Justice Committee on Oct. 28th, 2009

[Thérèse McCuaig]

“Yes, you may apply to the parole board”. The parole board has the last word, you see. I have to trust the same people who let him go before. He committed murder, as they had predicted. It's difficult for me to do that.

You know, I've been told by prison officials, people who work there.... I talk to these people, many kinds of people, about crime issues all the time. I was kind of amused one day when a lady who has great knowledge told me, “Oh, you know, they could be in there for 13 years and then all of a sudden, because section 745 time is coming up, they find God. They become model prisoners in the last two years.”

They become model prisoners—new, changed, remorseful, etc., all the right words. They take all the right courses and so on. Then, of course, when it comes to the trial, it looks good on their record, doesn't it? All the last two years, how well they've turned their lives around. Is it really true, or is it a ploy to receive permission to ask the parole board to be released? Then, of course, the parole board has the final word.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Teague, do you want say anything on this point?

[Ed Teague]

If you don't mind, I'll just wait until you finish talking.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Okay, let me just add one more point about this. Again, I want you to be able to pass this information on. The 15% that I used, that's the number of those who apply. So about 85% of them never even apply. Okay?

Whether you will ever have to be put through this.... Again, you have solid reason to believe and fear that you will be put through this, because of the history of what happened with the appeal and the attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Again, I just wanted to pass that additional bit of information on. That's all I have to say.

I don't know if Mr. Teague wants to say anything in response to my question.

[Ed Teague]

I understand totally where Thérèse is coming from. We're friends from way back; we share some history.

Twelve people are being asked to state whether somebody should be brought up for parole before the parole board.

If you have a manipulator, which a lot of these incarcerated gentlemen are—they're expert manipulators—they can manipulate 12 people. It's nothing to them. They're already doing it in prison. They have their networks in prison they're manipulating. So if you have 12 people off the street who aren't given all of the facts and the evidence from the case—and I'm not saying this doesn't happen—they can be manipulated to come up and say, “Let's pass this to the parole board”.

I don't want to create any bad feelings here, but parole boards are appointed people. They're not necessarily qualified people; they're appointed people.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's part of the problem with the system.

[Ed Teague]

I'm not going to go there, but they are appointed people. How knowledgeable are they?

[An hon. member]

They're not.

[Ed Teague]

Thank you very much. You've answered my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to the next questioner, Mr. Norlock, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much for coming today.

We're here discussing an issue about your having to relive what you went through as families, and here we are making you go through it again, and we're talking about having you go through it another time. So I thank you for that. I give you my condolences.

Having been a policeman for 30 years, I can tell you that we never get over how victims feel, because we're intimate with the investigation. Every member of Parliament, I believe—all 308 members of Parliament—would express the same feeling of condolence and remorse to you about your having to go through that, because we share that feeling.

We also have different philosophies on how to deal with the people who commit these crimes. As a member of the public safety and national security committee, and now the justice and human rights committee, I'm going to ask that when you have the time, you go through some of the things we have been doing over the last couple of years and what we're doing now. I say this because in the public safety committee, we're looking at Canada's prison system. We're going to be travelling and looking at that, some of which has to do with this.

What I'm going to say is to take a look at some of the witnesses who are coming here and what they say. Some of the members here will give you statistics. The Department of Justice gave us statistics—and you heard them—that in Canada we keep murderers in jail longer than other places do. I would say that it's probably not as long as some places. The countries studied, of course, are western countries like New Zealand and Australia, the countries that share our same type of society and judicial system. But some of the other countries in the world don't keep their murderers very long, because they kill them.

As a police officer up until a few years ago—around the time I had this job and realized I'd have some tremendous moral obligations I'd have to research and would have to look at my own value systems—I used to believe in the death penalty. But without using certain words and going down another path, I would say that I've changed since then. I used to believe in the death penalty and that anybody who did believe in that had better be ready to pull that lever or push that injector. But now I believe in the sanctity of life from its very beginning to its very end, and therefore I now do not believe in the death penalty.

But what I want to say to you, and I want to do this very tenderly, before I go through some of the other things, is to look at the kinds of witnesses we see before our committee. They outnumber you greatly, and every single one of them believes that we're already too tough on the people we're sending to jail, whether they be from the John Howard Society or the pantheon of criminologists and sociologists, the very experts who some people here believe should be on those panels of 12 people deciding the fate of those prisoners. I guarantee that if they're on those panels, the applicants, the very people you feared, will get out sooner. I would much rather be judged—and that's what our system of justice is built on—by my own peers, the mothers, the grandmothers, the grandfathers, the uncles, the aunts, the mothers and fathers who actually live in the society I live in, not by someone who's cloistered. I'm not demeaning the sociologists or criminologists, please understand. I believe they have a place in our system. But when it comes to judging your fellow man, no one is better suited for that task than your equals—not those who are superior in any way, shape, or form.

