Justice Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 63 and according to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 24, 2014, we're dealing today with Bill C-587, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

We have the sponsor of the bill with us today and just before we get started and I introduce the rest of the guests, I'll let committee members know what has happened thus far.

Jean-François and I, but mostly Jean-François, worked on getting the witnesses set up for today and for Wednesday. Two sets of witnesses could not appear either today or on Wednesday. I don't know whose witnesses they were, but it doesn't really matter, as we thought it was important to have them for this bill, so I made the executive decision to move them to the Monday when we get back after the break week next week. They will be coming on the Monday. In that Monday meeting we will deal with the witnesses in the first hour, and clause-by-clause study of the few clauses that are in this bill in the second hour.

That leaves us open on Wednesday and at this particular moment there's nothing on the schedule. We've cancelled the meeting for Wednesday, but I'm open to any discussion of what we could do on Wednesday, if you want to proceed. It's a little tight to have witnesses, to be honest with you, but otherwise....

Mr. Dechert.

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

Mr. Chair, could I suggest that we ask Mr. Leef, if he's available, to begin the discussion on his motion on the fetal alcohol syndrome study this Wednesday? I think that is time sensitive. I believe we have to report back to the House on that by the end of March, so we could at least start that process with him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I haven't spoken to Mr. Leef, but is that okay?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That's no problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Here's what I'll do. As long as Mr. Leef is comfortable with being prepared in two days, we'll have him come—and it will be just him as the sponsor of that bill—and have a discussion, if that's fair. It might only last an hour, but is that okay?

If Mr. Leef is not available, the meeting will be cancelled, so just keep your eyes open.

That's great. Thank you, committee members.

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

I had put forward a notice of motion. Can we deal with that today, also on the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Has it been two sleeps?

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

We did it on Friday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Can we deal with it, if we have time, at the end of the meeting?

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Today, we have Mr. Colin Mayes, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap. I'll have to go there some day.

Also, as an individual, we have Susan Ashley. By video conference all the way from Phoenix, Arizona, we have Sharon Rosenfeldt, president of the Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children.

We're going to let Mr. Mayes set off the discussion of the bill that he is sponsoring, Bill C-587. The floor is yours, Colin.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-587. I also thank you for securing a time extension so that this bill could receive review by your committee.

This bill is a continuation of Bill C-478 which was previously introduced by Mr. Bezan in the first session of this 41st Parliament. Although Mr. Bezan's bill was read twice in the House and referred to this committee, it was withdrawn after Mr. Bezan was appointed to the role of parliamentary secretary, a position that precludes him from carrying a private member's bill forward.

I also thank the witnesses who are joining us today, particularly Sharon Rosenfeldt and Susan Ashley who have lost loved ones to unspeakable actions perpetrated by violent offenders. Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley represent more than themselves, their families, and the loved ones who were taken from them. They represent the community of Canadians that spans our nation, the community of Canadians whose lives have been changed forever by violent offenders.

Despite the tragic losses experienced by Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley, they have found the strength and courage to advocate on behalf of those whose lives were stolen away and also the thousands of Canadians who face the challenges of moving on with life after experiencing trauma which the majority of Canadians thankfully have never experienced.

As members of Parliament I believe it is our duty to demonstrate solidarity with this particular community of Canadians and support their advocacy with our own work in legislating towards a society that values victims' rights. As members of Parliament it is our duty to identify and address points of our legal regimen that require improvement. Specifically to this bill, I believe we must not only examine but reform the state of existing laws governing the removal from society and long-term incarceration of violent offenders who have abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered victims.

This bill is modelled on Bill C-48, which was passed in 2011, which allows judges to set consecutive rather than concurrent periods of parole ineligibility in sentencing those convicted of multiple murders. This bill would empower judges and juries to give stronger sentences.

In the same way that Bill C-48 now allows judges to acknowledge additional degrees of blameworthiness on an offence when a conviction of multiple murders has been established, this bill seeks to provide judges the ability to extend the period of parole ineligibility to likewise acknowledge accompanying offences of abduction and sexual assault.

