Justice Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

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

Yes. Are you also aware of the actual statistics that have been provided to us by Correctional Services as to the number of inmates who actually proceed to ask for early parole under the faint hope clause, the number of cases that have actually been sent to review as of October 2010, and the results, etc.? Are you aware of those statistics?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I have them available. I don't have the exact numbers here. I am aware that the numbers are small and that the....

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

Okay, but you're not aware of the latest statistics.

Are you aware of any scientific study that has been done on victims, families of victims of murder, as to their experience with the faint hope clause, their experience with the justice system when the offender was brought to justice, was found guilty, was sentenced to life—25 years if we're talking about first-degree murder—their experience then, their experience between that point and the actual application for faint hope, and their views, whether they remained the same or not? Are you aware if any such study exists?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I'm not aware of a study. I have talked to victims, though, with regard to—

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

No, I understand. Do you not believe that as an advocate for victims part of your role is to ensure that you have the best factual scientific evidence in hand so that you can properly advise victims and the government as to policy?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I think the academic research is important, but I think at the same time there has to be respect given to the victims' personal experiences as—

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

Definitely, but one of the ways one gives respect to victims is to ensure that they have the facts before them—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I think the witness deserves an opportunity to answer the question rather than to be cut off in mid-word, as was just the case by Ms. Jennings. I think that's incredibly offensive to the process of the committee. Once a witness begins to answer a question and clearly only gets a few words out of her mouth, she should be allowed to try to answer it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Well, committee members, generally the rule is the person questioning does have control over their own questioning. Now, that has to still be done within the bounds of courtesy and decorum, and generally I think we do want to allow witnesses to answer. But in the end, when we give someone their five minutes or their seven minutes, they're in charge of it. and I will certainly treat each of you respectfully in that sense. If it gets out of hand and you can't hear what's being said any more, of course I'll call you on it.

Ms. Jennings, continue.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. O'Sullivan, if I cut you off when you were answering, I apologize. It was not my intention. I understood that you had in fact answered my question; therefore, I was going on to another question.

Do you not believe that one of the ways to show compassion to victims is to ensure they have all the pertinent facts before them? If their views continue notwithstanding, that's fine, but in some cases their views may change.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Our office did some research to prepare for this appearance, and we found that there is very little data relating to the impact of the faint hope clause on victims. So we did attempt to look at that--obviously to arm ourselves with the best information possible--but we found very little data with regard to that.

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

Thank you.

Would you not then think that possibly one of your recommendations or statements would have been that there is very little research into that, and that possibly the government might have wanted to ensure it had all of the facts to back up its justification for this bill before bringing forth legislation?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Part of the issue here, as you indicated, is the small numbers, and the other is getting information from victims on these difficult topics. For one thing, are they able to provide this information? Do they wish to provide this information? I don't believe, as you've indicated, the numbers are very large.

I did speak to some people and got their permission. One such example is Priscilla de Villiers, who is probably well known to this committee. She has spent many years addressing this issue and talking about the impact of having people go before that. I can tell you that in my former career I had members who lost loved ones and who spoke to me about the impact of having to go again, and to relive....

From what I've read and according to the information that was provided by Correctional Services Canada as well, those numbers are small. It's very difficult when you're trying to look at impact.

Interestingly, I was in Regina a few days ago. I was looking at and listening to--again, respecting confidentiality--a woman who had lost two of her children to homicide. The person presenting was looking at data around victim-offender mediation and talked about the kind of work that has to go into that kind of gathering of data and looking at impact.

It is long-term. Any data that can help people, assist with decision, or inform is valuable. The question I would have is whether there is enough and how long that would take. Is it appropriate? I'm not an academic or a scientific person, but just listening to the number of years that were invested in trying to gather over 500 cases on that.... Usually some of these are quite long-term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Ménard for five minutes.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I understand your sympathy for the victims, and be assured that I share it.

However, I have nevertheless observed that there are truly very few prisoners serving a life sentence for murder who seek to use these provisions.

Certain dangers have been outlined to us, and you have repeated them. In particular, victims believe that, every two years, they can be called upon to appear to challenge an application for early parole. We have learned, based on the statistics, that there has never been a case of an individual applying every two years, as many times, etc. It was also explained to us — others did this before you — that the preparation of a file with a view to benefitting from the provision is very lengthy. Furthermore, the jury that hears the first application is free to determine that the next application will only be able to be made later than two years down the road. And, in the end, we would be amending the act to resolve a situation that has never arisen.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

As I indicated in my opening statement, I know you've heard from many witnesses who have a lot of experience in offender management and the impact of that. I am before you with that voice for victims. So as I indicated in my opening comments, I balanced those comments with the recognition that there are issues on the offender management side.

