Bill C-587 (Historical)

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between twenty-five and forty years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

[Suzanne Brisebois, Director General, Policy and Operations, Parole Board of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm here today to speak to how Bill C-587, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, would affect the Parole Board of Canada.

As you're likely aware, the Parole Board of Canada is an independent administrative tribunal responsible for making decisions on the conditional release of offenders. The board's conditional release decisions are made in accordance with specific criteria set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or the CCRA. Decisions are based on a thorough review and careful assessment of the risk an offender may pose to the public if released under supervision in the community. In every decision the paramount consideration is public safety.

As you're aware, the proposed Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-587 would serve to mandate a minimum parole eligibility period of 25 years for anyone convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder against the same victim; it would also grant the sentencing judge the discretion to extend the parole ineligibility period beyond the 25 years, up to a maximum of 40 years for these cases.

The board is not involved in setting the eligibility periods for offenders. Parole eligibility is determined through the courts and legislation, namely the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. With respect to the impact for the board, the proposed amendments would serve to extend the parole eligibility date, meaning the board would conduct a parole review at a later period of time.

Offenders convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder against the same victim, serving sentences with a parole eligibility date of at least 25 years, would remain eligible to apply for escorted temporary absences during their sentences. Additionally, these offenders would also remain eligible to apply for both unescorted temporary absences and day parole three years prior to their full parole eligibility date. The process is the same for all offenders serving life sentences.

This concludes my opening remarks, but I'd be pleased to take any questions pertaining to the board's operations. Thank you.

[Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

As you know, I'm here before you to provide what information you may require of the Correctional Service of Canada with regard to Bill C-587, an act that seeks to amend the Criminal Code to allow for increased parole ineligibility for certain offences.

As you are aware, the Correctional Service of Canada, which I'll refer to as CSC for the sake of brevity, is the federal government agency responsible for administering sentences of a term of two years or more as imposed by the courts. CSC offers a variety of programs for offenders within the institution and those on parole in the community to assist them to successfully reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.

Bill C-587 would specifically affect offenders sentenced to a life sentence upon being “convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events”.

While a life sentence does not necessarily mean life imprisonment, it does mean that the sentence continues for the rest of the offender's life. If the offender is released on parole, the parole period never ends during the offender's life. The offender must still follow the terms and conditions of release imposed by the Parole Board of Canada and can be sent back to prison if those conditions are breached.

Currently, offenders serving life sentences are eligible for day parole three years prior to their full parole eligibility date. Offenders serving life sentences for first-degree murder are eligible to apply for full parole after serving 25 years.

The courts set eligibility dates between 10 and 25 years for offenders serving life sentences for second-degree murder. Some further exceptions exist if the offender was under the age of 18 at the time the murder was committed. Offenders who are declared “dangerous offenders” and who receive an indeterminate sentence are normally first eligible for parole at seven years, with a review every two years thereafter.

As you know, this bill seeks to grant judges the discretion to increase the maximum parole ineligibility period for offenders who have been “convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events” from 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years.

With regard to the specific offences on which this bill seeks to focus, a more in-depth study would have to be conducted to determine the exact number of offenders whose index offence includes all of the above and thus would correspond to the criteria as described in this piece of legislation.

As of yet, the long-term impact of this bill on CSC's management of offenders is difficult to determine. The two main areas where we see potential change are in the long-term accommodation of these offenders and in the management of their correctional programming to prepare them for the possibility of eventual release.

In the first instance, CSC continues to implement a number of measures, including building new living units and ensuring full use of available beds in order to ensure its facilities provide a correctional environment that is safe, secure, and conducive to both inmate rehabilitation, and ultimately, public safety.

The second area of interest is in regard to correctional programming for offenders. Correctional programs contribute to public safety results by making offenders accountable for their behaviour, changing pro-criminal attitudes and beliefs, and teaching skills that can be used to monitor and manage problematic behaviour.

CSC offers a broad range of correctional programs to offenders in institutions and the community, including programs designed to target general crime, general violence, family violence, substance abuse, and sexual offending.

