the corrections institute, to enter into those rehabilitation programs?

Again, for those serving shorter sentences, it may inadvertently increase the number of people who leave custody without supervision upon their warrant expiry. In other words, if they are told that their hearings have been put off for three years and their warrants expire in three years and six months, they would have no incentive. They would not participate and they would get out without any of that very necessary rehabilitation.

How do we avoid that happening? Obviously, we support the bill, because we believe we could avoid that if there were a well-funded Parole Board. The Parole Board would be able to avoid these unintended consequences.

However, we have a Parole Board which is now suffering from restricted funding and so there will be the tendency for the Parole Board to be forced to extend the interval between paroles simply as a question of resources. It will have other things it has to do by law and therefore if the interval allowed, and we call it discretion, is longer, then it will inevitably become longer if it does not have adequate funding. As we have seen with the Conservatives in power, quite often we have underfunding of very important public services, and the Parole Board is one of those.

Finally, we remain concerned with process, and that is the process of making extensive changes to the Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act through multiple bills proceeding through different paths through Parliament on different timetables. The sheer volume of the changes that have been made by different bills often considered in different committees risk legal errors and omissions as well as unintended consequences. Some bills go to the justice committee, some go to the public safety committee where I sit.

For instance, in the case of Bill C-479, the public safety committee did not have the advantage of seeing the text of the government's victims bill of rights, Bill C-32, and now it will go to the justice committee where the members of the justice committee will not have the benefit of having heard the witnesses and the testimony that we had in the public safety committee on very closely related issues. Again, we think there is a potential problem by having multiple private members' bills as well as a government bill on victims' rights all going through the House of Commons with different paths and different timetables.

This piecemeal approach also means that sometimes important issues never end up in front of the House. What readily comes to mind is the question of how we address other needs of victims other than their needs in conjunction with the legal system.

Therefore, improving victims' rights with regard to the legal system is important. As I said, for that reason we have supported bills like Bill C-42 and the bill in front of us now. However, victims have other important needs like compensation for losses they may have suffered, financial help with time off work, counselling or help with other expenses necessary to get their lives back on track. Neither Bill C-479 nor Bill C-482 have tackled this question and Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights, suggests the answer can be found in simply expanding the rights of victims to restitution.

The problem that we on this side of the House see is that unfortunately very few victims will ever be able to recover anything through the restitution process because of the obvious fact that most offenders have few resources. This was a point that I tried to raise last night in the late night debate on the victims bill of rights. When I tried to put forward the need to discuss a better alternative, which has the potential to treat all victims fairly and equally, I was nearly shouted down in the House. It may have been the late hour that caused some of the rambunctious responses on the other side of the House, but it again illustrates the problem of doing these things piecemeal through the House of Commons.

What I wanted to put forward briefly was the idea that what we really needed was federal leadership on an adequate compensation plan for victims through criminal injuries compensation funds. The Conservatives try to slough this off, saying that it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Yet one province, Newfoundland and Labrador, and all three territories, have no such program and in the other nine provinces the criminal injury compensation funds have very low caps on the amount of compensation available to individual victims. In some cases, this is as low as $5,000. If we think about it, $5,000 will not go very far in trying to cover things even like lost wages.

As I said before, no party in the House has a monopoly on a concern for victims, but we sometimes have different approaches to the problem. We have been supportive of these attempts to expand victims' rights through the legal system, but we believe there are other needs of victims that also need equal consideration. As well, we have argued all along that one of the most important things we in the House can do is adopt programs and ensure that corrections programs do not contribute to further victims in the future. A well-funded corrections system is an important part of not having further victims in the future.

Therefore, we are looking for a balance in our approach to public safety, where we can build safer communities through having punishment in place but also having adequate rehabilitation.

As my time draws to a close, let me conclude, once again, by stating the support of the New Democrats for strengthening victims' rights in the legal system. However, I would urge all members to consider the other important issue, the thing that victims also need, which is well-supported programs in order to help them put their lives back in order.

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

moved that Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I say this every time, but it is indeed an honour to stand here at third reading stage of Bill C-479 to make these important and necessary amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

In the time since the chamber debated the bill at second reading, the Prime Minister launched the first ever Canadian victims bill of rights in early April. I am proud that Bill C-479 works in concert with this historic piece of federal legislation to better protect victims of crime and give them a much stronger voice in our criminal justice system.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge the ongoing and dedicated leadership of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness when it comes to victims' rights. The Canadian victims bill of rights is just one of many initiatives on which they and their ministries are working.

I extend special thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the member for Scarborough Centre, for all of her support at the committee process and in readings of Bill C-479 in the House.

I also thank the members who sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for all their comments, questions, and interest. I appreciate every one of them.

I would especially like to thank the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Sue O'Sullivan, for her frank advice before and during the crafting of Bill C-479. We are fortunate to have such an experienced, dedicated, and caring Canadian leading this office as our ombudsman. It has been a pleasure to get to know her better over the past couple of years through the process of this bill. I salute the good work she does, and I know the provisions of Bill C-479 will help in the work she and her office do on a daily basis. I would also encourage all of my colleagues to go to the office's website and watch the videos of the victims and their stories. It is very educational about what victims have to endure presently in the process they go through in regard to parole hearings.

As we consider Bill C-479 for third and final reading in the House before it moves to the other place, please allow me to recap what this bill would do. Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders, would make nine changes to modernize the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, so it can better protect and support victims of violent offenders. Let me please summarize this.

The bill would extend mandatory review periods for parole. This means that if an offender convicted of a more serious violent offence is denied parole, the Parole Board would have to review the case within five years rather than the current two years.

It would increase the period to within four years in which the Parole Board must review parole in cases of cancellation or termination of parole for an offender who is serving at least two years for an offence involving violence.

It would require that the Parole Board take into consideration the need for victims and victim's families to attend a hearing and observe the proceedings.

It would require that the Parole Board consider any victim impact statement presented by victims.

It would require the Parole Board, if requested, to provide victims with information about the offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence, as well as provide victims with information about the offender's correctional plan, including progress toward meeting its objectives.

It is important to remember Constable Michael Sweet, and again I remind the House that he is no relation to me. It is important to remember that case because he was brutally murdered by two brothers and they were sentenced for this terrible, heinous crime. There was only one thing Michael Sweet's family asked for. Their plea was simple. They said that the offenders committed the crime in public—in other words, they killed the father and husband of the family in public—they were tried in public, and the family simply said the Corrections and Conditional Release Act should be changed so that it would be known publicly that offenders were making some effort to be rehabilitated and become contributing citizens.

I do not think that is too big a request.

It also matters a lot to victims and families who have gone through a tremendous ordeal only to be re-victimized by the process. We have discussed many examples during the course of debate on the bill, so let me make three points as we embark on this hour of debate.

In the cross-country public consultations held by the government that led to the introduction of the Canadian victims bill of rights, which I have previously mentioned, the overwhelming and clear message was that victims of crime want increased participation in the criminal justice system. I would submit that Bill C-479 would do exactly this.

We know we must pay particular attention to instances of violent crime, crimes that are heinous, repugnant, calculated, and senseless. I would also submit to members in this House that Bill C-479 would do exactly this.

It is victims of violent offenders who we are looking to help and support with this bill.

The statistics on violent offences in this country that I cited at the bill's second reading are alarming. These are contained in the Sampson report of December 2007.

Nearly 60% of all people serving sentences of less than three years, at the time this report was done, had histories of violence, and one in six had known gang or organized crime affiliations.

To make real and meaningful change for victims and families of victims whose lives have been turned upside down by these violent offences, we must do two things well: strengthen the voice of victims of violent crime by providing additional support to victims in the parole process; and give the Parole Board of Canada the tools it needs with regard to review of detention periods with the option of increasing the time between parole hearings for violent offenders.

I would repeat to my colleagues in the House that we want to give the option, discretion, and tools to the Parole Board so that, case by case, it will know when to engage those tools we would give it through this bill.

Once again, I would submit to members in the House that Bill C-479 would do exactly this.

As I have acknowledged before, in developing a well-researched and well-thought-out bill, my office and I spoke numerous times with the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Ms. Sue O'Sullivan, and her office. Her testimony before the standing committee was certainly compelling.

I am pleased that some of the recommendations of her 2013 report, “Meeting the needs of victims of crime in Canada”, have been acted upon in Bill C-479—in particular, the rights of victims to good communication throughout the system, the use of technology in victims' statements presented at Parole Board hearings, and ensuring the parole process is more accommodating to victims' needs.

However, I also believe this bill has a sound basis when I look at other jurisdictions that are doing similar things.

As I noted before the standing committee, the Victims' Rights Act of New Zealand, instituted in 2002, has been a model for the world. Under the corresponding provisions of the New Zealand Parole Act of 2002, rights of victims are also enshrined, much as is being proposed in Bill C-479. Similarly, the basis is support and respect for victims.

In 2009, the New Zealand Ministry of Justice launched an extensive public consultation to further enhance victim support within its justice system. One of the areas it looked at, which is echoed in Bill C-479, is the modernizations I propose to reflect with the use of technology through video conference and links to oral statements delivered in regional offices via telecommunication.

This is expressly addressed to ensure victims have a strong voice in the process, but also to mitigate the re-victimization of victims and their families. The Victims of Crime Reform Bill, introduced to the Parliament of New Zealand, includes this provision.

The New Zealand victims of crime reform bill also included improvements to the victim notification system, again similar to the bill we have before us today. It would allow Canadian victims increased access to information about how offenders are progressing with their correctional plans and pertinent documents.

Aside from New Zealand, our friends in other great western democracies are also looking at these issues. The report by Ms. O'Sullivan and the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime looked at U.S. legislation, both at the federal and state level. Also, the United Kingdom's code of practice and the 2012 European directives on victim support and protection were also studied.

Once again, this underscores that Bill C-479 is both timely and appropriate.

Before closing, I would again like to acknowledge the hard work and many long hours of my staff in bringing this bill through each stage of the House of Commons process. I dearly appreciate their work.

In closing, I would like to conclude where I began when I first introduced Bill C-479.

As the House knows, I have attended Parole Board of Canada hearings with my constituents who are victims of a very violent offender. I have attended them on three such occasions now.

This is the case of Jon Rallo, who to this day still denies the triple murder he committed, the gruesome triple murder of my constituent's sister, niece, and nephew. The body of her nephew has never been found. It is believed to have been disposed of in waterways around the Hamilton area.

The most compelling moment each time has been when my constituent asks Mr. Rallo the same question in her victim impact statement at each hearing:

Why did you kill our family? What did you do with your son?

She never gets a response. The offender sits stone-faced. He feels no remorse. This is something the parole board noted carefully in its last decision before denying him full parole in 2013.

However, since he may reapply for parole again next year, we may go through the same reading of a similar impact statement, and the tears and emotion from the family that inevitably accompany them will happen again.

I think I need to mention just once more that because of the duty these families feel to their loved ones who have been murdered, part of the re-victimization is something that they shoulder, but we should do everything we can legislatively and by regulation to make that re-victimization as minimal as possible.

Watching it in person, I can say it is as dramatic an example of re-victimization as there ever could be. This is what motivates me to see Bill C-479 through to fruition. Let us get on with the job.

Victims Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important topic. Of course I am disappointed to be speaking on it somewhere near midnight.

I would like to start by thanking the House staff, the pages, the security people, the bus drivers, all of those who are supporting us in these midnight sittings.

