Evidence of meeting #44 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was life.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Thérèse McCuaig  As an Individual
Ed Teague  As an Individual
Sobaz Benjamin  Program Director, In My Own Voice
Marshall Williams  Member, In My Own Voice
Kevin Brooks  Member, In My Own Voice
Kenny Loy  Member, In My Own Voice
Rebecca Moore  Member, In My Own Voice

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 44 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, October 28, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. We have a number of matters to deal with. First of all, we have further witnesses to hear in our review of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, in dealing with the faint hope clause. After hearing our witnesses on Bill C-36, we'll move to a second panel. This panel is made up of witnesses who were unable to appear in Halifax for our ongoing study on organized crime in Canada. This panel you will see by video conference, and it will come in the second half of this meeting.

I believe we are waiting for one witness in our first panel, but we have with us Ms. Thérèse McCuaig. Ms. McCuaig, I think you understand that you have ten minutes to present, and if Mr. Teague shows up, he'll have another ten minutes. Then we will open the floor to questions from our members.

Please proceed.

3:35 p.m.

Thérèse McCuaig As an Individual

I was hoping Mr. Teague would be here first to break the ice for me, but unfortunately he has not arrived.

My name is Theresa McCuaig. I am the grandmother of Sylvain Leduc. I'm sure some of you will remember Sylvain's horrible death that was committed in 1995 by the Ace Crew Gang in Ottawa.

I'll briefly touch on Sylvain's death so you may understand the cruelty and the despicable crimes that are imposed on victims. You can tell me at the end if these guys deserve the right to apply for section 745 next year.

Fourteen years ago this week we buried Sylvain. Sylvain was at home with his little cousins watching a movie. One of the little cousins belonged to a gang. She had moved to Sylvain's home to escape from them because she was tired of being beaten up, dominated, used for sex, the drug trade, etc. She had run away to my daughter's home, Sylvain's home, to hide from them. They found her.

We don't know how Sylvain was involved in all of this. We never did get the truth. When they discovered where she was living and hiding, they came for her. Unfortunately, Sylvain's parents were not at home that night. He was babysitting. He was 17.

Three of them stormed the house. Excuse me, first of all they called the house. Sylvain answered and they asked to speak to the female they were looking for. She took the phone, they made threats, and she went outside to talk to them. She foolishly left the door open. As I said, we don't know the reason.

The gang barged into the home and took everyone who was there. The four teens were put in the cargo area of a Jimmy van. They were beaten up. They were told they were going to get beaten so badly that people in Ottawa would be afraid to walk the streets. They were beaten over their heads and shoulders with gun butts. Sylvain cried and asked what was going on. They beat him for speaking. He didn't know what was going on, why they were after her, etc., but somehow he got taken along.

They confined them by pulling the cover off the back part of the cargo van and locking them in there. There were no doors, and they could not escape. Somebody cruelly kept loading and unloading a gun over their heads. When they arrived at a high-rise at the end of town, they marched them out one by one with jackets over their head and a gun in their face. They brought them into a third-floor apartment in that high-rise one by one. As they entered, other gang members grabbed them, tied their hands behind their back, tied their feet, tied a wire around their neck, and blindfolded them.

Sylvain was dragged to the master bedroom along with his little cousin, my little niece. My other little niece was placed in a large closet where garbage bags had been taped all over the walls and floors to put their dead bodies in. The other boy--Sylvain's friend--was placed in the bathroom. There were four youths.

Eleven gang members and associates were in that apartment at the time. Many of them systematically beat Sylvain. Sometimes there were two of them and sometimes there were three. While they were doing that, others took a red-hot curling iron, burnt my little niece on the back of her shoulders and the back of her knees, turned her around, stripped her pants off, and raped her with this red-hot curling iron.

Sylvain died hearing her screams, smelling her burnt flesh, and he defecated when they stomped on his chest. That is the way my grandson died.

Once Sylvain died, they said, “Get garbage bags to put their dead bodies into and bring the other guy out”. Can you imagine the victims who were still alive hearing this? They dragged Sylvain's friend into the master bedroom and began kicking him in the head, and thank the Lord a neighbour had called the police. The police arrived in time to save the other three children, but Sylvain died at the scene.

This was horrible, cruel, premeditated--first-degree murder, premeditation, the taking of a human life in cold blood. It could not have been any more premeditated. While they were in the car on the way to the apartment with the victims, they called to say, “Put curtains in the windows so people don't see us when we beat them. Put garbage bags in the closets. Turn off the lights in the bedroom so we can really spook them.” That is premeditation of the highest degree, ladies and gentlemen.

