Evidence of meeting #41 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sentencing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
One of the other problems is that they don't seek us out either. They don't ask us any questions at all. They just think we're these angry, vengeful people who should really just go back into our little corners and provide these nice little services. They're saying, you know, “You'll be okay some day. Go back into your little corner and dry your eyes. You're just too emotional.” We're always getting that.
In answer to your question, right now in our organization there are probably about three people in our office. There used to be about 20. Like any other organization, we're having problems.
5:10 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
I would say we represent approximately 1,000 people. It used to be probably more in the 4,000 to 5,000 range, but today I would say it is probably about 1,000. There are more services that have sprung up in provinces across Canada as well.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Do you hear from people who are not victims but who support your views?
5:10 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
Oh, very much so. Actually, we probably hear more from them than from the actual victims. Victims are into their own particular set of circumstances.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
The other witness, Professor Doob, said that there is no informed consensus in the Canadian public that we need these types of sentences. He seems to be saying that whatever your views are, they're not informed, or that whatever the views of all those other Canadians who think this is necessary are, they're not informed, and therefore we should disregard them as a committee.
What do you say to that?
5:10 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
I could probably show him all of the emails I have received from people from across Canada, just in the past week, that I haven't even begun to be able to answer. They're on Facebook, on.... It's amazing.
Oh, I'm sorry. I lost my train of thought there.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Well, I certainly hear from my constituents, and I'm pretty sure that the other members here do as well.
Let me put this question to Mr. King. I understand that Clifford Olson said at his parole hearing last week, “I'm here because I have a right to appear. I'm not asking the board for parole, because I know I'm going to be turned down.”
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I've heard it before. We heard it at his faint hope clause hearing. That was the first thing he said. He just stirs the pot.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Do you believe that he'll continue to come every two years?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We certainly all feel for the victims and the families, and we also respect the good work you do, Mr. McIsaac.
In my short three minutes, I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this. In Moncton in the 1970s there was a double cop killing of two great officers, Bourgeois and O'Leary, by two murderers. These were people we knew in the community.
Charlie Bourgeois went on to become an NHL hockey player after that adversity. Carroll Ann O'Leary went on to run hospital services. They picked up and they went on.
These two murderers have been eligible for parole. Their death sentences, in fact, were commuted to life. In that case, I'm pretty sure, had this law been in place, the trial judge might have granted 50 years without.... It was such a shocking case.
There is no doubt, Mr. McIsaac, that these were bad apples. There are bad apples. You're working with the good apples, and that's great.
In this case, I think we need to save this bill, because the judge is going to be given a choice--I gave you the facts--of between 25 and 50 years. We heard good, seasoned lawyers say that given that choice, judges are going to tend towards the lesser, because they don't want to go overboard. We have to find a way, in my opinion, to go between 25 and 50. We might see victims angry that, given the choice of between 25 and 50, a judge didn't give 35 or 40.
I wonder if you think there is a way of amending this--and I'm working on this--and if you think it would be a good thing, because in some circumstances, it might be appropriate. It is true judicial discretion to have that choice in the case of first-degree murder.
Do you agree with that type of amendment? That is to the panel, briefly, because there are only three minutes.
5:15 p.m.
Interim Director, Policy, John Howard Society of Canada
My concern is on the casting of the die at the front end, whether it's 25 going to 27, 30, or 50. The difficulty we have, voiced at this committee and over the last two weeks since Mr. Olson's parole hearing, is the pain of appearing at a parole hearing that could be seen as either hopeless or frivolous. If you are going to put a check on that—and it may well be that it is required in cases of this nature—you would want to do it at a pre-screening of the board or use the judge-jury option in the faint hope clause. This would be better than to establish a law that will end up with someone serving a flat 50-year sentence with no option.
5:15 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
How can you do that when you have multiple victims? That's one of the biggest reasons I'm against that approach. In our case, where we feel the discount comes in is that we, the victims' families, feel that once somebody has been charged with one murder, the rest are just thrown in, as happened with Clifford Olson and in the Pickton case. How can you look a victim in the face and say that for your daughter we're going to give 25 years, but for another person's daughter we're going to give only five years or 10 years? It isn't going to work. It's either 25 and 25.... It isn't going to work. We'll be back before this committee.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I just want to understand one thing, Ms. Rosenfeldt. I agree with you. What does victimization mean to you? My problem is that I am divided. It is incredibly difficult for family members to relive the events. We were talking about Olson, but would it be better not to tell them? Not to keep them informed? Not to advise them that so and so... because it is too difficult, I can understand that. That is what I am wondering.
5:15 p.m.
President, Victims of Violence
No. What I would like to see is a life sentence. When he was sentenced 29 years ago, he was given life, and that's what I hung on to as Daryn's mom. He was given a life term. I didn't even know about the 15-year parole or the faint hope clause. I didn't know that existed. I didn't even know the 25 years existed. I just breathed a sigh of relief and told my other little kids, “He's going to be gone for the rest of his life, and we're not going to have to hear from him.”
Now in this case, we will always hear from him, and we all know he's goofy, but that's what I would be happy with. I would have no problem with him or others like him being sentenced and put in prison. I don't even care if they have a TV or if they give them popcorn, but keep him off the streets. He has committed 11 horrendous crimes. Let the penalty suit the crime. I'm not talking about capital punishment, not at all, but what's been going on here is so wrong.
Thank you.