Having heard the comments by the government House leader just a few minutes ago, I will have to try to condense everything into four minutes because it sounds a bit like he is about to move time allocation on this bill, which would not surprise me because there are hardly any bills left to move it on. Therefore, I will try to make my points as quickly as I can.

The New Democrats support victims' rights. We have supported the private members' bills that have come forward. We have voted for those bills. We will be voting for Bill C-479 when it comes forward, and we will support this bill going to committee.

Public Safety and National Security

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-479 under private members' business.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on motion which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #113

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-479, the fairness for victims of violent offenders act, a variation of which I introduced in 2011 and again as Bill C-479 in 2013 to ensure victims of violent crimes are treated fairly in our justice system.

We heard throughout this debate that victims of crime wanted more meaningful participation in the justice system as well as more information about prisoners. Even in cases in which victims are able to move on and rebuild their lives, painful memories, stress, and fear can resurface as the offender nears the end of his or her sentence and begins a process of Parole Board hearings.

The purpose of parole is, of course, to help convicted criminals safely reintegrate into general society so that they never go back to prison. It allows eligible convicted criminals to continue serve the balance of their sentences outside of prison. Indeed, the parole process is a critical tool to helping convicted criminals re-enter society and become law-abiding, contributing Canadians who can make a difference in their communities, often for the first time in their lives.

But what about the victims of crime and their friends and families? Does the parole system work from their perspective? Victims have told us they wanted a stronger voice in the justice system and that they were having trouble accessing the services they needed. The Government of Canada has listened and acted.

We developed a vision to transform the federal corrections system, which included giving victims of crime a greater voice and better access to available services and information.

Since 2006 we have moved ahead with a comprehensive agenda to bring victims' rights to the forefront. Early in our mandate, we established the Office of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to help victims get the services they need to help them heal from the terrible ordeals they have experienced.

In 2007 we put in place the federal victims strategy, ensuring ongoing permanent funding in 2011. We also passed a wide range of legislative measures that strengthen the parole process and empower victims. Of note, through our Safe Streets and Communities Act, we have ushered in a number of changes that help victims and strengthen the parole process.

In particular, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act now recognizes the role of victims in Parole Board of Canada hearings, and victims have access to timely information about prisoner transfers. For example, we have put in place measures so that prisoners cannot withdraw their parole applications 14 days or less before the scheduled date of a hearing. Victims should not be stuck with paying for travel expenses for a hearing that does not take place.

We have ensured that prisoners are held accountable by following a structured correctional plan from the day they enter a federal institution through to their release and reintegration into their communities.

We must continue to fulfill our commitment to help victims of crime to overcome the trauma they have experienced, give them access to information they need, and ensure they are part of the parole hearing process. For me this is a very personal mission, having observed Parole Board of Canada hearings of victims who are constituents on three occasions over recent years. As I have explained throughout the discussion on the bill, this is what prompted me to bring the bill forward.

The bill before us will help us continue on the path of helping victims. Bill C-479 proposes to modify parole and detention review dates and provide additional support for victims.

As we heard during second reading debate, the bill proposes a number of measures. For example, it would extend mandatory review periods for parole for offenders convicted of murder or a violent offence. This means that if a criminal convicted of a violent offence is denied parole, the Parole Board would be required to review the case within five years rather than the current two years.

The bill would initially increase the period to within four years in which the Parole Board must review parole in cases of cancellation or termination of parole for an offender who is serving at least two years for an offence involving violence. For any subsequent cancellations, the period would be extended to five years. Contrary to the claims of the member for Malpeque, this gives the Parole Board the tools to limit the number of Parole Board hearings, tools that they did not have heretofore.

The bill would require that the Parole Board take into consideration the need for the victims and the victims' families to attend a hearing and observe the proceedings. It would require that the Parole Board consider any victim impact statement presented by victims, particularly in cases of victims of violent offenders.

It would require the Parole Board to provide victims, if requested, with information about the date, location, and conditions of an offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence, as well as provide victims with information about the offender's correctional plan, including progress toward meeting its objectives.

Clearly this bill goes a long way toward making sure that victims of crime are treated more fairly.

As well, we introduced some important amendments in committee to ensure the soundest legislation possible. For example, with respect to the provision regarding mandatory disclosure to victims of information about the offender's release, we have passed amendments in committee to allow the board the option to not disclose this information in a case where doing so would endanger public safety.

After adoption of this amendment, however, a drafting error was discovered. The amendment, which related to section 142 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, inadvertently overwrote subclauses 6(2) and 6(3) of the bill. This error would have meant that the chairperson of the Parole Board could disclose this information at his or her discretion as well as require mandatory disclosure following a public safety test. That is why the parliamentary secretary introduced amendments to correct this error and to remove that discretionary aspect. The bill must clearly state that this important information is disclosed unless it negatively impacts public safety.

Another amendment passed in committee clarified that the disclosure of details about an offender's release, including date, location, and conditions, should be provided to victims at least 14 days before the release date only when it is feasible for the board and Correctional Service Canada to do so. We passed that amendment because sometimes, due to situations beyond their control, these agencies are not always certain of details about an offender's release a full 14 days prior to the release.

A drafting error resulted in the notation of the amendment being incorrect. The amendment wording referenced paragraph 142(1)(a) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, when in fact it should have referenced paragraph 142(1)(c). Again, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for introducing amendments to correct this drafting error.

Taking into account the amendments before us today and the amendments adopted by the committee, we are confident that we have sound legislation for the benefit of all victims. Therefore, we urge all members to support the motion to correct these drafting errors and to allow this bill to move forward as a measure to create a strong, fair system for victims of crime.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That is all right, Mr. Speaker. We did not get many answers.

We will be supporting the bill because the contents and the intent of Bill C-479 remain basically as they were presented to the House during second reading. Given the fact that the key element of the legislation, namely, an effort to reduce the discretion of the parole board to conduct its tasks, has not been infringed, it is our intention to support the bill.

The intent to ensure that victims of crime are considered remains as has been the cornerstone of previous Liberal initiatives, which came into strong focus with the 2003 Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime negotiated between federal and provincial governments.

The problem with this legislation, as with all of the private members' bills from government members related to public safety, is how flawed they are and the extent to which the government, through Department of Justice lawyers, has had to intervene to amend the legislation to bring it into line both legally and constitutionally. We just saw that at the beginning of this discussion tonight, with the ninth amendment to the bill coming forward at this late stage.

The trouble begins with the statements delivered by members moving these bills, as was the case with respect to Bill C-479, that they have been vetted to ensure that they met the legal and constitutional standards expected of legislation coming out of this place. The member who moved Bill C-479 provided the House with the assurance that the bill had met these standards.

The consequences, though, were that when this legislation, similar to other government private members' bills, was brought before the public safety committee, there were substantial and numerous amendments by the government after we held the hearings. Witnesses come before the committee on the basis of the original bill. Then in the very last session the government comes forward with a whole series of amendments, as I said in this case eight at committee and the ninth here, and basically the bill, in my view, is quite often, and this one has as well, has been changed substantially from the intent that the mover of the bill talked about.

One of the concerns that has arisen is the contradictory nature of private members' legislation from government members relative to the government's tough on crime agenda. For example, the principle behind Bill C-479 is to reduce the number of parole board hearings to which victims would be subjected. However, we then have Bill C-483, the principle of which is to increase the number of parole board hearings to which victims would be subjected. The previous NDP speaker also mentioned some of the contradictory nature of the bills coming forward and how it could jeopardize justice in our country.

The question victim and victim organizations should ask themselves is straightforward. Do those government backbenchers over there speak to each other before they bring these contradictory bills forward?

Let us examine what occurred with Bill C-479, a bill well motivated I have no doubt.

Bill C-479 is a seven clause bill that required eight government amendments and the ninth tonight. The first point to bear in mind is that the initial rationale for the bill was to extend the period the parole board could hold a hearing for violent offenders from two to five years. According to the member in whose name the bill stands, his intent was made very clear during testimony before the public safety committee on February 13, at page 3 of the evidence, as to what he wanted to have addressed, “our federal parole process...makes the revictimization of victims and their families an all too frequent occurrence”.

The problem has been, and remains after the changes at committee made by the government itself, that the discretion of the Parole Board remains, in spite of the intention of the member opposite. That was the reason for my question earlier, which I guess was out of order. That was my question earlier to the parliamentary secretary. Basically, we are back to where we were in the beginning. The discretion, whether it is two years or five, remains with the Parole Board.

On this bill, I moved a motion that the condition be changed from “the Parole Board may make such a decision” to “shall”, but the government voted against it. I wanted to make it strictly so that the Parole Board makes such a decision, and government members themselves voted against putting in place that clear direction to the Parole Board.

As has been stated before, the former public safety minister, Vic Toews, was supportive of the bill. At a media event at which the member sponsoring the bill was in attendance on May 8, 2013, he stated that, “The Parole Board has the option of waiting up until five years before a hearing takes place. It can be done sooner”.

The member himself acknowledged that the Parole Board would retain the discretion as to when to conduct a further hearing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness confirmed in testimony before the public safety committee on February 27 the discretion of the Parole Board to convene hearings at its discretion. The point that raised the concerns of the mover of Bill C-479 was being maintained. She said:

...the Parole Board of Canada could still hear, could still have that happen. It doesn't have to wait for five years; it doesn't have to wait for four years. It could actually do it in two years. It could do it in shorter than that as well.

What is the point, then? We have had a lot of propaganda from government members around this bill. They brought the victims in, telling them that this was going to happen, and now we are basically back to where we started. The discretion remains with the Parole Board.

The rhetoric was clear. The purpose of the legislation was to reduce the number of occasions victims might be revictimized by the number of hearings held by the Parole Board. It is clear from the statements of the former public safety minister and the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that the Parole Board has, and will retain, its discretionary authority over when and how many times hearings will be conducted.

That is what people who came forward as witnesses need to understand. What the promoter of the bill said in the beginning, and the end result after the government made amendments to the bill, is that the Parole Board has the discretion to make the decisions. I have to say that there is some smoke and mirrors in terms of these private members' bills coming forward from the government when, at the end of the day, they really have not changed a whole heck of a lot.

I do not question the sincerity of the member who proposed the bill. Clearly, his intentions were what was contained in the bill. Nor do I question the sincerity of those witnesses who testified in supporting the original bill, which the House approved at second reading. What I do question is the deliberate misleading by the Conservative government of victims of crime. When it comes to presenting legislation, it assures these people that the bill will achieve certain objectives for the victims, and then government lawyers intervene to bring those commitments in line with Canadian law and the Constitution.

To the people who came in good faith as witnesses before this bill, I say that they should understand that there have not been a lot of changes. The Parole Board still has the discretion to make the decisions on when the hearings will be held.

We will be supporting the bill at this stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be speaking to the bill as a whole. Despite the fact that amendments have been introduced, this is probably the best opportunity to talk about the bill as a whole.

I will accept the parliamentary secretary's assurance that these are in fact housekeeping amendments to correct errors. I will come back to that point in a minute.

The NDP will be speaking in favour of Bill C-479, because we believe that the bill, after it has been extensively amended, still contains important improvements in victims' rights, though we were disappointed by the unwillingness of the government to go further in some areas.