The people who committed these crimes had committed crimes before. They had a history of committing violent crimes, one of them way back to age 13. Of these 11 offenders, five were young offenders. They went to court, were found guilty, served their 18, 24, and 30 months.

I'm here to tell you they've all reoffended again, and one of them has even been declared a long-term offender, but that's not what we're discussing today.

The leader that night was John Richardson. He was a 26-year-old smart-aleck punk who liked to beat up on people--extortion, beating up prostitutes, you name it. He never worked, never had a job. He lived off drug money, prostitution money, and extortion money. He was feared. He called himself the devil. That was his street name, and the people he hurt so bad moved out of town because they feared him so much, and they never bothered writing victim impact statements to the court or parole boards.

At age 21, I believe, he had five serious charges against him for beating up on people--violent, violent charges. He made a deal with the crown, of course. He was sentenced to 30 months. The judge said he would have loved to have given him five years, but the deal was made because the victims were too scared to come forward.

He was sent to a medium-security prison. He was unmanageable, disrespectful to the staff, cruel to the other inmates, suspected of trafficking drugs while in jail. He would not take responsibility for his crime. He had applied for parole after serving one-third of his sentence and he was denied parole, because they felt he was too dangerous to be set free. The parole board said if he were released before he finished his entire sentence, they believed he would commit murder.

They sent him from the medium- to the maximum-security jail because he was so unmanageable, and then from there to what they call special confinement--I guess you call that the hole.

Magically, somehow someone paroled him. The Corrections Canada people did not follow the process of what they call “gating”, so the parole board could interview him properly, so he was let go. He was let go on his own words, and sure enough, their prediction came true. Forty days later, he's killing our children.

On the night these crimes were committed, when the police arrived, of course, the entire group ran from the building. John Richardson ran to Winnipeg, and there police arrested him when he was on his way to rob a bank with a bunch of little teenaged gang members. He was trying to become the leader of that gang. No remorse. He told some of them in Winnipeg, “I had to leave Ottawa because I did somebody there”. Yes, he sure did.

Eventually they all went to trial, and the evidence was overwhelming. They did not have enough decency to plead guilty. The taxpayers paid for the legal aid. They took us to a trial that lasted, God, about a year and a half. The three accused were on trial at the same time. A year and a half, we went to court. They knew they would be found guilty.

They laughed their way through the entire court process in our faces and knew damn well that they would be found guilty. It was just to waste their time. It gave them something to do. It kept them in Ottawa, at our expense, of course. They were eventually found guilty and sentenced to life. They appealed. They had the gall to appeal. The court of appeal turned them down. Well, they went to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court would not hear their claim.

Can anyone tell me why people like that should have the right to ask for section 745—early parole? How can that be? I do not believe these people can be rehabilitated, okay? A few decades ago we went from hanging killers and then to a life sentence, which meant real life, and then that was dropped down to 25 years. Now we are sitting at 15. How can we possibly justify that to my daughter, my family, and those little girls' family? That little girl was in the hospital for three months getting those burns cured.

Sylvain's friend is mentally unstable. He is so afraid. In their minds, they think these people are gone for 25 years. I don't dare tell them about section 745 yet. They are still scared to walk the streets. When they find out that these guys just might be approved for 745, what do I tell them? They're petrified. The little girls are petrified. One has been under psychiatric care since that day. We're talking 14 years down the road, here.

How is it that these people get a second chance at life? Sylvain does not. Our whole entire family has been traumatized and still lives through this pain, and it will forever go on. Next year, if they are successful, all three of them will apply for 745. If they are successful, our family is determined to go to court and read our victim impact statement and to be there. God help us if they all go on in the same week.

I don't know if you know, but a month ago we went to a parole hearing for that young offender, who has now been declared a long-term offender. That was a very difficult thing for us to do. It screwed me up mentally for two weeks. It took me two weeks to get back, because you relive that crime. It's very difficult. If these people apply for section 745 and are refused, they are now allowed to do this every two years. We're going to go through this living hell every two years until 25 years comes along.

If someone who is doing life escapes from jail, or is released on 745, goes out and commits murder again, they go to trial again—wasting our time and taxpayers' money—are found guilty again, and return to jail. But did you know that that new sentence runs concurrent with the old one and that they will only serve the remaining ten years? So the second victim is a freebie. This is not right, people. This is not right. Ce n'est pas bon, ça.

They're saying that the 745 clause was created to give a prisoner hope: you be a good guy for 15 years and there's a faint hope we'll let you go.