So when we talk about qualified people, I believe the average person out there, the people like you, are better qualified to decide that, because they live in the same world you live in. They'll go through the same things you do, day in and day out.

Madam McCuaig, you asked why people like that ask for early parole. It's because we give them the opportunity to. That's number one.

You say you're still afraid to walk the streets and that you're going through psychiatric care. As a police officer, I will use the example of someone I know of who abused three of his four daughters for years, and I'm ashamed to say he was a police officer. But pedophilia and those types of things cross every line, from the very highest in society to the very lowest. The judicial system gave him six years of jail and six years of probation, and the judge said he was being tough on him. I know what their families are going through. Mothers are afraid. His daughters are afraid to allow their husbands to take their children to bed because they think the same thing is happening to them. So they're going through that psychologically.

He was given six years. Somebody said that in the United States they'd give him 60 years. Well, I'm not saying 60 years is right, but I know six years is not right.

You also said these are cruel things to have to live through, and I apologize for that, but we need to hear from you. We need to hear from more people like you to bring our feet to the ground instead of always looking at the numbers and everything else. You are just a statistic if we only use statistics to figure out what to do with our judicial system. That's all you are, and you're the minority--and the people who perpetrated the crime against your nephew, and against your daughter, well, they're the small statistic, and if they're still small, well, we shouldn't count them as much as we should count the majority.

You know, we have white-collar crime. Mr. Teague, you asked who committed the worst crime. That's what we're struggling with in this Parliament, because we are looking at that and deciding as a government what to do. But I'd say, who committed the biggest crime is the person who's carrying the gun or the knife. Our society says that when you pick up a gun or a knife to make somebody do something they don't otherwise want to do or should do, that's more serious than just cheating them. The cheat should go to jail, but the guy with the gun or knife goes to jail for a longer time, because the consequences of not handing over the money might be your life, and that's a terrible thing to do.

I think, Mrs. McCuaig, you said, in terms of conviction for more murders, it was a “freebie”. Today our justice minister announced some more legislation. He doesn't call it a freebie, but he refers to it as a “volume discount”. These words are unfortunate when we deal with people who have gone through some of the things you've gone through, but you know, it's all about grabbing that headline in the press.

Mrs. McCuaig, I did follow the trial evolving, as closely as I could, and I would just like you to comment on some of the things I've said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Norlock, unfortunately we won't have time for comments. You're well over your time already.

We're going to do another round.

Monsieur Lemay, one short question.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Obviously I have listened very carefully to what you said. This is probably the only time I will agree with Mr. Norlock—we have to keep our feet on the ground.

When we meet with witnesses like you, it makes us think. If we do oppose this bill, it is because we believe that a person is entitled to have one last chance. I told the minister that when he appeared before this committee.

I was a criminal lawyer for 30 years, so I have in fact defended people who are in prison today, who committed crimes. And I agree with you completely, Ms. McCuaig: some people should never get out of prison. They are my former clients. I know some. But I also know some who are entitled to a chance. We have to give a person a chance to rehabilitate themselves, even if they have committed a heinous crime.

When I listened to you, it reminded me of the case of two individuals who brutally killed two young Indian girls in my region. Even when they came before the National Parole Board, 20 years later, it was felt that they were not ready to be released.

We think that everyone must be given a chance. I have expressed my disagreement to the minister, and on this I agree with you, about making victims' families and spouses relive the facts every five years. In my opinion, parole must be earned and prepared for.

I somewhat agree with Mr. Teague on this subject as well. If someone wants to try to pull a fast one on us, if you will forgive me for putting it that way, wants to try to hide things from us, there is an important role... Generally, these individuals deal with lawyers for their appearance before the National Parole Board. We have a role to play. The law societies must inform their members that they have an important role to play in this regard. And it is not just a question of money; it is not to free up space in the prisons.

In the Bloc Québécois, we think that there is still room for rehabilitation. I could give you examples. Of the 127 people who have been released on parole, in 2009 that is, 13 have been returned to prison, and not because they committed other murders, because, in this case, we are not talking about murders.

I do not want to go on at further length on this subject. But I do want you to know that I would like to hear testimony like yours more often, because it makes us think and it urges us to be more careful. But I am still very reluctant, and I say this sincerely, because I think it sincerely, to close the last door, because it is the last chance. I am also reluctant to allow individuals to keep coming back to request parole. On that, I agree with you. For first-degree murder, an individual should have only one chance before 25 years, between 15 and 25 years, to make an application. If they lose the case, it's over. They will have to serve the 25 years of their sentence. So they will have to prepare properly and not try to tell lies or talk about this or that thing.