New Democrats remain concerned, however, about the use of numerous private members' bills to amend both the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There are several reasons for this. Often these private members' bills are inspired by a single incident or a single case, and therefore they have a very narrow focus. What this means is that sometimes they miss larger issues in the criminal justice system because of that focus on a single incident or a single case.

Second, private members' bills do not get the same technical expertise applied to them in their drafting as government bills do. This is a natural phenomenon, as they are prepared by a single member of Parliament, who does not have access to the large legal and policy expertise a federal department would have if it were drafting the same legislation. Thus, we end up in a situation, which we had with Bill C-479, where we had numerous amendments to the bill at committee stage, which were necessary, and even the additional amendments that were introduced at report stage. That is one reason we have concerns about the extensive use of private members' bills to amend what are really quite technical bills, the Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

As well, private members' bills do not go through the screening that all government bills must go through or are supposed to go through. That is the one that supposedly checks for compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a government bill, the Minister of Justice would be required to certify that the bill did not conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not get that kind of scrutiny for a private member's bill.

Finally, we remain concerned about making extensive changes through multiple bills proceeding along different paths through Parliament on different timetables. The sheer volume of changes being made to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are often a problem, because they are being considered at different committees. Some of these bills are going to the justice committee, and some are going to the public safety committee. There is a risk of having legal errors and omissions as well as unintended consequences when we have different bodies of Parliament dealing with the same bill and amending the same bill on different timeframes. This, of course, includes the Senate, which would be dealing with these in a completely different timeframe.

What we have had was some bills going to the justice committee and some bills going to the public safety committee. We in the public safety committee do not have the benefit of hearing the witnesses and hearing the debate on those bills that are in justice and vice versa. They do not have the benefit of seeing what work we have been doing in the public safety committee.

For instance, specifically in the case of Bill C-479, the public safety committee did not have the advantage of seeing the text of the government's victims' rights bill, Bill C-32, and now that bill will go to the justice committee, which will not have had the advantage of hearing the witnesses on Bill C-479, which amends the very same bill on the very same topic. I think we risk errors, omissions, and unintended consequences when we proceed in this way in the House of Commons.

I hope that when the debate in justice comes to Bill C-32, it will hear some of the same witnesses we heard. However, I am sure it seems to those witnesses that Parliament has become a very inefficient place if they have to go talk about the same bills multiple times at different committees.

As I said before, and despite the rhetoric we so often hear in the House, obviously no party has a monopoly on the concern for victims of crime. However, New Democrats do differ with the government on how best to serve victims and how best to make sure that there are fewer victims of crime in the future. We in the NDP understand the importance of utilizing our corrections system to prevent additional Canadians becoming victims of crime in the future. Clearly, if one is going to do that, what one needs is a properly funded corrections system where offenders receive the treatment and rehabilitation they need, whether for addictions, mental illness, or more specific problems they may have, and where they can access training and education opportunities that are necessary for successful reintegration into our communities. If they do not get successful treatment for mental illness and addictions, if they do not get job training, then offenders will find themselves back in the same circumstances as before and therefore are very likely to reoffend, creating even more new victims.

When committee members previously visited one of our federal correctional institutions and met with the prisoners committee, two of the people there had returned to prison, and we asked them why. They both gave the very same answer. They said when they got out, they did not have any resources, they had not had the training they needed, and they ended up back with the same friends who got them into same trouble they had been in before.

Therefore, New Democrats would like to emphasize that one of the very important things we can do to prevent victims of crime being created in the future is to have a properly functioning corrections system, and we know right now we do not have such a system. There is overcrowding in the corrections system, there is underfunding of training, there are long wait lists for mental health and addiction programs. If they are not fixed, it will lead to more victims of crime in the future.

The Conservatives, especially in private members' bills, often focus on the understandable feelings of some victims that the justice system ought to be more punitive and provide a greater sense of retribution, or they focus on the victims who believe toughness is the solution for crime. However, in doing so, they risk missing the more fundamental feeling expressed by nearly all victims. The one thing that nearly all victims of crime will say, the one thing they seem to share, is the wish that no one else has to go through what they went through. This is where victims start and end.

For New Democrats and, I believe, for most Canadians, there is a concern that we not lose the balance in our justice system between the need for punishment and the common good of increased public safety that we can achieve through rehabilitation programs. That balance is placed in jeopardy by the Conservative government's “penny wise and pound foolish” approach to public safety budgets. The consequences of this failure of the Conservative government to adequately resource the corrections system will, unfortunately, be seen down the road in additional victims.

Today, we in the NDP are supporting Bill C-479 because there are provisions in it which are of clear benefit to victims. Indeed, most of the provisions in this bill are already normal practice in the parole system. These include the presence of victims or members of their families at parole hearings, consideration of victims' statements by the Parole Board in its decisions, some special provisions for the manner in which statements can be presented at parole hearings, a stronger requirement to communicate to victims information that the board considered when making its decisions, an obligation to make transcripts of parole hearings available to victims and their families, as well as to offenders, and a better system of informing victims when an offender is going to be granted a temporary absence or parole or is released at the end of his or her sentence.

All of these things normally take place and New Democrats agree that it is a good idea to entrench these rights for victims by placing them in legislation. They are now mostly discretionary and we are saying these things need to be a right for victims. It is kind of peculiar to me that Bill C-479 actually has more rights for victims in it than the so-called victims rights bills. This actually entrenches many things in legislation.

New Democrats were, however, surprised to see the government reject one amendment which we put forward. We said that right now we have a strange situation. If, for some reason, a victim is not allowed to attend a hearing, either because he or she threatened the offender or some other reason, the victim is allowed to observe the parole hearings through teleconference or video conference. Other victims do not have that choice. We proposed an amendment giving every victim the right to observe parole hearings through video conference, teleconference, or by some other means where the victim does not have to be present in the room. Some victims do not want to be in the room because of fear, some do not want to be in the room because of revulsion, and we believe that all victims should have the right to observe parole hearings by video or teleconferencing, if they so choose. As I said, it was very surprising to me that the government voted against this amendment.

Making video conferencing available also has another very important impact for victims and their families. Sometimes people have to travel across the country. If offenders have been transferred, they may no longer be in institutions near the victims, so the victims would incur travel costs and might have to take time off work that could be avoided with video conferencing. One thing New Democrats have confidence in, as raised by the member for Malpeque, is that this bill does preserve the discretion of the Parole Board with regard to how long hearings have to take place.

As my time draws to a close, let me conclude by saying the New Democrats support strengthening victims rights, but we urge all members to consider another important thing that victims need, not just legislation but also well-supported programs to help them put their lives back in order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we also brought in a number of changes to strengthen the parole process and help victims through the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which was passed into law in March 2012.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, we outlined our intent to bring forward further measures to ensure that public safety would come first and victims' voices would be heard. This includes introducing the victims bill of rights act which would restore victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system.

Through these steps and others, we will continue to fill our commitment to Canadians that we will help victims of crime overcome the trauma they have experienced and that we will give them access to information they need and ensure that they are part of the parole hearing process. We want to ensure that victims are not falling through the cracks of the criminal justice system. That is precisely what Bill C-479 aims to do.

I would like to take a moment at this time to thank the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his tireless dedication to helping victims of crime in our country. With this private member's bill, the hon. member continues his quest to ensure that victims do not feel marginalized and that they do not feel re-victimized by the criminal justice system. Our government is proud to stand behind the member and his efforts and I hope to hear strong support from all members of the House on the bill.

We have heard how Bill C-479 proposes to modify parole and detention review dates as well as to provide additional support to victims of violent crime. By increasing the review period between legislated parole and detention reviews for offenders sentenced for violent offences, Bill C-479 aims to ensure a more reasonable length of time has elapsed before the Parole Board must undertake another review.

For example, instead of having to review parole within two years, the Parole Board would now have up to five years. What this means is it allows the victims who are choosing to hear the actual Parole Board hearings not be re-victimized. They do not have to relive their emotional pain every two years. By proposing to give victims additional information and increase their involvement in the parole process, the bill aims to empower victims of violent crime by increasing their understanding of the process and giving them a stronger role.

I am very pleased that this legislation received support through the committee and we reached agreement on some important amendments that further strengthened the bill. This includes a number of technical amendments to clarify the language and ensure that it can be implemented in an effective manner.

During study by committee, we introduced important amendments to the bill to address public safety concerns and ensured that victims were provided key information in a timely fashion.

In terms of public safety concerns, the bill was originally drafted to provide for mandatory release of information regarding date and time, conditions and locations of an offender's conditional release. However, and I think all members in the House would agree, there are circumstances in which disclosing the destination of an offender on release may expose front-line correctional officers to potentially dangerous situations.

To account for such situations, we introduced amendments to the bill to say that the disclosure of this information would only occur when it was clear to the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada that there would be no negative impact on public safety.

However, there was an error in the drafting of the motion to amend the bill. The amendment adopted at committee stated that the disclosure of an offender's date, location and conditions of the release to the victim under section 142 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act must occur subject to a public safety test. The amendment, as drafted, inadvertently overwrote clauses 6(2) and 6(3) of Bill C-479. These two clauses deleted paragraphs from the discretionary section of the provision.

The result of this drafting error was that the disclosure of this information would continue to be at the discretion of the chairperson of the Parole Board, as well as mandatory following a public safety test. As such, I have introduced amendments to correct the drafting error to ensure that disclosure of this important information will not be left solely to the chairperson's discretion.

We also introduced amendments at committee to specify that the date, location and conditions of a prisoner's release would be disclosed to victims within 14 days before the offender's release, where practical. We specified that this would only occur where practical because in some cases these details might not be fully arranged two weeks before the actual release.

We amended Bill C-479 at committee to ensure that we did not place the Parole Board in a position where it would not be able to comply with the law in cases that were obviously outside of its control. However, in drafting the motion to amend this paragraph in Bill C-479, the notation of the amendment was incorrect. Where we specified the items to be disclosed, we referred to paragraph 142(1)(a), and we should have referenced paragraph 142(1)(c). The amendments I have introduced would correct that error and ensure that this requirement, where feasible, would operate effectively for timely disclosure of date, location, and conditions of release.

In summary, I have introduced these amendments to correct drafting errors. My amendments that we are considering today, when combined with the amendments adopted by the committee, would allow Bill C-479 to make our justice system more just, unbiased, and equitable for victims. Ultimately we would ensure more fairness for victims of crime.

I would like to ask all members of this House to support my amendments to correct drafting errors.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go to the hon. member, I would also like to clarify something.

It was my understanding when I took the chair that the Speaker had delivered his ruling prior to his departure, but apparently that is not the case.

Regarding Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), there is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-479. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon. That is the business that is before the House.

I presume this deals with the point of order that the hon. member for Malpeque was raising.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the private members' bills in question are Bill C-489, Bill C-479, and now Bill C-483. I would suggest that this is a matter the Chair might wish to carefully examine.

With respect to Bill C-483, I would like to cite a number of references made by the member for Oxford and other members of the government with respect to what the intent of the bill was and what in essence the principle of the bill was.

At page 1236 of Debates, November 21, 2013, the member for Oxford stated what the purpose and the principle of Bill C-483 was. He said:

The bill proposes to grant the Parole Board of Canada authority for the full length of the sentence to grant or cancel escorted temporary absence for offenders convicted of first or second degree murder.

...This would mean that the wardens of federal prisons would no longer have authority to grant temporary escorted absences to inmates convicted of first- or second-degree murder, except in a medical emergency.