Myself, I think the motive for that was to save money: “Let's save ten years of incarceration fees and let's make it sound good”. We'll call it the faint hope clause and encourage a prisoner to be good, keep our guards safer--I honestly don't believe that. I think it was a money issue myself, you know, because it absolutely makes no sense.

Did you know that if you kill one, two, three people, it's okay? You can apply under section 745 if you kill them all on the same day, of course. If you're a serial killer and you kill one here, one there, one there, one there, you may not apply.

Very recently, a father, a son, and a common-law wife placed two beautiful little young girls, teenagers, in a car, along with an ex-wife, pushed the car into a canal, and drowned them all. That is first degree murder, premeditated, with malice aforethought. Three lives.

They will be coming up to court soon, and I'm sure they will be found guilty, because the evidence is pretty good. And these people will be allowed, ladies and gentlemen, to apply under section 745 in 15 years. Is that justice for victims? Does that make sense to you? I find it is a cruel thing for families to have to live through.

Our story is pretty horrible, but there are worse. There are worse. I know there are worse. How do you justify it to a family living with this pain for the rest of their life while the killer gets a second chance?

You know, your statistics aren't that good. I was reading them lately. Many of them returned, like about two-thirds. And as I say, whatever crime they committed while they were out runs concurrently, so who cares? They have nothing to lose, right?

If you want to be sympathetic.... I'm not a vengeful, mean old lady, but do you know what? If I had the choice, my sympathies would lie with prisoners who are dying in jail, who are very, very ill, who we know are too ill to commit any more crimes. I would give them parole.

There is a process in our justice system that allows people to ask for a pardon, and that's reserved for the odd few prisoners who really sincerely are remorseful and want to change their life around. They may apply for a pardon. I say eliminate section 745 and let everybody follow that route.

I'll leave you with that.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you so much, Ms. McCuaig. I thank you for your resolve and your courage in sharing your experience with us.

Because the other witness isn't quite here yet, we'll start some of the questions. I'll move on to Mr. Murphy for seven minutes.

3:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Thérèse McCuaig

I speak French. I can address the members in French.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. McCuaig.

I come from Moncton, on the east coast of Canada. I am following the case of the Davis family.

The Davis family, of Moncton, underwent a similar circumstance. Their 17-year-old daughter, 15 years ago or more, was killed on St. George St. in Moncton, not far from where my uncle lived. It was a brutal, premeditated murder. The convicted person has shown no remorse, no tendency toward rehabilitation, and has been putting the family through a recurring nightmare of recounting the incident and giving evidence at successive National Parole Board hearings. It's horrible. The revisiting of the crime for the family is something that is very hard on them, and from your testimony, I know that it is very hard on your family. It's why I have to ask these questions as we go toward this faint hope disappearance act.

Do you think that the sentence given in this case was too light? Do you think that life should mean life imprisonment in this case? With respect to this Mr. Richardson--and I know in the case of the Davis family, Mr. Mailloux--I fear for when these people eventually get out at the end of their sentences. They've shown no motivation toward rehabilitation. They are, the day they get out, a danger to society. Yet our long-term offender and dangerous offender provisions don't kick in automatically. It's almost as if these people have to get out and do something, and then we....

There seems to be a bit of a gap for a number--a small number, I think, but a number--of very serious offenders. I wonder what contribution you can give us, what evidence you might give us, to guide us in some of the other sections of the code to prevent what I think are obvious crimes. There are going to be obvious crimes committed, serious ones, by these very unrehabilitatable offenders. Can you give us any advice in that regard?

3:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Thérèse McCuaig

You know, the best thing I can think about now is Mrs. Albina Guarnieri's bill. It's a wonderful bill, I think. It would solve our problem, I think.

It allows a judge, depending on the cruelty of the crime and so on, to say to the prisoner, “I am sentencing you to life in prison, but you may not ask for parole for 30, 35, 40 years.” Each case is different, right? Some are more cruel than others. The judge would have the leeway to say, “You've committed unforgiveable crimes. I don't think you can be rehabilitated, and you're not able to ask for parole for 35 years,” or 30 years, or whatever. I think that would help.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

I want to thank you for your testimony. I know that it must be very difficult.

That's all I have. I don't know if Ms. Jennings wants to take up the rest of my time.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Go ahead, Ms. Jennings.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

I would just like to thank you for sharing your experience with us. It's clearly tragic, and I'm sure that the hearts of everyone sitting in this room go out to you and your family members.

I truly hope that the three young victims whose lives were saved by the police have been able to put their lives together and go forward in a positive way. Clearly, their lives will be scarred for life, but I hope they've been able to still move forward in a positive way.

My sympathies and my heart go out to you and your family.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

Before we go to our next witnesses, I think we'll hear from Mr. Teague.