CSC provides correctional programs of differing intensity levels within each of the principal program areas. Research demonstrates that matching program intensity to the level of risk enhances program effectiveness. Moreover, research indicates that the higher the offender's risk and need, the more intense the program needs to be in order to be effective and reduce reoffending. Higher intensity programs are longer than moderate intensity programs in duration and generally provide offenders with more skills and opportunities for skill rehearsal.

Despite clear and compelling evidence that correctional programs are, overall, associated with considerable reductions in reoffending, for offenders serving longer sentences, the proximity of parole eligibility dates is one of the factors considered by my staff when assigning offenders to programs.

As a result, offenders serving these longer periods tend to begin their correctional program later in their sentence, so that the programs retain a stronger effect closer to release.

As the proposed legislation would lengthen the incarceration period for some offenders, it's possible that it can reduce incentives to rehabilitation and good behaviour, potentially compromising institutional security as well as the safety of my staff and other inmates.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee and offer whatever help I can with regard to CSC's work in promoting public safety, and fulfilling our mandate to administer offenders' sentences and to assist them to successfully reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.

I welcome any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 65. We're meeting pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 24, 2014, on Bill C-587, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility.

Today's witnesses for the first hour are Mr. Head, commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada; and Ms. Suzanne Brisebois, director general of policy and operations, Parole Board of Canada.

With that, Mr. Head, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Committee members, for your information, I would like to remind you that on the Monday we get back—obviously the break week is next week—we're going to be back to Bill C-587. We have witnesses for the first hour, and clause-by-clause study—there are only four clauses—for the second hour.

The next one was scheduled for C-590. My suggestion, which I think we'll follow, is that we'll continue to deal with C-583 at that meeting. If we're approved to travel, we'll be travelling the next week and having two meetings. Otherwise, after the break week, if we're not travelling from the 16th to the 18th of that week, we will have two more meetings at least on this subject. So we'll bump C-590 until after we've done this study. There is no use having three things going on at one time, in my view.

With that, I do need witnesses. Whether they're witnesses we're going to see in the Yukon or here, we need witnesses from all parties.

Thank you very much.

With that, we're adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, it looks as if we have everybody here, which is great.

We are the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 64. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 26, we are dealing with the subject matter of Bill C-583, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

With us we have Ryan Leef, the MP for Yukon. It is his private member's bill that has been referred us in terms of the subject matter, so we're going to have an opening statement from him and then we'll do rounds of questions.

Prior to our doing that, we have two pieces of business to deal with.

There are two budgets on the table, ladies and gentlemen. The first one deals with Bill C-587, which is $5,700. That has to do with the committee dealing with the bill on increasing parole ineligibility.

May I have a motion for $5,700?

[Lyne Casavant, Committee Researcher]

It's a very, very difficult question. We looked at the database and the media resources and tried to find people that met the criteria of Bill C-587, and we were able to find five cases where all the criteria were there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

So it looks like we might not go anywhere. At any rate, it's an option.

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Dechert. I'm sure you're packing.

Let's get back to the issues of the day.

Today we are dealing with the order of reference of Wednesday, September 24. We're dealing with Bill C-587.

For our second pane, we welcome Mr. Krongold, a director with the Criminal Lawyers' Association, and by video conference from Vancouver, British Columbia, we have Mr. Paterson, executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Mr. Paterson, can you hear us okay?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, President, Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children]

Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as well as Mr. Mayes and Susan Ashley.

I wish to thank the committee for inviting our organization, Victims of Violence, to present our views on Bill C-587, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

As president of Victims of Violence, I will be speaking in support of this bill.

The enactment of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a victim in respect of the same event or series of events will be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury. We support this bill for a number of reasons.

Today we are talking about the threat posed by violent, dangerous criminals. We are talking about the worst of the worst offenders. We are talking about a classification of criminal who could essentially never be released, who goes out hunting for human beings, many of them children, as their prey to commit the most egregious acts upon them. We are talking about a classification of criminal who creates havoc within our respectful justice system. By that I mean that the Canadian public has consistently expressed concerns on this classification of criminal who impacts directly on their confidence in our criminal justice system.