There is no ambiguity in the statement by the member as to the intent of the legislation. The bill was written to specifically remove the ability of wardens to grant escorted temporary releases.

Under the current legislation, Correctional Service of Canada, through the wardens of federal institutions, has the authority, when offenders serving a life sentence are within three years of their eligible parole date, to grant escorted temporary absences.

The reason the member has moved, through Bill C-483, to undertake these changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, were stated as follows during second reading debate on November 21, 2013, at page 1236 of Debates:

...for some victims' families, the decision-making authority of wardens to grant escorted temporary absences to murderers has been a matter of great concern. ...

...no hearings are conducted, as decisions are made on an administrative basis by institutional heads. In contrast, when decisions by the Parole Board of Canada are made, hearings are conducted....

The member continued by saying:

...when the Parole Board of Canada conducts a hearing, a victim or a member of the public who applies in writing is permitted to attend....

During the course of second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness contributed, at page 1241 of Debates, November 21, 2013, to the declaration as to what Bill C-483 would achieve. She stated:

...the bill we are here to talk about today relates to escorted temporary absences from prison. More specifically, it is about ensuring that only the Parole Board of Canada has the power to release prisoners except in very limited circumstances.

There is no ambiguity as to what the member for Oxford or the parliamentary secretary believes Bill C-483 would bestow upon victims. They would have a direct role as participants in the escorted temporary absence system from the first day of incarceration until the last day of incarceration of those convicted of first and second degree murder.

The parliamentary secretary continued at page 1241 by stating:

As the member for Oxford has said, we continue to hear calls from victims of crime who feel that decisions on these absences should remain with the Parole Board, rather than an unaccountable official.

During the course of the hearings on the legislation before the public safety committee, the statements related to the key principles of the bill were restated a number of times. I will not go through all of those particular statements from witnesses, other than to say that as noted on page 11 of the Evidence, Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, stated on March 25:

Bill C-483 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to shift the authority of the warden to authorize the escorted temporary absence, or ETA, of an offender convicted of first- or second-degree murder within three years of full parole eligibility to the Parole Board of Canada. At its core, this bill aims to bring a more transparent and inclusive process to victims of crime.

Let me sum up in layman's terms.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in relation to private members Bill C-483, which stands in the name of the member for Oxford.

I want to begin by stating that my concerns are not related to the intent of the bill. I also want to acknowledge that the member for Oxford placed this bill before the House and the committee with the best of intentions, and in his remarks both in the House and at committee, he stated eloquently and with conviction the intent and principle behind the bill.

However, I would submit to the Chair that in the process of the committee's examination of both the bill and the amendments that the government was compelled to bring forward, the bill as amended has in fact moved a great deal away from its original intent and principle as articulated by the member for Oxford, as well as other members of the government in speaking to the bill and witnesses who testified before committee in support of the bill, all of whom were in support of the bill prior to the government amending the bill, but which is now substantially different from what those witnesses and members were speaking to.

At this point I would also draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that each of the private members' bills by government members that has come before the public safety and justice committees have required amendments that most often have exceeded the number of original clauses in the bills.

This, I would submit, is a situation of either bad drafting of bills or of government members insisting upon a specific course within their private members' bills, resulting in legislation that is so flawed that the government, with its legal advisers, literally has to redraft the legislation through the use of amendments.

The private members' bills in question were Bill C-489, Bill C-479, and now Bill C-483.

[Mike McCormack]

First of all, surrounding domestic violence and policing and law enforcement and the culture, we have changed. We have learned a lot from those days. That's exactly the way it was when I started the job. Violence was looked at through quite a different lens and that was the way it was handled. We have learned a lot over the last 30 years from a law enforcement perspective in what is going on with crime and how people are victimized.

The only thing I don't agree with is when you say that this type of legislation is going the extra mile. To me, this type of legislation is about fairness. It's not going the extra mile. The extra mile has a connotation that we're going above and beyond. I think you're seeking the threshold for these victims.

I'm not only here speaking as a police officer who worked in some of the toughest communities in Toronto where violence was a reality, serious violence, murder, and so on, but also from our officers' perspectives. We've had officers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice: they lost their lives. You heard about Bill Hancox, and the last time I was here I talked about Michael Sweet.

Some of the cornerstones of what we were talking about around BillC-479 were just the acknowledgement of victims and letting them have a role and a say, because what continually happens in the legal system is that victims are never a victim on the first occasion and then it's over and they go back to their lives and everything's fine. They are continually revictimized.

Part of having somebody who is accountable and responsible for the death of your loved one is that's always there in the back of your mind, even when we're going through a process like the parole process when there are hearings every year and so on and so forth. That's one level.

To have the victims there to take part in that and to at least feel as if they're having an impact on what's going on is one thing, but then when we talk about Bill C-483 taking away.... It's one thing for them to participate in the parole process, but then to have any citizen go home from that process and then to be arbitrarily cut out and the system usurped and the warden say that we're going to go on these ETAs, where's the procedural fairness? I believe that revictimizes the victims.

[Mike McCormack]

I believe that would be a contributing factor. I appeared before the committee on Bill C-479, the victim's role. That's what we're looking at, the victim's role. That is definitely having an impact on what's going on in the broader system. For instance, in the Hancox matter, there was no victim notification at all; there was nothing surrounding that victim. For sure that would have an impact.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie, for bringing forward your remarks on this particular bill.

I do say in beginning, Mr. Chair, that I have somewhat the same concern as expressed by Mr. Garrison about the number of private member's bills that are coming forward by backbench Conservative members that all have an impact on either the Criminal Code or the corrections act. Sometimes I think they're in contradiction.

The last bill we had, C-479, was actually a bill designed to reduce the number of Parole Board hearings, and we didn't hear from the Parole Board in that case. We should have. This one increases the number of Parole Board hearings.

I just think from a government member's perspective, it would make more sense to tie all this stuff together, all these conditions that people are looking for private member's bills on and bring them forward in a comprehensive way. The last two private member's bills we studied had more amendments than clauses. I submit that for the last one—C-479—I think we actually amended it so that we changed the intent of the bill. That's a concern I have, just so that you're aware.

In terms of the specifics of this bill, can you tell us how many cases across Canada this would actually apply to?

Public Safety and National Security

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, known as the fairness for victims act. The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government moves to amend by adding after line 31 on page 5 in the previous amendment, which we just did, the transitional provisions as listed on the pages in front of you under our government amendment number 7.

This clause clarifies that Bill C-479 will affect the following classes of federal offenders: offenders currently serving the carceral portion of their sentence who receive a sentence for a new offence following the coming into force of Bill C-479; offenders on parole or statutory release who receive an additional sentence following the coming into force of Bill C-479; and offenders currently serving a sentence after the first scheduled parole or detention review following the coming into force of this particular bill.

The reason for this amendment is that currently, as the bill was drafted, it would only apply to offenders who had not yet been sentenced at the time the law was changed, and in fact we wouldn't see the fruits of this particular bill until many years into the future.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the assistance from the legislative clerk.

I would like to move that Bill C-479 in clause 4 be amended by replacing line 32 with the following: “hearing, or should a victim or family member choose not to attend in person, the Board shall provide for the victim”.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'm going to—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is similar to the last amendment. We're proposing that Bill C-479 be amended in clause 4 by replacing line 1, on page 3, with the text that we have before us.

Again, it's basically to ensure conformity with the current drafting norms.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, once again.

I move that Bill C-479 in clause 3 be amended by replacing lines 32 to 34, on page 2, with the text that is here on the page in front of you.

This is simply a technical amendment to ensure conformity with current drafting norms. It's not necessarily changing any content; it's just a technical amendment.

[Daryl Churney]

Certainly. That wording, “Despite subsection (5.1)”, was included to clarify that obviously the amendments in Bill C-479 apply only to those offenders serving time for a violent offence. The lengthening of the mandatory parole review period applies only to those offenders.

For all other offenders, for the non-violent offenders, the two-year period will continue to exist. That's why we had to differentiate that the current set of rules will continue to apply for those non-violent offenders, whereas Bill C-479 will take effect for violent offenders.

[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.

[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, NDP, 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, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the opportunity to stand in my place and express some concerns on the issue of crime, safety, and justice. In fact, I was the justice critic for the Manitoba Liberal Party for a number of years in the Manitoba legislature. I had the opportunity in that capacity to meet with a wide variety of stakeholders. Many of those stakeholders were different types of victims and victims groups.

Listening to the opening remarks on the bill, one of the things that came across is the fact that hideous crimes take place, sadly, far too often. Virtually every day throughout the year there is some sort of crime taking place, and a number of them are fairly hideous in nature.

It is hard for us to understand why people take extreme actions and cause so much harm, not only to an individual but to that individual's family, friends, and community. Often these crimes will have an impact that goes beyond the people he or she might actually know, as they have a profound negative impact on the community as a whole.

The member made reference to a couple of specific cases. Some cases came to my mind. I remember an individual who had a bullet put through his head. He was then wrapped in plastic and dropped at a landfill site in south Winnipeg. I remember a young lady who was thrown into a back lane dumpster. I remember another young lady who was dumped in north Winnipeg.

There are vicious, hideous crimes that happen. In talking to the public as a whole, we find that there is unanimous support for us to do what we can as legislators, whether here in Ottawa or in the provincial legislatures, to ensure that we minimize the impact these crimes have on people, whether it is the individual victim or the community itself.

I do not believe that we are doing enough to take a holistic approach. The member who spoke before me talked about how all victims will say that they do not want others to go through what they went through. They do not want these crimes to happen to anyone else.

To what degree are we taking the actions necessary to prevent some of these crimes from taking place in the first place? That is something I would not mind spending time on. However, for now, let us come back to the idea of victims and victims' rights. We believe that it is important to recognize the rights of the victims. This is not new. I believe that all political parties, and I can speak in terms of the Liberal Party, have been very strong on the issue of ensuring victims' rights.

I used to chair a justice committee, the Keewatin Youth Justice Committee. I can recall having a discussion with the Liberal minister at the time about how we wanted to move towards dealing with youth under the age of 12. As a justice committee, which was a quasi-judicial committee, we wanted to talk about ways to develop more victim participation.

Through discussions and by working with the province, we ultimately moved toward what we call restorative justice.

Restorative justice allows victims to be a part of the process to the degree in which they contribute in a tangible way to the disposition of the person who has caused the crime. There are many ways we can explore other potential opportunities, where we can ensure that victims are engaged and more involved in the system. I see that as a positive thing.

Today it is easy to use modern technology to ensure in good part that victims do not have to relive, on an annual basis, the tragedies that occurred by having to appear at a parole board hearing. There is great merit in looking at that.

After a crime the individual goes to jail and after a period of incarceration a parole hearing will come up. This legislation would not change that. From what I understand, this legislation would change how often after that first parole hearing another parole hearing would be held. My understanding is that this would be left to the discretion of the parole board.

It is important to recognize that we need to look at ways to improve the system. There appears to be some merit in regard to Bill C-479. Based on what we have heard and what we can see there likely will be a need for some amendments to be brought forward to make this a healthier bill, but there is some merit for it. That is why the Liberal Party will support the bill being passed at second reading and sent to committee. First and foremost, we are interested in the long-term safety of Canadian society. Along with that I would underline the importance of ensuring that victims of these crimes are factored into what is taking place when it comes to dispositions and parole. The vast majority of Canadians want that and would support that.