I do not want to go on at further length on this subject, but rest assured that we have heard your message clearly and that it fell on sympathetic ears.

Thank you very much for travelling to be here today.

In closing, Mr. Teague, I want you to know that I have also met someone in the past who was a lawyer, and who killed his colleague so he could collect on his insurance policy. He had never admitted at the time that he had intentionally killed his colleague on a hunting trip. It took him 22 years to admit it. Today, he is on parole and he tours detention centres to talk to inmates, exactly as you heard last weekend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll have one last question.

Mr. Moore, you have five minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being here today. We've had a lot of discussion around the table, but not too much that is specific to the bill itself, as far as questioning goes. I really do appreciate the testimony both of you have brought on this bill. I'll echo what Mr. Norlock said. It's so important to hear from the actual victims or the actual families of victims when we're making these deliberations.

You raised a couple of times, Ms. McCuaig, individuals serving their sentences concurrently and how that's unfair and gives someone a freebie, I think you said. This is timely, because today the Minister of Justice has introduced legislation that would allow judges to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on individuals who are convicted of more than one first- or second-degree murder. What that would mean is that if someone were convicted of two first-degree murders, they could have 25 years and then another 25 years of parole ineligibility, not concurrently but consecutively.

In Canada there are 457 individuals who are multiple murderers. They've been convicted of multiple murders, and 26% of them, or one in four, have been granted parole. These are individuals who have been convicted either of first- or second-degree murder, of multiple murders against fellow Canadians.

It's timely that you're here. Can I get your comments on that initiative?

[Thérèse McCuaig]

Would they have been paroled after serving 25 years?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Twenty-six percent of them have been granted parole, either through the faint hope clause or after having served their 25 years. This new initiative would mean that after serving one parole ineligibility period there would be one that follows it as well.

[Thérèse McCuaig]

I sometimes go to colleges and speak to students who are learning law, criminology, and stuff like this, and you know, they often come up to me and say, “Life is 15 years, eh?” They really believe, these educated children, that life is 15 years. What kind of message are we sending out there?

When I was a little girl—I remember that I was about ten years old—my mother was reading the newspaper, and she said that Mr. so-and-so was being hanged tomorrow. We were 12 children at home. We all gathered around the kitchen table and said, “Oh my God, do they really hang people?” She said, “Yes, they do.”

That scared us so badly, and we were eight, nine, seven. You know, we always thought that if we ever committed any serious crimes, we'd be hanged too. It stayed right there. But today the kids say, “Oh, it's 15 years, eh?” What kind of message are we sending out there?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

Do I still have some time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have just under two minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I've noticed that as you get older you realize how short 15 years is as a portion of your life compared to someone whose life has been taken and who has received that life sentence.

Mr. Murphy mentioned a family in an area that borders both our ridings. Their daughter was murdered. They travelled to Quebec for the parole hearing for the offender, and he cancelled it either the day or two days before, after they had already travelled. I can only imagine what it's like, even if it is in your hometown, to have to attend these and relive the situations you've gone through. In this case, there was the inconvenience of having to travel and prepare yourself for a parole hearing only to have it yanked out from under you.

We also have legislation our government has introduced that would say that if people cancel the parole hearing within 14 days, the hearing goes ahead without them. I'd like your comment on that, and also on the move from two years to five years as the length of time before someone can reapply.

We certainly hear what you're saying, and in my mind, two years rolls around like that. You would just perhaps recover from the last one and then have to revisit it again. Can you comment on both those things?

[Thérèse McCuaig]

I was at the parole hearing for Clifford Olson. For 25 years he was applying for parole. As you say, two years went by so quickly, and it was time again to go back. I remember saying to Sharon Rosenfeldt, “My God! Is it two years already? You're going to go through this hell all over again tomorrow.” It's so hard on victims; it's not fair.

Five years, I think, would be reasonable. As the gentleman here said, if they're turned down once, too bad. Don't ask again until you're fully rehabilitated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, we're out of time, because we have another panel coming.

I want to thank both of you for attending. If there is further information that you want to share with the committee, you can do so in writing. You would just get that material to our clerk; she will distribute it. She will also translate it for you, if it's necessary.

[Thérèse McCuaig]

I would like to thank all of you who voted for that jail thing last week. I'm not saying this very well, but anyway.... Before, you allowed two days...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It was two days for one.