Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

In the House, there are rules of debate and there are the rules of order that relate to procedural matters. In this case, Mr. Dechert is entitled to his perspective of the testimony that was given. You have your perspective. You passed on your opportunity to ask questions of the witness.

I'm sorry, it's not a point of order.

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

As the chair, Mr. Chair, you have the responsibility to make sure that the witness is not given evidence that is misleading, and that material that Mr. Dechert put forward is misleading to this witness. You have a responsibility here, Mr. Chair, to protect the witness from that type of statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

First of all, it's not my duty to protect the witness against any statements. It's Mr. Dechert's right to ask questions as he wishes. So it's not a point of order.

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Anyone who is listening to the audio feed of this session can check the record. They will be able to check the transcript in due course, probably within 24 or 48 hours. I'd encourage everyone who is listening to do that, and Mr. Comartin can do that as well.

What I heard that gentleman say--and my point is simply this. He was making the point that early release for a murderer, whether he's a single murderer or released after 25 years for a multiple murder, which is currently the law...we do that in Canada because we're compassionate about the lives of the murderers.

I hope Mr. Comartin is listening, because he seems to have completely missed this--members of the Bloc miss it; some of the members of the Liberal Party get it and some Liberals miss it, but the point I wanted to make and what we're talking about on this side of the table is compassion for the lives of the families and friends and communities of the victims. In my view, they are lives that are important too. For each murderer who's incarcerated, and might be incarcerated for 25 years or more for each life they took, there are many more victims.

Take the case of Russell Williams--I hate to mention his name. There is a whole community that was traumatized there. In 25 years he is going to have the right to a parole hearing every two years, and that entire community is going to relive those awful murders. That's what we're talking about.

We're not focusing on the one person; we're focusing on the many. We're also focusing on the view the entire country has about the integrity of a criminal justice system that when our courts impose a life sentence, it actually means that. Somehow they miss that, and the criminal defence bar misses that, and they constantly go back to being compassionate about that one person who's in prison for having taken one or more lives from all those families, friends, and communities.

I'd like to hear your view on that. Thank you.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

As indicated in my testimony, we feel that this bill addresses two specific concerns that victims have raised: the need for accountability for each life taken, and the anxiety and emotional toll victims face when an offender is granted a parole hearing. It's going to assist the legislation in both of those issues.

If I could say, the most powerful statement I've heard from a mom who lost her son and whose son's friend was killed was, “The most basic right is the right to life.” When a person takes that right away, not from one but from many, that compassion has to be expressed to the families as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Ms. Neville, you have five minutes.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I don't know whether I have five minutes' worth or not, but I would like to ask a question. I'm not a regular member of this committee, and I've not met with you before. I'm listening to you here speaking on behalf of victims, and I understand that there was a parole hearing very recently and many of the families of victims were present. How do you gather your information from victims to make a presentation here or to speak on their behalf? Do they come to you? Do you do surveys? How does it come about?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

It comes in several ways, but you have touched on something that we're looking at expanding. It is by talking individually to victims, to victims who have suffered loss. It's also by talking with national victims' organizations, such as, for example, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and Victims of Violence, those types of agencies that are out there.

I am fairly new to the position, so I'm building on the foundation of the office. As you may be aware, it's about three years old. One of the priorities that we have is to broaden the national framework for consultation and dialogue. We have commenced that. I have personally met with different organizations and victims' groups and spoken to them across the country. There are many other ways that we're going to be investing to broaden that base.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

So when you come before a committee like this—and I realize it's not an everyday occurrence—to speak on a particular piece of legislation, how do you gather your information?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

We have been out talking to victims' groups on different issues that are out there. As this committee is probably aware, I believe my ask to come to this committee was made on either late Monday or Tuesday—

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Not a lot of time.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

—so I had very little time. I consulted with as many as I could prior to coming here, and also looked at the previous work and previous conversations, particularly in some of our prep work around Bill S-6 as well, to talk to those national organizations and people like Sharon Rosenfeldt, Heidi Illingworth, Priscilla de Villiers.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

This is my last question. Some of the names you raise I'm familiar with. Do you find that you go back to the same people over and over on different issues, or is it broader than that?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

You've hit one of our priorities. I thank you for asking that question because one of the things this office wants to do, again being a new office, is we're going to be building that. We have started our outreach and awareness in looking at identifying provincially and territorially, not just national organizations but also looking at key people and NGOs amongst the provinces and territories, so we can start to broaden that framework for discussion and consultation, so that when we come back before committees we'll be able to come back with a broader voice.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'll take the rest of the time, if I could.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes, Mr. Lee. You still have two minutes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Sure.

In your remarks, Ms. O'Sullivan, you referred to a safety dimension in this. I think I understood it, but implicit in your remarks must have been a thought that in some respect now, safety is not adequately provided for when it comes to potential release of convicted killers.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Could I ask you for a bit more? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me for.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In your remarks I believe you said that the passage of this amendment would enhance safety.

If you don't—

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Public safety?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Public safety.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Was that in my opening statement, the last comment? Is that what you're referring to?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It was at about the two-thirds mark of your own remarks.

It's okay. If it wasn't a major piece of your remarks and submissions on this, that's okay. I was just curious. There seemed to be a suggestion that safety would be enhanced, and therefore if it was going to be enhanced then it must not be provided for well now in the current legislation—that we're somehow at greater risk now before the passage of this bill. But if you didn't intend that, that's okay. I may have taken it the wrong way.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

What we were referring to was that this bill would allow victims not to have to be revictimized through a parole process for those least likely to be rehabilitated or released. They wouldn't have to go through that process, and there is the issue of accountability, life for a life.