There is a difference between a private member's bill versus a government bill. We know the government is going to bring forward legislation. We do not know the details of the legislation and I suspect even the member might not know the details of the government bill so we will have to wait and see what actually comes out in it.

One of the things we do know with a government bill generally speaking more due diligence is done with respect to the Charter of Rights. The department has an obligation to ensure that it has been adequately and properly vetted from a charter perspective. I do not know to what degree this bill has been vetted, but we do look forward to the bill at committee where we will get a better sense from the presenters and from those individuals who have the expertise and some of our resource people in terms of whether it is charter compliant in issues of that nature.

It is absolutely critical that we move forward where we can in the area of justice. We want to recognize that victims have rights. We need to work with victims and society. I would really like the government to take a stronger leadership role with respect to preventing victims. The best way doing that vent in the future is to start investing more in better youth programming and better activities in our communities. That would hopefully prevent victims in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-479 at second reading. I look forward to discussing the bill further in the public safety committee. We look forward to the bill going to committee, as there is much in the bill that members from both sides of the House can support.

Despite the extreme rhetoric we sometimes hear from the government, let me restate the obvious: no one party in the House has a monopoly on the concern for victims. We do have a difference with the government on how best to serve victims and how best to make sure there are fewer victims of crime in the future, instead of taking stories ripped from sensational headlines and then suggesting what look like simple fixes without any consideration of the actual evidence underlying those headlines or of the unintended consequences of those seemingly simple solutions. This is an approach that we reject. I am not accusing the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale of having done that in this case, but it is something we see too often on the other side.

What we do understand in the NDP is the importance of utilizing our correction system to prevent additional Canadians becoming victims in the future. Clearly, what Canada needs is a properly funded correction system where offenders receive the treatment they need, whether for addictions or mental illness or some other problem, and where they can also access training and education opportunities necessary for their successful reintegration into our communities. If not, offenders will find themselves back in the same circumstances as before and, therefore, are likely to reoffend, creating even more new victims in the future.

Conservatives often focus on the understandable feelings of some victims that the justice system ought to be more punitive and ought to provide a greater sense of retribution, or they focus on those victims who believe that toughness is the solution for crime. However, in doing so they miss the more fundamental feeling expressed by nearly all victims. The one concern that all victims have in common is that no one else should have to go through what they have gone through. That is the central and common concern of every victim, whether it is expressed through surveys or testimony that has been given at the public safety committee.

For New Democrats, and I believe for most Canadians, there is a concern that we not lose the balance in our justice system between the need for punishment and the common good of increased public safety that we can achieve through rehabilitation. That balance is placed in jeopardy when we fail to fully consider the consequences of reforms like those suggested in Bill C-479. That is why we look forward to further study and analysis in committee.

However, that balance is placed in even greater jeopardy by the government's penny-wise and pound foolish approach to public safety budgets. The consequences of this failure of the Conservative government to adequately resource the correction system will unfortunately be seen down the road in additional victims.

Therefore, we in the NDP are supporting sending Bill C-479 to committee, but with some reservations. This is primarily because there are many provisions here that are of clear benefit to victims and indeed have already become part of normal practice in the corrections and parole system. We agree it is a good idea to entrench these rights for victims by placing them in legislation. Among these are the right for victims or family members to be present at parole hearings. I appreciate the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale suggesting that technology has made some new improvements possible in this area.

We also believe that entrenching in law the necessity of consideration of victims' statements in the Parole Board of Canada's decisions regarding release is an important victim right. We also believe that entrenching the right to various manners of presenting input to the Parole Board, again reflecting new technology, is an important thing to put in legislation. The right for victims to know the information that has been considered by the Parole Board in its review of offenders is also something we can support entrenching in legislation. We can also support the obligation to provide transcripts of parole hearings to victims and their families, not just to offenders as happens now. Finally, we can support ensuring the right to be notified when an offender is going to be out of custody, on parole, on temporary absence or on statutory release. That right to a notice is certainly something that is very important to be legislated and not just part of current practice.

We have some serious concerns about some other sections of the bill that may have unintended consequences. I am not questioning here the good intentions of the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, nor reflecting on the moving testimony from victims of crime in his riding that he just provided to us. However, given the importance of parole in providing structure and supervised transitions back into society and the importance of using the parole system and things like temporary absence to allow corrections to test the readiness for release of offenders in a structured and controlled situation, we will be asking some serious questions at committee about some provisions of the bill.

Others share our concerns about the unintended consequences on our parole system that might result from Bill C-479. We look forward to hearing from those people or groups, which include the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and even the former victims' ombudsman. They have all expressed publicly this fear of some unintended consequences; again, none of them is questioning the good intentions of the mover of the bill.

If the consequence of some of the provisions Bill C-479 is to deny access to parole, which is so necessary for safe release back into our communities, this consequence would place the public in what is ultimately a much more dangerous situation: a situation in which offenders are being released without any supervision and without any testing of their readiness for release.

For these reasons, and out of these concerns, we will likely be asking for amendments to the bill.

We also wonder, as I mentioned in the question to the hon. member, how this bill would relate to the new victims' rights bill that the government announced again in this week's throne speech, and we will once again be asking questions about the unintended consequences of this pattern we have seen in the House of Commons of amending the corrections act and the Criminal Code piecemeal through various private members' bills. It makes it very difficult to predict the consequences of all these individual pieces of legislation that are being introduced.

With respect to the hon. member, I wonder how we know at this point whether there are contradictions between his bill and the victims' rights bill. Certainly on this side we cannot know, because we have not seen the text of that bill. I hope he has; I hope he was fully consulted and I hope that there are no contradictions.

However, when we have multiple pieces of legislation before the House of Commons amending the Criminal Code and amending the corrections act at the same time, it becomes very difficult to deal with.

Once again, I would like to restate our support for strengthening victims' rights in our justice system and to once again say I do look forward to discussing the bill in committee.

I want to go back to the point that I raised at the beginning—that is, this difference between New Democrats' approach to crime and corrections and the government's approach to crime and corrections.

On our side of the House, we have been emphasizing again and again that we have to properly fund the corrections system if we want to prevent there being future victims of crime in our society.

One of the things raised in question period earlier in the House today is the ongoing failure of the government to properly fund mental health programs in our corrections institutions. The Correctional Investigator's recommendations in 2008 were not followed up on until 2010 by the minister and not even put in force until 2011. Now we have a new Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness who is faced with the situation of the Corrections Commissioner appearing at the inquest for Ashley Smith and openly saying that he does not have the resources to address problems of mental illness in the prison system.

Therefore, one of the things we will be asking the new Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness about when we get the opportunity is what he is going to do about this crisis in mental health treatment in our prisons, a crisis that has been brought to the attention of the government again and again since 2008. The most recent report from the Corrections Investigator focused on the plight of aboriginal women with mental illness in our corrections system, the lack of programs appropriate to their needs, and the lack of support for those programs within the corrections system.

I am emphasizing that instead of the government's tough-on-crime agenda, which seems to make sense only if we look at the surface of things, we have to have a much deeper understanding of the causes of crime and a much larger commitment to addressing the needs of those who are in the corrections system in order to make sure they do not reoffend.

We hear from the other side that we are interested in coddling prisoners. That is not what this is about. It is about taking a hard-headed approach to the what the real causes of crime are in this country and what the real solutions are to the problems faced by victims.

I would urge the government to pay more attention to the corrections system and the needs of those people who are in that system, not because we like the people in the system, although some of them are there for reasons their may not be their own responsibility because of addictions or mental illness.

In any case, we have to pay more attention to those needs, and we have to stop introducing legislation that increases mandatory minimum penalties, because those take away the discretion of judges to keep some of those people with mental illness and addiction problems out of the correction system.

Having done that, the government has created for itself a dilemma. It has increased the prison population. It has increased the number of people with those special needs in the prison system. Therefore, it has to provide the resources for that system.

To come back to the bill, we will be supporting the bill and having it sent to committee. We will be supporting many of the specific provisions of the bill that enhance victims' rights. We will want to take a good hard look at any unintended consequences for the parole system.

I thank the member once again for his speech today and for his introduction of this bill, and I look forward to dealing with it in committee.

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be standing here to speak once again to the important amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act proposed in Bill C-479.

First, I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety for their ongoing leadership on victims' rights. The ministers held consultations in every province and territory with victims of crime and their advocates over the summer months. While these consultations were held to discuss the government's intention to introduce a victim's bill of rights, the input gathered is relevant today because one of the things that came across loud and clear is that victims of crime want increased participation in the criminal justice system. That is what Bill C-479 is all about and I am proud that this bill would build on the good work of the ministers and this government since 2006.

In a nutshell, there are two key components to the fairness for victims of violent crime act that I am proposing. The first is strengthening the voice of victims of violent crime and providing additional support to victims in the parole process. The second is to modify parole and detention review dates giving the Parole Board of Canada the option of increasing the time between parole hearings for violent offenders. Both of these purposes work to act on the change that victims, their families and advocates like the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime have urged for many years. It is about time to bring these to fruition.

I want to be clear from the outset, just as we were when we discussed this bill last spring, that we are talking about instances of violent crime. As I have said many times before, I do not think words can ever adequately describe the repulsiveness of these crimes. They are heinous, often calculated and always senseless.

I would like to point again to two statistics from the Sampson report of December 2007, which underscored the alarming trend on violent crime. This report, named after former Ontario minister of corrections, Rob Sampson, cited changing offender profiles. Nearly 60% are now serving sentences of less than three years and have a history of violence. One in six now have known gang and/or organized crime affiliations.

The reason that it is such an honour to be speaking to this bill today is because I do so on behalf of my constituents and, tragically, thousands of Canadians like them and the sacred memory of their loved ones. As I have noted previously in the House, Bill C-479 is the product of an unforgettable experience that constituents of mine allowed me to observe in the summer of 2010. That is when a well-respected couple in my community contacted me and explained what it had been going through for many years at the national Parole Board hearings. After listening to many troubling experiences, I wanted to see first hand what the process was like and, fortunately, the couple also felt it was a good idea for me to witness the hearing and the voice given to victims primarily through the victim impact statement.

When I agreed to attend, I had no doubt it would be a very emotional experience. I was hoping it would also be an educational experience, and it sure was. However, I do not think I could have ever begun to prepare myself for the raw emotion in the room that day, let alone put myself in the shoes of the victim, who had to go through this gut-wrenching experience every time the offender reapplied under the current process, not because the victim was compelled by law but rather by love and justice.

I am certain many of my colleagues have never experienced a national Parole Board hearing, so please allow me to recount the story for them and for the members who were not present at the last debate on Bill C-479.

On the day of the first hearing I attended in the summer of 2010, once in session and the formalities were over, the sister of the deceased victim, my constituent, was asked by the representatives of the Parole Board of Canada to give her prepared statement. She tried hard to be composed, but before even uttering a word my constituent started weeping. The memories of a crime committed over 30 years previous came flooding back and the tears did not stop, understandable due to what the family had endured and still lives with to this very day.

It was a grizzly triple murder. Her sister, niece and nephew had been violently murdered by her sister's husband. After killing his wife, this violent criminal suffocated his two young children, a six-year-old boy and a five-year-old girl. The murderer meticulously concealed the bodies in the waterways around Hamilton, Ontario. The son's body has never been found, nor has his father, the perpetrator, ever offered information on the whereabouts of his remains.

