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.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a great deal of sympathy for you. I have a great deal of sympathy given what you have been through. And I can fully appreciate how painful it must be to attend another hearing that, in all likelihood, is virtually pointless and that is being sought by a criminal who has not only murdered people but who is also trying to inflict even more suffering on those he has already victimized. Now, did you attend Clifford Olson's first parole hearings?
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Okay. So your fear is having to go through those hearings again within—
President, Victims of Violence
Yes. What I'm concerned about is having to do that every two years until he dies or until I die.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Has it been more than two years since you attended the first hearing?
President, Victims of Violence
Yes, it has. The first hearing was right after the 25 years, and then he didn't apply. He didn't apply for the second hearing, but he was in a lot of trouble at that time because he was selling all his paraphernalia to murderauction.com, and the prison came down on him big time. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but we received a letter saying that he would waive his parole hearing this time.
Clifford Olson does not ever voluntarily waive a parole hearing, so I don't what happened. I can't believe he got a soft heart, but, yes, he got into big trouble by selling his stuff on that awful website.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Yes. Do you think it would be a good idea if that jury could prevent him from re-applying for a period of 25 years?
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Yes. Instead of every two years, preventing him from applying, making a determination that would prevent him from re-applying within 25 years. Would that put your mind at ease?
President, Victims of Violence
Yes.
I'm not sure about the 25. I'm not understanding the 25 years.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
So not only would the jury deny his application, as it did, but it would also determine that he could not file another application for up to 25 years.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I think we could pursue that avenue, without.... Clifford Olson is a horrendous case; he is one of the worst criminals. There are family crimes, as well. We heard about a Mr. Kowbel, who had killed his father or mother, I believe, and the surviving family members were willing to support his request for parole.
There are all kinds of cases. In a year, we heard about a surgeon who was well liked, an excellent surgeon, whose wife left him and who was so overcome that he decided to kill his two children. So you cannot approach that case as you would Clifford Olson's. The jury should determine how much time must go by before the criminal is allowed to re-apply.
As an Individual
I would like to think that the judges we appoint would have the sensibility to determine who would qualify for Bill C-48 and who would not. Given the discretion that was mentioned, they could give a lighter sentence and they could also give a longer sentence. It's not a problem. They can determine that.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Yes, and they can differentiate between Clifford Olson and this surgeon, who [inaudible]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Monsieur Ménard, we're at the end of the five minutes.
I'm going to go to Mr. Comartin.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Mr. King, to follow up on that point you were making in terms of the judiciary, I think that's probably a fairly accurate assessment. It's one of the reasons my party is considering supporting this bill, even though we have some problems with it.
In all cases we're concerned about the type of fact situation that Mr. Ménard just talked about. As you heard from Professor Doob today, the vast majority of these cases are different fact situations from the Olson-Pickton-Williams type. Those will be dealt with appropriately in terms of using this bill. I worry about other cases that may also get caught in it. That's really the concern that we have.
In that regard, there are alternatives. Ms. Rosenfeldt, you've raised a couple of them today. Possibly amendments to the procedure within the parole act would be more effective in dealing with those horrendous cases, not that any murder is not horrendous, obviously. Épouvantable is a good word in French, but I don't know if I can translate that into English. I think “horrendous” is as good as I can come to.
I suppose I'm making a statement; I don't really have a question.
Certainly I share what you heard from both Ms. Jennings and the chair. I share that. You have no reason to apologize at all, because emotion is a factor at play here. It can't completely guide us, but it certainly has to be a factor in doing it.
What we're looking at is these other possibilities. As much as our law is very much opposed to retroactivity, there are those few times when in fact we've been able to pass retroactive laws and have them survive. It seems to me amendments to the parole act that would deal with the Olson type of situation may in fact survive a challenge. I would be quite prepared to take a run at that in terms of legislation.
That's all I had, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here today.
To Ms. Rosenfeldt and Mr. King, I want to express my condolences on the loss that you both suffered and that your families suffered, and for the pain you've been living with all these years. I am sorry that from time to time you're forced to relive those events through these parole hearings.
Ms. Rosenfeldt, I want to address a few questions to you. You were here during the first hour of today's session and you heard from the other witnesses. One of those witnesses, Professor Manson, said that he had never heard any victims say that we need this legislation, Bill C-48, and I noticed that you reacted somewhat when you heard that statement.
Could you comment on that?
President, Victims of Violence
Sure. This notion has been around a long time, as I said. It began some 10 years ago, or in 1997. I think back then it was called “volume discounts” under the Liberal government. This time it's called “discounts”.
I think it was really put into context by one of the members of Parliament, who mentioned that the ombudsman's office had a long list. Trust me: there are a lot of victims out there, but not many who really want to, or can, or have the strength to, stand up and say, “No, no, no”, or go before cameras or appear before committees. Why do we do it? I don't know. I can't answer that. There are so many victims who don't want to.
Ray made mention that in our justice system there are so many government-funded organizations that have the capacity to hire researchers, to hire professors of criminology, to have proper statistics, and to come to these hearings fully prepared. On the victim side, we're not there yet.
I feel that, first, we must address public safety. That's for all Canadians. Services for victims of crime will help us, but that's a totally separate issue. We should not confuse public safety issues and resources for victims of crime. We'll get there in a different way.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you.
You touched a bit on the number of victims. One of the things we often hear from people who are opposed to legislation like this is that there aren't really very many people who have this view. Professor Manson also said that we can't make penal policy as a result of the views of a small group of people.
Do you represent a small group of people?