Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay. I understand that and I agree with that.

The other thing is that we've had a bit of evidence on this bill about this allowing a judge to increase the period of ineligibility, in the case of a first-degree double murder, from 25 to 50, triple murder from 25 to 75. Let's take the double murder. In my community, a heinous crime was committed when I was growing up. Two policemen were brutally and deliberately murdered by persons who, just after the death sentence was repealed, were given life sentences, which the people of Moncton thought meant life sentences. Around this room we all think life means life. We recognize that people out there think that as well. We know it means 25 years eligible. It means 28 years served, on average.

We've heard evidence that the parole board should handle these things after 25 years. I'm looking for a middle way: in a case where a judge has true discretion, he may say, for two murders, no eligibility for 45 years. In the case of one of those murderers, Mr. Hutchison, that meant life, because I think he was 40-something when he committed the murder. Do you see some middle way there? We heard evidence this morning from a lawyer who is experienced in this realm of murder defence, that given the choice between 25 and 50, with a 40-year-old convicted first-degree murderer, the judge probably is going to exercise what they call judicial restraint and go with the 25. In other words, we may get a longer period of ineligibility in certain circumstances if we try to find some sort of way in the middle. Do you understand what I'm saying?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I think I do. As you're well aware, I'm here to be the voice for victims, and I can tell you unequivocally that victims do not want to see what happened to them happen to other people.

I think Bill C-48 addresses the concerns from both viewpoints and allows that discretion if there are reasons for the judge not to impose...the bill allows for that. The victims want us to keep in mind...we are talking about, if I may quote Priscilla de Villiers, “the worst of the worst”. These are people who have committed multiple murders. When I talk about accountability and compassion, it's about people, a very small percentage of people, who have committed those multiple murders, and not having to put families through repeat parole hearings like what we saw on Monday, for example. Keep in mind, from the victims' perspective, that when it comes to this legislation, that discretion is addressed by the judges, and keep in mind that these are people who have committed multiple murders, and that accountability, that life means life.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I'll take you on, on that. I think in a case where judicial restraint might be used, 35 is better than 25. I know this is all hypothetical--

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Yes, but I don't know if I would speculate on what a judge's decision would be. I don't know if that's my.... I hear where you're going with that, and I certainly respect what you're putting on the table, but I think at the end of they day here, from a victim's perspective, when a person has committed multiple murders, we are talking the worst of the worst. We are talking about life meaning life, and that the discretion.... In a sense, in my reading and understanding, the same three criteria that a judge uses to make that decision are the same as used with section 745. I think the same criteria are being used by the judge for that discretion as used in....

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Moving onto the parole board, again in my riding, for a more recent first-degree murder, eligibility arrives 25 years later. I know this complaint has been made by me and by the family to your predecessor, in the way the parole board currently deals, in some cases, with the victims, not pre-paying their travel to a Quebec penitentiary. There are some legal issues with respect to the notification of the cancellation of a scheduled parole. These are continuing victimizations under the current system,

I wonder if you can tell me what legislation you can point to in the government or what response you're getting.... I know you're relatively knew and all that, but what kind of an input are you getting from victims on the serial insensitive aspects of some these scheduled hearings, and what progress we can expect?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Actually, I have been in touch with the Policy Centre for Victim Issues, which is responsible for the payments. I have been advised by them that they will actually be conducting a review, as it has been in place for almost five years now. So we are looking at that. Certainly, we have open lines of communication with them to discuss any issues that may arise with regard to the payment and the use of the fund. Ultimately, we all want to make sure that victims have the necessary financial means at the appropriate time to attend these.

You're absolutely right when you talk about a victim's frustration with hearings being cancelled on short notice. That is something that the offender certainly participates in, in terms of when that can or cannot happen. You're absolutely right, and this office will continue to work with the appropriate agencies to ensure, as best we can, that we minimize that and provide input from the victims about what the gaps and the failures in the system are, and work toward those solutions and make recommendations.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I want to thank you for the good work you do. I know that here we support you very much and want you to stay on the job for as long as it takes to improve the condition for victims.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay for seven minutes.

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

I listened to your speech. We are studying this bill and we also considered Bill S-6. These two bills have to do with crimes like murder. According to me, there are two types of victims. I will be careful in my choice of words, so people on the other side do not start climbing the walls.

There are some victims, like Olson's victims, that you referred to. In my opinion, these victims are scarred for life. People point to Olson, but as I said several years ago, that man will never get parole. He is like Paul Bernardo, in Ontario. However, there are other types of murderers.

Earlier on, my colleague Mr. Rathgeber, or Mr. Woodworth, said that there were 424 people guilty of multiple murders. Personally I am concerned about other murderers. Let me give you an example. It could be a father who kills his wife and two children. In prison, there are far more cases like that than like Olson's. One thing I found worrisome in this bill is that there is not much of a distinction drawn between the two. In fact, there is none.

I will try to be tactful and politically correct. I believe there are two types of victims. The rest of the family of the father who killed his wife and two children will also have to live with that. It will take a great deal of time before that scar heals.

I can remember a client. Her husband, two children and she had made a suicide pact. All four were to die, but the woman survived. She was accused and convicted of those three murders. I believe prison is not the place for her. She is far more in need of psychiatric counselling than that.

I realize that I have gone on a bit of a detour, but do you believe that the discretionary power provided under section 745.51 would allow for this option? Would it not be advisable to increase this discretionary power, because, pursuant to section 745.51, the judge can use this power, otherwise the sentence is 25 years minimum?

Perhaps we should determine whether, under Section 745.2, we should not grant further discretionary power to judges. I am in favour of criminals serving over 25 years before being eligible for parole, in some cases. Judges need some discretionary power. Do you not believe that would be acceptable to victims?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I understand what you're trying to very delicately speak to, and I think that anybody who has suffered a loss as a result of murder will be scarred for life. Those families will be addressing those.