My constituent wrote her first victim impact statement on the eve of the funeral, yet, too often over the years, she and her parents had to attend a Parole Board hearing to ensure that the voices of victims were heard. As with other victims and their families, they felt an incredible burden, a duty as a family. It was the least they could do to honour their daughter, sister, grandchildren, niece, and nephew.

While the evidence for a conviction was very clear and the Parole Board has upheld that, the offender still denies the crime to this very day.

Unfortunately, our federal parole process makes the revictimization of my constituents a frequent occurrence. I watched the family endure the same process again in 2011. Again the triple murderer was denied parole. They were victimized once again this summer with another Parole Board hearing for their sister's killer in Gravenhurst, Ontario, on July 10. I attended with my constituents once again, and I can assure all members of the House that the emotion was no less raw, no less painful this summer than at previous hearings.

My constituent asked the same question of the violent offender in her statement. She asks this question at every hearing: “Why did you kill our family and what did you do with your son?”

She received no response. The offender sat stone-faced. He felt no remorse. This was something that the Parole Board noted carefully in its decision to deny full parole this past July.

However, he may reapply for parole again next year, and we will go through the same set of victim impact statements and the tears and emotion from the family that accompany them.

These circumstances underscore, better than any words could ever do, the intent of my bill when it comes to victim impact statements and the modification of the parole review process.

While these experiences inspired Bill C-479, in researching this bill I discovered in talking to victims' advocates, law enforcement officials, and legal experts that while the provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act may have made sense in 1970s, they no longer reflect modern technology and the respect and dignity our system ought to afford victims today.

From the work my office and I have done in preparation for the introduction of this bill—and, by the way, I give staff thanks for all the hard work that they have done on—and from the experts we consulted, I know this bill has a sound legal and constitutional foundation. I believe it has broad support.

In tabling Bill C-479 last February, I proposed nine changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to better protect and support victims of violent offenders.

This bill would extend mandatory review periods for parole. This means that if an offender convicted of a more serious violent offence is denied parole, the Parole Board would have to review the case within five years rather than the current two years.

In cases of cancellation or termination of parole for an offender who is serving at least two years for an offence involving violence, it would increase the period in which the Parole Board must review parole to within four years.

It would require that the Parole Board take into consideration the need for the victims and the victim's family to attend a hearing and observe the proceedings. It would require that the Parole Board consider any victim impact statement presented by victims.

It would require the Parole Board, if requested, to provide victims with information about the offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence, as well as provide victims with information about the offender's correctional plan, including progress toward meeting its objectives.

As I have said previously in the House, this last point is one of the changes requested by Constable Michael Sweet's family after 30 years of silence. In essence it is the Constable Michael Sweet amendment.

I would like to remind members of Michael Sweet's story so they can understand the family's depth of feeling with regard to these changes.

In the early morning hours of March 14, 1980, brothers Craig and Jamie Munro entered into what was George's Bourbon St. Bistro in downtown Toronto for the purpose of committing a robbery. Both men were high on drugs and armed with guns. At the time, Craig Munro was on mandatory supervision from a penitentiary sentence for a previous gun-related offence.

The brothers gathered all the people inside in one place. However, one of the victims managed to successfully flee. Once out on the street, he flagged down a passing police cruiser. Constable Sweet, who is no relation to me, aged 30 at the time, entered the restaurant and was immediately shot twice. Then began a 90-minute stand-off between the Munro brothers with their hostages, and the police. The police later stormed the restaurant and both brothers were shot and captured.

During the stand-off, Sweet was conscious and slowly bleeding to death. He begged his captors to let him go to the hospital. He had three young daughters and he wanted to see them again at home. While Sweet pleaded for his life, they laughed and taunted him. All three men were transported to the hospital after the police broke in. Craig and Jamie made full recoveries. Constable Sweet died a few hours later of gunshot wounds.

Just like the case of my constituents, the story does not need to end there. Let us make the changes proposed in Bill C-479, changes that have been requested by families, because these two cases I have talked about today are just two of thousands of sad cases. Violent offenders have committed unspeakable crimes. Families have suffered losses that are forever. These victims, these families and our communities should be confident that these offenders are positively progressing toward rehabilitation, and if not, that the Parole Board of Canada has the tools to delay their release.

We can act to respect victims and their families with the changes I am proposing in Bill C-479, changes that have been enacted by other jurisdictions such as California, New Zealand and the U.K.

In closing, please allow me to read into the record once again this paragraph from a March 2, 2012 editorial from my hometown newspaper, The Hamilton Spectator. It states:

...the [Parole Board of Canada]...has a responsibility to victims of crime. For those victims, the parole board is virtually the only source of information about the status of the person who committed the crime against them. ...some local victims...don’t feel well-served by the board. That must change.

That is why I have brought Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders, to the House. I certainly look forward to discussion on the bill with all members. This would give the Parole Board of Canada the tools that it needs to serve victims better in this country.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to continue the debate on Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders, a bill which I support, with amendments proposed by the government.

Let me begin by commending the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his tenacity in fighting for the rights of victims. The predecessor to this bill was introduced into the House of Commons during the previous Parliament and was debated for an hour prior to dissolution, yet the hon. member has held fast to his vision and deserves our admiration and respect for his hard work in bringing the bill forward.

Today's debate is an opportunity to reflect on the traumatic impact of violent crime on its victims and what our government is doing to support our victims and what more we can do.

I will not pretend to fully understand the harm that violent crime inflicts on a victim. Only those who have survived such a terrible experience have the right to speak of it. However, I have met with victims of crime and I have seen the toll of emotional trauma and the desire for meaningful participation in the justice system. They spoke because they needed to be heard. Giving voice to their experience empowers them because they are determined to gain control over their lives.

Our government is listening. Our government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe and supporting victims, which includes strengthening legislation, protecting victims rights, tackling crime and ensuring fair and efficient justice. All of these will have a positive impact on the victims of crime and their families.

When our government was elected in 2006, we pledged to Canadians that we would work hard to address the needs of victims of crime and their families. I am proud to say that we have made significant progress. The National Office for Victims, Public Safety Canada is helping victims gain a greater voice in the corrections and conditional release process. It is helping victims get access to the information and services they might need.

Apart from the physical and emotional trauma of violent crime, victims may also carry a financial burden. Worries about money adds stress to families at the worst possible time. That is why, last November, our government announced a new income support program to ease the financial burden on parents who were struggling to cope with the death or disappearance of a child.

Even as we are helping victims of crime, we are working hard to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. In our high speed culture it has never been easier for young people to go astray. If we can address the risk factors early, we may well prevent young people from falling in with the wrong crowd. One of the strategy's programs, for example, is the youth gang prevention fund. On the one hand, the fund helps communities develop programs to help youth at risk to make better choices and avoid criminal behaviour. On the other hand, it works with families that have been victimized. I am proud to note that in 2011 alone, our government funded 138 community-based crime prevention programs through this strategy. All told, these programs reached 16,000 youth at risk.

I have highlighted our government's support for victims of violent crime and our efforts to reduce the chance of violent crime occurring in the first place. We are also helping victims at the legislative level. Over the past seven years, our government has introduced and passed compelling and comprehensive changes to our legislation, changes that support crime prevention, that give police the tools they need to fight crime and increase offender accountability.

The centrepiece of our approach is the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which received royal assent last March. As part of the significant overhaul of our justice system, the act provided greater support for victims of crime. Victims are entitled to be kept better informed about the behaviour and management of offenders. An act of violence can touch many people. That is why the Safe Streets and Communities Act expanded the definition of a registered victim. This definition now includes the guardians and caregivers of dependents of victims who are deceased, ill or otherwise incapacitated.

Our government has tilted the justice system back to where it should be. Through our steady approach, we are strengthening legislation, protecting the rights of victims, tackling crime and ensuring justice is fair and efficient.

Private member's Bill C-479 would complement our drive toward making the justice system work better for victims of offenders. It proposes changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would complement the Safe Streets and Communities Act by: modifying parole and detention of review dates; facilitate victims observing hearings; and expanding the rights of victims to have access to information about the offender.

As we have heard, our government will seek to move minor amendments should the bill be referred to a committee for study.

I believe private member's Bill C-479 is important legislation that would support the rights of victims. I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting the bill before us today.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-479, introduced by the member opposite. The NDP stands behind initiatives that promote fairness for victims of crime, as well as their families and their communities, which are often collateral victims.

We will study this bill at length in committee to ensure that it meets their needs.

This bill amends Part II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill C-479 seems to respond to some of the recommendations that the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made in 2010.

In her report, the ombudsman suggests that we adopt some of the principles set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Declaration of Principle in the YCJA states that:

3(1)(d)(ii) victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a result of their involvement with the youth criminal justice system,

(iii) victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard,

The ombudsman found that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act must reflect the same principles. It remains to be seen, during our study in committee, whether Bill C-479 makes this law consistent with these principles in an effective and balanced manner.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act was enacted in 1992. It was the first federal statute governing corrections and conditional release that officially recognized the victims. Bill C-479 seems to respond to two things the ombudsman considered.

I would like to address the first aspect of the question. In her report, the ombudsman pointed out that victims do not automatically receive information on offenders during the release process. In order to access that information, victims have to figure out for themselves how to get the information and how to register with the National Parole Board. Just imagine how very difficult it must be for a victim who has been severely traumatized to navigate through this red tape.

The ombudsman indicated that the registered victim-to-offender ratio is still quite low. There are over 20,000 offenders currently in federal custody, approximately 70% of which are serving sentences for violent crimes. Yet just over 6,000 victims are registered to receive information on fewer than 4,000 offenders.

It is impossible to determine whether the victims who are not registered chose not to be or whether they were simply unaware of their rights. Representatives from the parole system and the ombudsman think one of the primary obstacles of getting victims to sign up is that there is a lack of information.

The National Parole Board should take the initiative to give them this information and should automatically communicate with victims to inform them of their right to receive information. The proposed amendment in Bill C-479 would make it mandatory to provide transcripts of a parole review hearing to victims and members of their family and the offenders, and to provide victims with the information under consideration by the board during the offender's review.

I would like to talk about the second important aspect. In her report, the ombudsman pointed out that we must take the concerns of victims into account during decisions pertaining to the release and supervision of an offender.

Many victims have expressed concerns about an offender being released on parole when they live in the area. In some cases, this fear prevents victims from asking for information because they fear reprisals should the offender become aware that the victim is interested in the case.

Furthermore, according to the ombudsman, victims want to know that the information they provide will be considered. In light of that, Bill C-479 is designed to make it easier for victims or their family members to attend parole review hearings and for their statements to be taken into consideration in decisions regarding the offender's release.

The amendment to the act would also ensure that victims are informed if an offender is to be released on temporary absence, parole or statutory release.

Bill C-479 would also allow for 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.

We are sensitive to victims' concerns. We will examine Bill C-479 carefully to ensure that it addresses the demands made by the ombudsman for victims of crime.

However, we have some concerns. First, we want to ensure that the bill does not in any way violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Can my colleague opposite confirm that he has done his homework and that he has verified that Bill C-479 complies with the charter and the Constitution?

Second, Bill C-479 should have been a government bill. I wonder why the Conservatives are using a private member's bill to push the government's agenda, which has always been focused on victims' rights.

Why did the Minister of Justice not introduce Bill C-479 himself? Why did the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale take up this cause?