We also support this bill from the lens of a victim's family who also received a life sentence. The judicial branch of government should always be neutral, but neutrality does not mean that one side is forgotten. The prevailing notion that a crime is against the state fails to recognize the victim.

On a personal note, it was not the state who was abducted, raped, and murdered; it was my child. It was my son. As his mom, I will always be there to represent him.

There is no mythical closure for us, at 25 years or even at 40 years; however, this bill will help in our not having to attend parole hearings every two years, which once again opens old wounds and scars that never heal, even though we try to move forward and build a new life after the violent murder of our loved one.

The degree of trauma the victim's family suffers depends on the nature of the crime and the extent to which he or she can tolerate post-traumatic stress.

We support this bill because it includes three crimes. Currently this classification of criminal is sentenced for one crime, that of first degree murder, and many victims feel the abduction and sexual assault are thrown in as freebies. This bill will rectify that issue.

We support this bill because, although we have a dangerous offender designation for a certain classification of offenders, in the case of murder, with a life sentence, the dangerous offender designation is rarely used even when the offender is found guilty of particular grievous offences.

In closing, the public rightfully expects and trusts that governments will do everything in their power to protect our children, our families, our communities, and that is what this bill is about. That is why our organization, Victims of Violence, supports it.

Thank you.

[Susan Ashley, As an Individual]

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you today. I'm here with a very difficult but important task of representing my family.

My mother and father were made to endure every parent's worst nightmare. In 1978 Donald Armstrong abducted, raped and murdered 16-year-old Linda Bright, my sister.

Linda was at the Frontenac Mall when she disappeared. Her body was found on a rural road the next day. There were binding marks around her wrists and a deep red ring around her neck where a ligature had been squeezed. She had been dumped on the side of the road like garbage.

Armstrong was convicted of the vicious rape and murder of Linda. At trial a leading psychiatrist described him as a dangerous psychopath. Armstrong's own mother testified that his anti-social behaviour began at the age of five and never stopped. As a youth he set fire to his family home and on another occasion stabbed his sister. Armstrong's mother described him as impulsive, with no feelings of remorse or guilt, and with an extreme anti-social personality.

In 1973 he kidnapped a woman in Halifax where he held a knife to her two-month-old baby and threatened to kill the child. Armstrong was also charged with the 1977 murder of Glenna Fox. Ms. Fox was stabbed repeatedly in the chest with a chisel in the parking lot of a shopping mall. At the time he was out of prison on a temporary pass.

Armstrong was charged with the abduction, kidnapping, and forceable confinement of a 31-year-old woman in Winnipeg in 1977. He held a screwdriver to her face and tied her wrists. Fortunately she escaped with her life.

Also in 1977, Armstrong stabbed a woman named Rita Bayer with a screwdriver as she sat in her car in a parking lot. He was convicted of attempted murder.

So, like other notorious killers, you now know Donald Armstrong.

Our family began attending parole hearings in 1997 when we attended Armstrong's section 745 faint hope clause hearing. The initial shock was unimaginable. We were told at the time of conviction we would never see him again. Fifteen years later preparing for our first hearing, we felt very much betrayed. We have been called upon since 2007 to prepare ourselves for other parole hearings. Every two years I receive a notification of hearing. Fortunately for us, Armstrong has continuously postponed hearing after hearing. We did not have to continually attend hearings; however, the emotional preparation in itself year after year is very painful.

Having a loved one taken in such a horrific manner causes a lifetime of reoccurring grief and emotional devastation. Having to relive such pain over and over and deal with the fear of the possibility of his release and physically facing him in person is simply cruel and terrifying This pain and fear runs so deep it is unimaginable to those who have not experienced it. Allow us to keep this pain tucked away deep for it never heals; it is just managed. It is extremely emotionally and physically exhausting.

My parents are aging. They can no longer bear the turmoil that these hearings create. Sharing a victim impact statement revealing your raw pain and memories is unimaginable.