Mr. Teague, you have ten minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions to both of you.

Please, go ahead.

4 p.m.

Ed Teague As an Individual

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members of this committee, I had a statement prepared, but on Sunday I had a chance to listen to a prisoner that had been rehabilitated, and he was one of the worst of the worst. He had committed murder in prison. He's spent the majority of his life in prison. He had helped rehabilitate a prisoner who is now a member of the Saskatchewan legislature. It's kind of thrown me in a bit of a quandary about what I should be stating to you.

Do I believe that people should pay for their crimes? Most certainly, and I think the more serious the crime, the more serious the time should be, but I believe that we have to temper anything that we do with a certain amount of compassion, not only to the person who's committed the crime, but I think we have to realistically look a little more towards the victims of the crime as well.

When I talk about compassion, I don't believe in the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty because we're now finding out how many times in our justice system we have made mistakes. People have gone to prison for crimes they didn't commit. Can you imagine if somebody had been executed for a crime they didn't commit? So that is off the table as far as I'm concerned.

I believe that if you commit a heinous murder--and to me any murder is heinous--if you take a life deliberately, knowing what you were doing, I believe that you forfeit your freedom, not just for 25 years and not for 30 years. My feeling is, if you took a life, it's now time for you to forfeit yours in society.

I know that puts an economic burden on our system, but as a victim, having an 18-year-old daughter murdered, what would her life have been like? That young man is only going to be 49 when he sees the street again. There's still time to be productive, if he chooses to be productive. In my case, I don't think he will be, but that's a personal opinion.

If we are going to insist, though, that we release murderers after, say, 25 years, somewhere in the system there has to be a proper rehabilitation program, a rehabilitation program that prepares them for society when they come out. Far too often, people go into prison and are forgotten. They are simply left in there like caged animals.

Yes, they say there are education programs, but how many of them are really guided towards that education program? Better yet, how many of them are guided to the program put on by the guy that's teaching them, first of all, how to break into a house better, how to crack a safe better, how to stage a better bank holdup, how to get away with a murder?

So there are lots of education systems going on in our prisons, and those things we have to address as part of the justice world. It's not just the penalty, but what are we going to do to rehabilitate them once they're in there? There's where the compassion comes in for the criminal.

When I think of the young man who murdered my daughter, I looked into his eyes for hours while we went through the process, and I didn't see a spark of compassion for us or for anything that he'd done. He was just stone cold. I know that we're going to have those people in the system, and those people belong in the system and they need to be kept in the system.

Clifford Olson comes to mind, a prime example of a man whose own lawyer said, “If you let him out, within two hours he will recommit.” That's just one member that comes to mind. So we have to be very careful.

We need to have justice and compassion, but we need to keep an eye on these people. We have to know who is in danger of recommitting and who is not.

That's for the more serious crimes, but we have numerous lesser crimes that take place. A man walks into a bank with a gun. He holds up a bank and takes the bank's money. Nobody's injured. He probably gets anywhere from 10 to 15 years in prison. Somebody dressed as well as you gentlemen sits down and creates a little Ponzi scheme, takes millions of dollars from thousands and thousands of people, and we give him four years. Who committed the worst crime?

I'm not an expert, gentlemen. That's for you. My Bible says to pray for those who are in government and those who lead us, so I do. I hope that whatever your beliefs are, you'll look at this bill and realize that serious time has to be paid for serious crime, but by all means with compassion.

Thank you.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We'll move now to Monsieur Ménard for seven minutes.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

This is the most moving testimony we have heard. We have before us two aspects of what it is to be a victim.

Rest assured that I would never be party to the decision to release people who have committed murders in the past, without being reasonably certain—we can never be absolutely certain—that they would not reoffend, for purely economic reasons. I don't think the people had done that before.

I sometimes find it hard to count the zeros, but there are currently 4,000 prisoners serving life sentences in Canada. That represents an expenditure of $400 million, since it costs $100,000 per prisoner. That is an average. The cost is probably higher for people who are in prison longer. I don't think that in a country like ours that is a significant expense; we can certainly handle it.

The concerns of the people who made the rules in the sections you mentioned, including section 745.6, were not about saving money. All of them, like us and even people who are non-believers today, shared a personal philosophy inspired by a religion that preaches forgiveness and believes it is possible that a person can change.

However, I absolutely agree with you: the onus must be very heavy in cases where there has been a murder. Your testimony has given me a lot to think about. My first reaction is: I don't see why we would give people who have been convicted of murder a chance, because murder is the worst of all crimes, it is cold-blooded, premeditated killing, it is committed by a person who is not insane, who was not prompted by some mental illness.