Third, private members' bills must assess and cost the changes they propose. They must assess the impact on the provinces and territories, especially with respect to parole boards. They must also provide proper compensation, if required.

Did my colleague opposite consult the provinces when drafting this bill? Can he tell what the bill will cost? Which level of government will pay these additional costs?

In closing, if our concerns are addressed in committee, and if there is clear proof that the bill respects the victim and judicial independence, I will be pleased to throw my full support behind this bill.

For that reason, we support the bill at second reading and its referral to committee for more in-depth study.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to rise and speak in support of private member's Bill C-479, which was brought forward by my colleague, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

I want to thank and commend my colleague for his strong commitment to placing the needs, rights and interests of victims ahead of criminals and for introducing this bill that would further strengthen victims' rights in this country. The bill includes measures that are in keeping with our government's strong commitment to support victims of crime and ensure that they have a strong voice in the justice system.

While we have made some very good progress over the past seven years to meet these commitments, we know that more work needs to be done. That is why the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada recently outlined the next phase of the Government of Canada's plan for safe streets and communities.

Through this plan, our government will take further action in the following areas:

We will tackle crime by holding offenders accountable for their actions. This includes bringing forward legislation to further toughen penalties for child sexual offences and to better understand the risks posed by known child sex offenders.

As well, we have introduced Bill C-54, not criminally responsible reform act, which would better protect the public from accused persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Such legislation would ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in these cases.

We also moved ahead with further measures to enhance the rights of victims by introducing legislation to implement a victims' bill of rights. This legislation would serve to further enhance the government's commitment to victims of crime by entrenching their rights into law at the federal level.

I want to again thank my colleague, because he mentioned this important piece. It is one thing to talk about victims' rights, but they need to be enshrined in federal law. My colleague's bill will move forward on this as will what our government is doing to support victims of crime.

Finally, we will increase the efficiency of our justice system by looking at measures to make our justice system more efficient through the “Economics of Policing” study.

Members may recall that the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale introduced a similar bill in 2011. He has been very committed to this cause and continues to be.

Since 2011, we have passed into law the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which included these important measures to enhance the participation of victims in the justice system and to increase offender accountability. As such, Bill C-479 proposes some important changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, also known as the CCRA.

I will now look at how Bill C-479 would amend the CCRA. First, private member's Bill C-479 proposes to extend mandatory review periods for parole. For example, if a violent 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. Again, we have heard today the impact that would have on victims. Rather than having to come back every two years and relive the horror and tragedy of what they or their families went through, the bill would extend that period to five years.

The bill also proposes to hold detention reviews every two years rather than annually. Again, this considers the rights and interests of victims and what they go through when they are unfortunately re-victimized every time they have to go through this. This would not only affect offenders who are not ready to be released into the community at their statutory release date, at two-thirds of the sentence, but would also put victims' interests into the equation.

The second set of changes to the CCRA proposed in Bill C-479 relates to the attendance of victims and members of their families at parole review hearings.

There is no magic formula for healing from the traumatic experience of violent crime. There is no single set of counselling, time or things that can happen after one is victimized. There is no magic formula that can fix the pain and tragedy victims have gone through. Each victim, each family member, is affected differently and will cope in a unique way. With this in mind, Bill C-479 proposes to give more weight to the needs of victims in the justice system.

Specifically, Bill C-479 proposes that if victims are denied the opportunity to observe the hearings in person, they could follow the hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed, again another way that the government and the Parole Board could show victims that their voices matter. Currently, there can be distance and time and it can be very difficult for victims to attend hearings, yet they want to see it or be a part of it. This bill would give them the opportunity to follow hearings by teleconference or one-way closed-circuit feed.

The bill would provide useful tools. However, we need to strike a balance between theory and practice. Therefore, there are some minor amendments to make it easier to implement this and we expect amendments would be required for this part of the bill.

Currently, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act gives victims the right to certain basic information about offenders and criminals. At the same time, it gives the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada discretion to provide additional information if the interests of the victims clearly outweigh the privacy concerns for the offenders.

Bill C-479 proposes to expand the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals in order for information to be shared about offenders. Specifically, it would make the release of certain information mandatory rather than discretionary. This information would include the date, if any, when an offender would be released on either unescorted or escorted temporary absences. As well, a victim would be informed of any of the conditions attached to an offender's unescorted temporary absence, parole or statutory release and the reasons for any unescorted temporary absences. In addition, a victim would be informed of the destination of an offender when released on unescorted temporary absence or parole or statutory release. Again, one would assume this has already taken place, but it has not, and those are some of the provisions that the bill would provide.

Obviously, it is important for victims to have all this information well in advance of an offender's temporary release. Bill C-479 proposes that the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada discloses this information at least 14 days before an offender is released. The bill would further provide victims with information about offenders' correctional plans, including progress toward meeting their objectives and providing transcripts of parole hearings, if they are produced. Should the bill be referred to committee, we would again seek to move certain amendments to ensure that any necessary public safety safeguards would be in place for the sharing of this information.

Again, I would like to commend my colleague for his strong commitment to victims and for introducing this bill to further strengthen the rights of victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-479 bring greater fairness to the justice system for victims. This is in keeping with our government's commitments and I am proud to indicate that we will be supporting this important legislation.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a rule we must analyze legislation such as Bill C-479 through the prism of the important overriding objective of ensuring the long-term public safety of Canadian society, and that means being smart about crime. We must also measure such legislation against the criterion of whether it harms or helps victims or, if neutral, whether more could be done to support victims.

It is worth mentioning, and it has been mentioned before in the debate today, that private members' bills do not obtain charter scrutiny as do bills that originate in the Department of Justice; although doubts have recently been planted that even government bills may not be benefiting from rigorous vetting through the prism of adherence to charter principles.

Liberals support sending Bill C-479 to committee precisely to better understand how it meets the above criteria.

Bill C-479 would make changes to specific aspects of the conditional release system in Canada. However, first it might be wise to briefly enumerate the kinds of conditional release available in this country. They are escorted and unescorted temporary absences, day parole, full parole and statutory release with supervision.

The bill deals more specifically with full parole for violent offenders, namely, for crimes cited under schedule 1 of the Criminal Code. In Canada, once an offender has served one-third of his or her sentence or seven years, whichever is less, he or she becomes eligible to apply for parole. Generally the offender's parole request is considered at a parole hearing before the Parole Board of Canada.

The bill, as I understand it, would not change the modalities and rules governing the initial parole request but rather the consequences that flow from being denied parole, which itself is seen as an indicator that the offender has not made progress toward rehabilitation.

Currently, as I understand the system, an offender, even after being denied parole, can reapply for parole on an annual basis. However, the Parole Board is not obliged upon review of the case to grant the hearing for as long as two years after the initial parole refusal.

The goal of the bill is to spare victims and their families the nightmare of attending repeated parole hearings. It is no secret that there are offenders who definitely are not on the road to rehabilitation but who wish to trigger repeated parole hearings for no other reason than to torment victims. I believe it is at these types of offenders that the bill is aimed.

Offenders serving time for schedule 1 offences, the most serious and often violent offences, whose parole is refused because they are not progressing under their rehabilitation plan would no longer automatically be eligible for a hearing two years after their initial parole refusal, as at present; rather, under the bill, the Parole Board of Canada would be permitted to deny a hearing for as long as five years after the offender was initially denied parole, even if he or she applied annually.

The bill attempts to clarify and reinforce victims' rights in other ways. I understand the member has developed the bill as a result of attending a parole hearing for an offender who was serving a sentence for multiple murders. This must have been a life-changing experience for the member, and there are no doubt elements of the bill rooted in the wisdom gained from that experience.

Bill C-479 would codify a number of existing practices that assist victims in various ways. Bill C-479 adds a declaration that every effort must be made to allow victims or victims' families to attend parole hearings. Currently the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does not contain a provision dealing with attendance by victims; they have to apply. However, I should mention that they are rarely, if ever, refused attendance at a hearing, as far as I understand.

Bill C-479 would also allow victims or their families to view a hearing via a one-way closed circuit connection, should they not be permitted to attend or they would prefer viewing from a distance where they would not need to be in the same room as the offender. Currently in a parole hearing victims may present a statement describing the harm done to them or loss suffered by them as a result of the offence, although this is not a right in law, as I understand it.

If they are not in attendance, the statement may be presented by way of audiotape or videotape, accompanied by a written copy of the statement. The bill seeks to entrench the consideration of victim impact statements in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The bill would also allow the victim impact statement to be submitted in writing only, rather than the current prescribed formats of videotape or audiotape accompanied by a written statement.

The bill would also give victims the legislated right to access certain information about the offender. As I understand it, victims would be able to register to receive information automatically. Certain on-request information would be automatically provided if the bill is passed, such as the conditions attached to the conditional release. Also, the information that victims could request would include information relating to the offender's treatment plan and progress toward the plan's objective.

Finally, it would be mandatory for the victim or family to be notified at least 14 days in advance of their offender receiving any form of conditional release, as well as being informed of the offender's destination upon release.

This bill appears to have many positive aspects, and I look forward, as do my other colleagues no doubt, to examining the bill in committee and also to examining the way the parole system works. It is very complicated, complex and technical. This would be an opportunity to better understand that system and to understand how it could be made fairer for victims. It looks like this bill would go a long way toward that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for introducing Bill C-479, which the NDP will support at second reading. I must admit that we will support it without much reservation.

Not only does the bill talk about helping victims, but, in practical terms, it will achieve the desired effect. Sometimes in the House, we hear grand speeches, great oratorical rhetoric from the government benches. It gives the public the impression that the government is doing something, when in fact it is not. It does a little bit here and there, but does not necessarily achieve what we are looking for.

That cannot be said about this bill. Of course, we have to take a good look at it, because I rarely write a blank cheque, especially not when it comes to the Conservative government's bills. I would like for us to study the bills in committee, go over them in greater detail, and ensure that we come back to the House at third reading with bills that make sense.

We think it is safe to say that the bill is legal and consistent with the charter and the Constitution. Regardless of the political side of the matter, it achieves the desired effect and even if it does not achieve the desired political effect, it makes sense.

The bill finally truly addresses the issue of victims. Anyone who has practised law and who has been inside Canada's courthouses from coast to coast has noticed some very specific things, above and beyond the money that the justice system costs and the financial burden that many victims face.

According to the government, Bill C-37, with regard to the surcharge, will solve almost all of victims' financial problems. However, when we dig a little deeper, we realize that, once again, this is only a drop in the bucket when it comes to what victims need. What do victims tell us on a regular basis? What does the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime tell us? What recommendations did she make at the time?

In her 2010 report, among others, she recommended that the federal government shift the burden of responsibility to provide information to victims under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act from victims to the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board.

The member opposite's bill addresses part of that recommendation. It responds to the recommendation to give victims the right to attend National Parole Board hearings through the use of available technologies such as video conferencing.

It also responds to the recommendation to take into account the needs of victims when it comes to the timing, frequency and scheduling of parole hearings. However, these are not the only things that the ombudsman asked the federal government to do.

The Minister of Justice is on a tour of Canada to try to talk to victims. I thought that he had done this quite awhile ago and that he had a good idea of victims' needs. I can give him some suggestions that could be included in a possible charter.

Clearly, this type of bill could set out fundamental principles that show the respect that Canadians and the Government of Canada have for victims' needs, including during court cases and trials.