I think what you're trying to address is that each case may have its unique merits and set of facts that need to be considered in decision-making. I think most victims would recognize that the same three criteria—my understanding that you're speaking to—would be applied in this legislation as well, which is that the judge will have the discretion and must consider the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any jury recommendations that come forward. So in fact the same set of criteria exists in Bill C-48 as does that.

I think we all recognize that there are different circumstances and facts and issues in each case, that discretion lies with the judges in the same set of criteria, as I said. But as far as devastation to the families, I would argue that every victim has unique needs, and those needs need to be met. I would not in any way impose as to what those needs would be; that's the victim. What I can tell you what they want is option and choice.

This legislation has really been put forward, I believe, to address those very small number of cases where there is little chance of any kind of rehabilitation, and it would prevent victims from having to go through.... As I said, it isn't about the day of the parole hearing, or the two days; it's all of the trauma that goes with the lead-up: Are they going to apply? Are they not going to apply? They choose to apply. Is it going to happen on that day. I have to go through it and relive it.

In response to your question, I think this bill allows for that discretion with the same set of criteria.

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

Don't get me wrong. Sincerely, Ms. O'Sullivan, I prefer to see victims receive more rather than not enough information. I prefer to see them advised that a criminal has applied for parole and that the application has been rejected, rather than having them learn that he has been released. Unfortunately, that happens. We are talking about murder, but in the case of a break and enter, for example, victims suddenly learn that the man who was sentenced to 30 months in prison has been released after three months, and no one has been informed.

I know that this is perhaps not the time to talk about that, as we are talking about Bill C-48, but I think that work remains to be done regarding information provided to victims. Does too much information lead to greater victimization? Does less information lead to victimization? Victims suddenly learn that the person has been released and the situation explodes. I am of two minds on that.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I have to say that I'm in total agreement with you. We need to be doing a better job in enshrining victims' rights in terms of access to information. We're in total agreement that victims need to have more information and timely information, and we certainly respect the privacy issues. As a matter of fact, this office has published a report on 13 recommendations to the CCRA, which we hope will alleviate some of those. We look forward to presenting in front of committee on those issues as well.

You're correct. Victims need information. They need the information at the right time. They need to be part of it and to be able to have input into that process. And they need to matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, seven minutes.

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

I don't have any questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay. Then we'll go to Mr. Dechert for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. O'Sullivan, for being here and for the good work you're doing to represent victims.

Like you, I don't want to give Clifford Olson any more publicity than he should have. However, a number of the families of his victims spoke at the parole hearing you attended about Bill S-6, which we dealt with a week ago, and about this bill, Bill C-48. I think their words should be heard.

I'm reading from an article that was posted on the CBC website on December 1. The headline is “Olson victims' families want tougher parole law”:

The federal government as well as families of Clifford Olson's victims say the process by which serial killers can seek parole has to change.

Inmates like Olson have the right to request a parole hearing every two years once they have served the bulk of their sentence, but the families of their victims must be put through the process of restating their opposition to any release.

“Oh, it's very painful,” Raymond King, whose son was killed by Olson, said after the hearing Tuesday. “Every time we hear his name, we live this all over again. And to have to come all this way for this...it's really hard.”

Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of another boy killed by Olson, said no family should have to go through this every two years.

“If they can pass some kind of a law, so that the families don't have to go through this grief and aggravation every two years, that would be great.”

Those words were also reiterated by Michael Manning, who is the father of another girl who was killed by Olson.

“People like him, multiple murderers, will not be able to have a hearing every two years,” said Rosenfeldt.

Michael Manning, whose daughter was killed by Olson, came to Tuesday's hearing to support fellow families and the proposed law. “If they can pass some kind of a law, so that the families don't have to go through this grief and aggravation every two years, that would be great.”

I think those are important quotes that people need to hear.

There are people in this room and people representing the criminal defence bar who would say you don't have to worry about people like Clifford Olson because he's never going to get out; he's not going to get out, so he's not going to revictimize the families.

But I think we need to hear his words. This is what Clifford Olson said on Tuesday:

I'm here because I have a right to appear, he said. I'm not asking the board for parole, because I know I'm going to be turned down.

He made those victims' families come all the way to that parole hearing from across Canada to relive the pain again because he had the right.

The article points out that he will have that right again in two years' time. Do you have any comment on that?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I think you've represented the victims' perspective. They recognize that this legislation, and it is their understanding, is going to help them to not have to attend at these kinds of parole hearings. Again, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, this is a small group of multiple murderers.

They also recognize that if there are unique circumstances or sets of facts, there is discretion still left with the judge with the same criteria as in section 745.

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

Thank you.

I don't know if you had a chance to hear any of the previous testimony by the gentleman who was here on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, but he made a case for Canadians being compassionate. That's why we need to have the right to allow murderers, multiple murderers, first-degree murderers, even those like Clifford Olson, the right to apply to be released after as little as 15 years.

In my view, we also have the right and the obligation to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

A point of order has been raised.

Mr. Comartin.

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

That's not what Mr. Di Luca said. Mr. Di Luca pointed out very clearly that multiple murderers don't have access to the faint hope clause. If Mr. Dechert is going to be giving a factual situation and a recount of the evidence that we heard from Mr. Di Luca, he should at least do it accurately so that Ms. O'Sullivan can then respond to the actual facts that were given in evidence by Mr. Di Luca, not the ones that have just been made up by Mr. Dechert.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'm sorry, Mr. Comartin, that is not a point of order. As you know, it's a point of debate. Members of this committee often--

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

It is a point of order if--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

--have different perspectives on the testimony. You know the rules.

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

I do know the rules. You're not applying them.