Initially, I thought as Mr. Teague does. Because I was against the death penalty for reasons dating from when I was more religious than I am today—that is a philosophy I have retained—and also because of the possibility that mistakes can be made. I am going to think about it again.

Ms. McCuaig, I do not understand how the people who committed that crime could be released on parole, if only because of the nature of their crime and the way they committed it. I see nothing inhumane about keeping those people in a prison for life, even when they are rehabilitated. And if they are truly rehabilitated, let them continue working to rehabilitate other prisoners. If they are rehabilitated after committing such heinous crimes, let them prove their rehabilitation and hope for nothing from the proof of their rehabilitation other than, if they believe, that they will have earned forgiveness in the next life for the heinous crimes they committed.

I do realize, however, that the number of people who have made applications under these clauses is relatively small. I am told there are 4,000 people in prisons at present. Over the years, only 265 people have tried to make an application solely for that pardon. Of them, only 53% have been allowed to make the application.

So 47% never got to that level. Only 127 applications were allowed. We agree, probably unanimously again, that things should be made even more difficult. For example, there was a time when only a majority of the jury had to be in favour. Today, it must be unanimous. Those people must first satisfy a judge that they may make an application. They must then convene a jury, which must be unanimously in favour, and go before the National Parole Board.

I admit that I cannot imagine granting parole in cases like the ones you have described to us. If there truly is forgiveness, they will have to get it in the next life. I think they should spend the rest of their lives in prison, doing something to make reparation for what they did.

In any case! I am still too emotional to say what I will do. Rest assured, however, that I am in fact going to examine the reasons why those who went before us created this. I think there are two types of reasons. First, so that a person does not despair, they have to be given a reason to want to try to rehabilitate themselves, to the point that they want to do something that would repair the harm they have caused.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Mr. Ménard

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Yes, I will conclude with one last thing.

Second ... That's it. Fine, thank you.

I want you to know that you have my deepest sympathy. Rest assured that I mean “sympathy”, which comes from the Greek for “suffer with”, in the full sense of the word.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Comartin.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Let me echo that last sentiment of expressing our condolences. We do struggle here with these issues. Obviously, Mr. Teague, your most recent experience has put you through a somewhat similar process.

Ms. McCuaig, I want to ask you about the process. You said, “What am I going to tell my family? I haven't told them yet.” One of the things I would like you to tell them, because it's information that's come up before the committee, is that with some exceptions on the U.S. side, we still keep our convicted murderers in custody longer than any other country in the world. The average person who has been sentenced to life without possibility of parole for 25 years—even taking into account those cases in which they can apply after 15 years under the faint hope clause—in fact stays in our prisons for 28 and a half years on average. I would like you to tell that to your grandchildren, because that should give them some solace.

I think the other thing I'd like you to tell them is that it is rare for anybody to get out at the 15-year mark. I think I've only identified a few cases so far. The norm for those who get out are usually at around the 21-year or 22-year period, and only 15% of all of the murder cases—in fact, it's a little bit less than 15%—get out before 25 years. For the rest of them, it's 28 and a half years on average.

I want to assure you as well, speaking for all parties here, the dollar figures.... I guess I want to say to you that you're wrong on that one point. It's not a consideration, not when it comes to murder. It's not a consideration at all. I agree, Mr. Teague, with your point that we actually need to be spending more money on that around rehabilitation.

Let me finish with one question. The system is built on the principle that this won't happen without a jury of 12 people deciding unanimously that somebody will not get out early. They have to make that final decision. It's not a judge. It's a jury who makes that decision. I'm asking both of you whether that gives you any sense of confidence that the system will work, so that somebody like Richardson, if in fact there has been no rehabilitation—and Ms. McCuaig, you have every reason to believe that there hasn't been any, given what you've described—that 12 members of the Canadian public, people like yourselves, would guarantee that that would not happen. Does that give you any sense of confidence?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Thérèse McCuaig

It does, but unfortunately the parole board has the last word.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

No, you're wrong on that, Ms. McCuaig. It doesn't get to the parole board until they give permission.

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Thérèse McCuaig

Yes. The jury might say, “Okay,”--

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

“You can apply for parole”.

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Thérèse McCuaig

“—you can apply in two years if the parole board is in agreement”. We have to rely on the same parole board, the same system that had previously released John Richardson. For me, it's very difficult to trust these people.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Are you saying that the jury may pass the buck to the parole board? Is that what you're concerned about?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Thérèse McCuaig

That's the way I think it's done. I do believe that's how it's done.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

There's no question that the jury has to make the decision first. They have to say yes to this individual.