To spare my parents' suffering, I take the responsibility to speak on behalf of my family. This in turn creates guilt for my parents as the burden is now mine. I am 51 years old. Armstrong is 59 years old. Can you imagine how many years, how many hearings, how many court appearances there will be and will amount to be? When I can no longer do this, then I will suffer the guilt of having to say “no more”.

Bill C-587 will not affect my family. We will continue to be called upon for hearing after hearing with many delays in between. We have nothing to gain.

I speak to you today to hopefully save other families from having to endure the cruelty of reliving their horror and continued re-victimization. And I urge you to pass Bill C-587. This bill is intended for the notorious criminals who commit the most horrific crimes, the monsters. This bill is for those who should never be allowed to have access to the people of this country. Most important, this bill is for the poor family members of the victims who will fall prey to these predators.

These hearings cause nothing less than a lifetime of victimization. There is hearing after hearing.

Had this bill existed in 1982, my family would have been spared so much unnecessary pain. We would have been able to maintain the faith we originally had in the courts and lived for many more years without having such a burden to bear. You cannot make any changes that will help my family, but you can protect many future families from so much unnecessary suffering.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-587. I also thank you for securing a time extension so that this bill could receive review by your committee.

This bill is a continuation of Bill C-478 which was previously introduced by Mr. Bezan in the first session of this 41st Parliament. Although Mr. Bezan's bill was read twice in the House and referred to this committee, it was withdrawn after Mr. Bezan was appointed to the role of parliamentary secretary, a position that precludes him from carrying a private member's bill forward.

I also thank the witnesses who are joining us today, particularly Sharon Rosenfeldt and Susan Ashley who have lost loved ones to unspeakable actions perpetrated by violent offenders. Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley represent more than themselves, their families, and the loved ones who were taken from them. They represent the community of Canadians that spans our nation, the community of Canadians whose lives have been changed forever by violent offenders.

Despite the tragic losses experienced by Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley, they have found the strength and courage to advocate on behalf of those whose lives were stolen away and also the thousands of Canadians who face the challenges of moving on with life after experiencing trauma which the majority of Canadians thankfully have never experienced.

As members of Parliament I believe it is our duty to demonstrate solidarity with this particular community of Canadians and support their advocacy with our own work in legislating towards a society that values victims' rights. As members of Parliament it is our duty to identify and address points of our legal regimen that require improvement. Specifically to this bill, I believe we must not only examine but reform the state of existing laws governing the removal from society and long-term incarceration of violent offenders who have abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered victims.

This bill is modelled on Bill C-48, which was passed in 2011, which allows judges to set consecutive rather than concurrent periods of parole ineligibility in sentencing those convicted of multiple murders. This bill would empower judges and juries to give stronger sentences.

In the same way that Bill C-48 now allows judges to acknowledge additional degrees of blameworthiness on an offence when a conviction of multiple murders has been established, this bill seeks to provide judges the ability to extend the period of parole ineligibility to likewise acknowledge accompanying offences of abduction and sexual assault.

All parties worked together and passed Bill C-48 and it is my hope that this bill will likewise benefit from input and support from all sides.

As members of the committee are likely aware, section 745 of the Criminal Code provides for life imprisonment for convicted murderers, subject to varying periods during which they are ineligible for parole. For first degree murder the minimum ineligibility period is 25 years. For second degree murder it varies from 10 to 25 years.

While all convicted murderers are morally blameworthy, first and second degree murders are distinguished from each other by the higher degree of moral blameworthiness associated with the first degree murder that justifies the current mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

While some may believe that the current thresholds for parole represent an appropriate period of incarceration for a violent offender who abducted, raped, and murdered their victim, many Canadians consider this to be insufficient in instances of extreme violence and murder. As we all know, perhaps none more than our witnesses, the investigation and prosecution of cases involving multiple offences such as abduction, sexual assault, and murder combined can take years. The time that it takes to arrive at a conviction and then sentencing for a violent offender is excruciating for survivors, family, and loved ones. Regardless, as painful as it is, it is essential to a sound carriage of justice.