The problems are not limited to parole. They are sometimes related to the trials themselves, which can often seem to go on forever. We can implement all the measures we like under Bill C-479, Bill C-489 or any other bill, but if we do not resolve the problems related to accessing justice and awaiting trial, then victims will remain victims for a long time yet.

Not only are they victimized during sentencing and at parole hearings, for instance, but they are also victimized in the very process of reaching a verdict. This is a fundamental problem.

Often they are not even fully aware of what is going on. Sentences are negotiated between Crown attorneys and defence lawyers. Victims—who may have been summoned three, four, five or even 10 times during some exceptionally long trials—could find themselves back at square one. On top of that, they are told they have to appear before the parole board, which also takes time, and they are asked to stand in front of the person who victimized them. Thus, they are victimized all over again.

With government bills, whether they come from the back benches, the government itself or the Senate, a piecemeal approach is often taken, when a comprehensive approach is required. It always breaks my heart a little, because I have so much respect for our justice system. I also have a very hard time seeing how the public perceives its judicial system. Yes, it definitely has some flaws, but we are trying to correct them. Basically, every time we correct just one little thing, we open up a new Pandora's box and create imbalances. That is the problem.

In the context of Bill C-479, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask my colleague to clarify these changes, like the one to revisit parole reviews for offenders serving a sentence of less than two years.

We need to keep in mind that these are vile offences, as he said. When it comes to violent offences, some victims and their families may prefer not to attend parole hearings. Some victims, for example rape victims, should not be called to appear at all, not even through videoconference. Some of them need to completely close themselves off from that part of their lives. We need to be very respectful of that, while giving those who want to speak the opportunity to do so, since that is what some people need. They want to face their aggressor. For them, it is a way to get over the events of their past.

There is so much we can do to support victims if we really want to and if we go beyond talking. I believe that words revictimize these people, because words seem to promise solutions to their problems. In the end, however, five or 10 years later, they will realize that nothing has changed.

As for the surcharges suggested in the bill, they are peanuts. They will only add a few tens of millions of dollars to our coffers. Let us look at the numbers. I did not come up with them; Senator Boisvenu did. He enjoys showing up everywhere to remind us of these numbers, and rightly so.

In 2003 alone, crime cost $70 billion. Victims assumed 70% of the cost of crime, or $47 billion.

Professor Irvin Waller appeared before the committee when we were studying Bill C-37, which the government bragged about at length as the solution, the way to do the right thing for victims. The government set aside about $16 million in the budget for victims.

Professor Waller said that it did not mean much. The government should work with the provinces and fund a study on the remaining gaps between services and needs. All these things have been recommended. All the government has to do is decide to act.

I think victims deserve a little more respect from their government. The government should move from words to action. It should do more than just pretend and hold press conferences for the fun of it. We need to try to find lasting solutions that get to the heart of the issue of justice system accessibility, first and foremost. We need to ensure that trials take place much more quickly than they are now.

Some provinces, including Alberta, think the answer is more judges. Let us make that happen. We need to, if we believe in a system of justice, law and order that works and that respects victims.

I thank my colleague opposite for his bill. The NDP will study it carefully in committee, and we will be proud to support it at second reading.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for introducing Bill C-479. This bill seems to address many of the recommendations made by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

The hon. member touched on the analysis he had done of his bill before introducing it. When it comes to private members' bills, more so than with government bills, I am always a bit concerned when they are introduced that they may not be consistent with the charter. Mind you, we should also be concerned about the bills introduced by the government, considering its approach to things.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate on the type of research he conducted or the analyses he had done of his bill, specifically with regard to the provision on the cancellation of a parole review hearing if an offender has repeatedly refused to attend previous hearings.

Did he really determine whether this was consistent with the charter, to see if there is a problem on that level? Is the hon. member reasonably sure about that?

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be standing here to speak to important amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that I proposed in Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders.

I would first like to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Senator Boisvenu for their public show of support this week for this legislation. I appreciate their commitment and I am encouraged by their ongoing leadership to help bring about the fairness we are seeking for victims.

Strengthening the voice of victims of violent crimes and the proposed increased time between parole hearings are two aspects of this bill that act on the changes that victims, their families and advocates like the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime have urged for many years. It is time to bring these to fruition.

Let us be clear. We are talking about instances of violent crime. I do not think words can ever adequately describe the repulsiveness of these crimes. They are heinous, are often calculated and always senseless.

It is an honour for me to be speaking to this bill today. I do so on behalf of my constituents and, tragically, thousands of Canadians like them, as well as the sacred memory of their loved ones. From the time I was elected in 2006, I have had many constituents share their concerns about the imbalance between the victims and the perpetrators in our justice system. However, my dedication to pursue this kind of legislation was galvanized when my constituents asked me to attend a Parole Board hearing with them in 2010. They wanted their federal representative to see first-hand what the process was like and the voice given to the victims, primarily through the victim impact statement.

When I agreed to attend, I knew it would be an emotional experience. I was hoping it would also be an educational experience. It was for sure. However, I do not think I could ever have begun to prepare myself for the raw emotion in that room that day. As long as I live, I will never forget it. Before even uttering a word, my constituent started to weep. The memories of a crime committed over 30 years previously came flooding back and the tears were endless. It was a grisly triple murder: her sister, niece and nephew had been brutally murdered by her sister's husband. After killing his wife, this violent criminal suffocated his two young children, a six-year old and a five-year old. The murderer meticulously concealed the bodies in the waterways of Hamilton, Ontario.

My constituent wrote her first victim impact statement on the eve of the funeral. Over the years, she and her family insisted on attending the Parole Board hearings to ensure the voice of victims was heard. They felt an incredible burden, a duty as a family. It was the least they could do to honour the victims: their sister, their daughter, their grandchildren, their niece, their nephew.

What struck me like a ton of bricks was the re-victimization of having to deliver the statement over and over, year after year. It was so cruel, so frustrating and so unnecessary. I watched the family endure the same process again in 2011. Again, the triple murderer was denied parole.

This experience inspired Bill C-479. I set about talking to victims, advocates, law enforcement officials, lawyers and others to ask what could be done.

Beyond the whole issue of re-victimization, I discovered that provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that may have made sense in the 1970s no longer reflected modern technology and the respect and dignity our system ought to afford victims.

From the work my office and I have done in preparation for the introduction of this bill, and the experts we have consulted, this bill has a sound legal and constitutional foundation. I believe it will have broad support as well.

In tabling Bill C-479 in February, I proposed nine changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. They include: extend mandatory review periods for parole whereby if a violent offender is denied parole, the Parole Board of Canada would have to review the case within five years, rather than the current two years; increase the period to within five years in which the Parole Board of Canada must review parole following the cancellation or termination of parole; emphasize that the Parole Board of Canada must take into consideration the victims and the needs of the victim's family to attend hearings and witness the proceedings; and, require that the Parole Board of Canada consider any victim impact statement presented by victims.

One would think that this is already the case, that it is a bit of a no-brainer. However, the bill is necessary to enshrine in law the victim's voice.

Other straightforward changes proposed in Bill C-479 to protect and support victims include requiring the Parole Board of Canada to provide the victim, if requested, with information about the offender's release on parole, statutory release or temporary absence, and to provide victims with information about their offender's correctional plan, including progress toward meeting its objectives.

This is one of the things that Constable Michael Sweet's family, after 30 years of silence, requested.

I would like to remind members of Michael Sweet's story so that they can understand the family's depth of feeling with regard to these changes.

In the early morning hours of March 14, 1980, brothers Craig and Jamie Munro entered what was then George's Bourbon St. Bistro in downtown Toronto for the purpose of committing a robbery.

Both men were high on drugs and armed with guns. At the time, Craig Munro was on mandatory supervision from a penitentiary sentence for a previous gun-related offence.

The brothers gathered all of the people inside into one place. However, one of the victims managed to successfully flee. Once out on the street, he flagged down a passing police cruiser.

Constable Sweet—who, by the way, is no relation to me—who was 30 at the time, entered the restaurant and was immediately shot twice.

Then began a 90-minute standoff between the Munro brothers, with their hostages, and police.

The police later stormed the restaurant, and both brothers were shot and captured.

During the standoff, Sweet was conscious and slowly bleeding to death. He begged his captors to let him go to the hospital. He had three young daughters and he wanted to be with them at home. While Sweet pleaded for his life, they laughed and taunted him.

All three men were transported to the hospital after the police broke in. Craig and Jamie made full recoveries; Sweet died a few hours later.

I should note that many of the changes I am proposing in Bill C-479 have been enacted by our Commonwealth colleagues, such as Australia, New Zealand and the U.K.

I believe one of the fundamental responsibilities of the state is to keep our citizens safe. Violent offenders have committed unspeakable crimes. Families have suffered losses that are forever.

I hope these changes will help bring a measure of comfort to my constituents and thousands of other Canadian families who have been victimized in this way, people who have had their loved ones taken during the prime of their lives and who have lived with that pain day after day. The last thing they need is another gut-wrenching re-victimization through a parole system.

In closing, please allow me to read a few public comments from people impacted directly by violent crime.

Quoted in The Toronto Star is what a victim had to say about extending the review period:

Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice. We are asking the federal government to increase the time to five years, for a parole review instead of two years.

She also said:

We're asking the federal government to increase the time to five years [for a parole review], instead of two years.

Writing about Clifford Olson, a journalist in the Vancouver Province noted a few years ago:

Olson, 70, who seems to take pleasure revictimizing the families of those he killed, is automatically eligible for parole every two years until the day he dies.

A victim in a Toronto murder case commented that as difficult as it was to write the victim impact statement, it was also frustrating that she was required to submit the statement 30 days in advance so that the convicted murderer could read it, because the victims are not allowed to see the murderer's material in advance to find out what he wants to say.

Finally, an editorial on March 2, 2012, in my own hometown newspaper, the Hamilton Spectator, stated:

But the PBC has a responsibility to victims of crime. For those victims, the parole board is virtually the only source of information about the status of the person who committed the crime against them. Some local victims of crime don't feel well-served by the board. That must change.

Bill C-479 would give the Parole Board of Canada the tools it needs to do just that.

I look forward to the discussion with all members of this House on Bill C-479, this act to bring fairness for victims of violent offenders.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

We already voted on it. It's just that I'm still uncomfortable. I don't want to revisit the vote—it has been done. It's just when you say C-479, I think the following.

In French, you said: “It isn't quite null and void.” That isn't very strong. If I had to revise my vote, I might vote differently. It's simply that I am concerned when I hear that one bill can amend another. In this case, we should wait to have voted on one of the bills before examining the other.

It is said that the House can do both things at the same time. Adopting or not adopting one bill has pretty significant effects on the other. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that we should have set the other one aside.

I don't know if I am being clear.

[Michel Bédard]

The next bill is C-479. It will make amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act respecting parole review hearings.

This bill is not outside federal jurisdiction, it does not clearly violate the Constitution, and there is no similar bill on the order paper.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims).

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I table An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders. I am happy because the bill will bring comfort to thousands of victims for many years to come. What is weighing on my heart are powerful observations and emotions from my experiences attending National Parole Board hearings at the request of a constituent whose sister, niece and nephew were brutally murdered by a violent offender.

From this first-hand experience and others come a number of solutions in this private member's bill to enshrine the voice of victims in law and modernize the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that victims do not have to relive their pain each year.

I ask for the support of all hon. members to bring these changes about.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)