What I can tell you is that some of the comments that have been made by victims I have spoken to.... First of all, these are the people who have committed some of the most horrific crimes, and they have been given 25 years. They also speak to their concern about lessening the confidence in the justice system when people who are given life sentences don't receive the actual 25 years.

So again, in my comments I certainly wanted to recognize--and I did--some of these other issues that are very much out there and that you, as a committee, are looking at. But again, I'm here to be that voice for victims.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Upon hearing you, in the beginning, I very honestly had the impression that all victims are opposed to the faint hope clause.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I can't say that, and that was my opening comment. I have, in the brief time since I was asked to come before this committee, done as much consultation as I can. I have consulted with, for example, not only the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, which I know this committee is very familiar with, but also the Canadian Police Association and Mr. Charles Momy. I have spoken individually with people like Priscilla de Villiers and Sharon Rosenfeldt—again, with whose permission I use their names. I have also spoken to FACT, which is Families Against Crime and Trauma, in B.C. I've also spoken to Mr. Joe Wamback.

So I've taken every opportunity I can to speak to that, but as I said in my opening comments, I can't say that this consultation represents all victims in Canada. I cannot say that. I have taken every reasonable effort to come before this committee with as much consultation and dialogue as I can to represent that voice for victims. And again, those balanced comments I recognized, and I'm sure Mr. Sapers will speak to those other issues, as have many of your other witnesses.

I come to you with the comments of people who have been very involved in the national scene. They talk very much talk about being worried about the confidence in the criminal justice system when people who are given life sentences aren't serving them, when we are dealing with first-degree murder and we are dealing with people who have been handed those life sentences.

I know this committee is looking at other options, or the option on the table of retrospective versus retroactive issues. So that's what I come before you with.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You acknowledge that the Criminal Code should include provisions allowing for people condemned to life in prison for murder to be able to be released from prison before having served 25 years if they demonstrate good conduct and if they are, indeed, rehabilitated. We were told of cases where even the family of a victim of murder, for example, was in favour of that.

You therefore recognize that we must retain, in our laws, faint hope clauses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Could we have a short answer, please?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

No, no, I can tell you there's a consensus among the people I've consulted with that there is strong support for Bill S-6.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. O'Sullivan, I'm not surprised, because we've heard a number of the witnesses and some of the people you've actually mentioned already. But the lack of knowledge that remains about how this system works is amazing to me. You repeated it today. Speaking on behalf of the victims, you mentioned the fear that at the 15-year mark, the 17-year mark, the 19-year mark, the 21-year mark, the 23-year mark, and the 25-year mark they're going to be faced with an application. That's just absolutely false. I'm just going to share some information with you, as ombudsperson for Canada for the victims of crime, and ask that somehow your office assist victims to get this knowledge, to counter a good deal of the fearmongering that has gone on and been whipped up into really highly passionate levels.

There have been only four cases in which somebody has applied a second time. Last year, 25 years was in fact what people served, even when they applied for the faint hope clause. So we can say to the victims' families and their friends and their loved ones, “You don't have to worry about that”. I really would ask you to do that. That's a comment.

I do have a question. I strongly support your comments about the importance of communication to the families of the victims of murder in this country. What came out at the last hearing from Mr. Head, who is the Commissioner for Corrections, was that at the year before the person is eligible to apply for early release—just to apply for it—they consult with that person. Now, we know from the figures we have and the history we have that only 18% apply. So 82% of the victims' families could be told that at that time. Would you support an amendment to this bill that would require Corrections Canada to advise the families of the victims of murder in this country at that time--mostly at the 14-year mark--that in fact the person is not going to be applying for early release, so they won't have this trepidation, this fear of having to go through the process again?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I think there need to be a lot of things put in place to ensure that victims get information, not just in relation to the faint hope clause.

I mentioned the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and section 39. There is a lot of information. There is some information that must be supplied, and there's some information that may be supplied. The other thing is that these are policies in many cases, and I know Mr. Head indicated that there's no requirement. So I think we have to go beyond that.

I think there have to be some changes so that victims can be informed with regard to.... And again, in the report we've tabled there are 13 recommendations there. Obviously victims need information. They need to have that information, and they need to have rights to have some of this. I'm cognizant of some of the other challenges around that, so I would go one step further and say that we need to ensure that the needs of victims are met, when we're dealing with federal systems, in relation to their being informed on many issues.

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

I'm assuming that answer means you would support that being a mandatory provision in the statute, which would require Corrections Canada to provide that information to the families of the victims of murder in this country.