This bill seeks to provide greater certainty, and therein relief, for the families and loved ones in that once sentencing is completed, the sentencing judge would be given the judicial discretion to waive parole ineligibility for a period of 25 to 40 years, again at the discretion of the judge. If parole is to be considered for violent offenders who abduct, sexually assault, and then murder their victims, it should not occur before at least 25 years have been served.

The toll a parole hearing takes on the family members and loved ones of a victim is excruciating as they await the hearing date, when the violent offender who took their loved one presents his or her case. Why should the offender be awarded parole while family members and loved ones need to mobilize to keep the violent offender behind bars? This amounts to a system where Canadians who have already suffered tragic loss and endured years of judicial proceedings are subjected to a system that requires continued mobilization and pressure to keep violent offenders behind bars.

This bill would add three new provisions to the Criminal Code, mandating a 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period for anyone convicted of an offence under each of the following offence categories in respect of one victim: number one, a kidnapping or abduction offence, sections 279 to 283; number two, a sexual offence, sections 151 to 153.1 and sections 271 to 273; and number three, murder. The bill would also provide a judge with the discretionary prerogative to replace that 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years, based on the character of the offender, the nature of the circumstances of the murder, and any jury recommendation in this regard.

Mr. Chair, I would like to respond to inputs made by members of opposition parties in the House during the second reading debate on May 30, 2014.

During second reading debate, the question was raised as to whether or not this bill complies with the provisions of the Charter of Rights. This is an important question, and I appreciated it. I sought and received an opinion from the Library of Parliament's legal affairs and national security section. The bill seeks to provide a sentencing judge the discretion to increase the period of parole ineligibility and as such uphold the principle of a judicial discretion which provides a safeguard of the Charter of Rights. I believe this is an important strength of the bill, expanding the discretionary prerogatives of the judge with a broader range of judicial discretion rather than imposing on whole charter provisions automatic periods of ineligibility beyond 25.

Second reading debate also raised a question of the amendments proposed to the bill that would interact with the Rome Statute. It is important to note that article 5 of the Rome Statute establishes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the following four offences: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

Therefore, the Rome Statute does not directly apply to Bill C-587 for the following two reasons. First, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code, which is under the jurisdiction of Canadian courts. The Rome Statute only applies to proceedings of the International Criminal Court. Second, the four offences in article 5 of the Rome Statute are not included in this bill.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would again thank you and the members of committee for reviewing my private member's bill.

I also thank the witnesses here today who have come to provide their perspectives, experiences, and pleas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Today, we have Mr. Colin Mayes, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap. I'll have to go there some day.

Also, as an individual, we have Susan Ashley. By video conference all the way from Phoenix, Arizona, we have Sharon Rosenfeldt, president of the Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children.

We're going to let Mr. Mayes set off the discussion of the bill that he is sponsoring, Bill C-587. The floor is yours, Colin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 63 and according to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 24, 2014, we're dealing today with Bill C-587, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

We have the sponsor of the bill with us today and just before we get started and I introduce the rest of the guests, I'll let committee members know what has happened thus far.

Jean-François and I, but mostly Jean-François, worked on getting the witnesses set up for today and for Wednesday. Two sets of witnesses could not appear either today or on Wednesday. I don't know whose witnesses they were, but it doesn't really matter, as we thought it was important to have them for this bill, so I made the executive decision to move them to the Monday when we get back after the break week next week. They will be coming on the Monday. In that Monday meeting we will deal with the witnesses in the first hour, and clause-by-clause study of the few clauses that are in this bill in the second hour.

That leaves us open on Wednesday and at this particular moment there's nothing on the schedule. We've cancelled the meeting for Wednesday, but I'm open to any discussion of what we could do on Wednesday, if you want to proceed. It's a little tight to have witnesses, to be honest with you, but otherwise....

Mr. Dechert.

Justice and Human Rights

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-587.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility). The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, request a 30-day extension to consider it.

In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation of Bill C-590, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content). The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, requests a 30-day extension to be considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

While we're waiting for our guests, I have reports 13 and 14. One is to ask the House under Standing Order 97.1 for a 30-day extension for Bill C-590, which is number 14, and Bill C-587, number 13. Could somebody move that for me?