All parties worked together and passed Bill C-48 and it is my hope that this bill will likewise benefit from input and support from all sides.

As members of the committee are likely aware, section 745 of the Criminal Code provides for life imprisonment for convicted murderers, subject to varying periods during which they are ineligible for parole. For first degree murder the minimum ineligibility period is 25 years. For second degree murder it varies from 10 to 25 years.

While all convicted murderers are morally blameworthy, first and second degree murders are distinguished from each other by the higher degree of moral blameworthiness associated with the first degree murder that justifies the current mandatory period of parole ineligibility of 25 years.

While some may believe that the current thresholds for parole represent an appropriate period of incarceration for a violent offender who abducted, raped, and murdered their victim, many Canadians consider this to be insufficient in instances of extreme violence and murder. As we all know, perhaps none more than our witnesses, the investigation and prosecution of cases involving multiple offences such as abduction, sexual assault, and murder combined can take years. The time that it takes to arrive at a conviction and then sentencing for a violent offender is excruciating for survivors, family, and loved ones. Regardless, as painful as it is, it is essential to a sound carriage of justice.

This bill seeks to provide greater certainty, and therein relief, for the families and loved ones in that once sentencing is completed, the sentencing judge would be given the judicial discretion to waive parole ineligibility for a period of 25 to 40 years, again at the discretion of the judge. If parole is to be considered for violent offenders who abduct, sexually assault, and then murder their victims, it should not occur before at least 25 years have been served.

The toll a parole hearing takes on the family members and loved ones of a victim is excruciating as they await the hearing date, when the violent offender who took their loved one presents his or her case. Why should the offender be awarded parole while family members and loved ones need to mobilize to keep the violent offender behind bars? This amounts to a system where Canadians who have already suffered tragic loss and endured years of judicial proceedings are subjected to a system that requires continued mobilization and pressure to keep violent offenders behind bars.

This bill would add three new provisions to the Criminal Code, mandating a 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period for anyone convicted of an offence under each of the following offence categories in respect of one victim: number one, a kidnapping or abduction offence, sections 279 to 283; number two, a sexual offence, sections 151 to 153.1 and sections 271 to 273; and number three, murder. The bill would also provide a judge with the discretionary prerogative to replace that 25-year minimum parole ineligibility period with a longer period of up to 40 years, based on the character of the offender, the nature of the circumstances of the murder, and any jury recommendation in this regard.

Mr. Chair, I would like to respond to inputs made by members of opposition parties in the House during the second reading debate on May 30, 2014.

During second reading debate, the question was raised as to whether or not this bill complies with the provisions of the Charter of Rights. This is an important question, and I appreciated it. I sought and received an opinion from the Library of Parliament's legal affairs and national security section. The bill seeks to provide a sentencing judge the discretion to increase the period of parole ineligibility and as such uphold the principle of a judicial discretion which provides a safeguard of the Charter of Rights. I believe this is an important strength of the bill, expanding the discretionary prerogatives of the judge with a broader range of judicial discretion rather than imposing on whole charter provisions automatic periods of ineligibility beyond 25.

Second reading debate also raised a question of the amendments proposed to the bill that would interact with the Rome Statute. It is important to note that article 5 of the Rome Statute establishes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the following four offences: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

Therefore, the Rome Statute does not directly apply to Bill C-587 for the following two reasons. First, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code, which is under the jurisdiction of Canadian courts. The Rome Statute only applies to proceedings of the International Criminal Court. Second, the four offences in article 5 of the Rome Statute are not included in this bill.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would again thank you and the members of committee for reviewing my private member's bill.

I also thank the witnesses here today who have come to provide their perspectives, experiences, and pleas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Mayes, thank you for that presentation and the review of your bill.

We have two witnesses with us.

Ms. Ashley, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[Susan Ashley, As an Individual]

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you today. I'm here with a very difficult but important task of representing my family.

My mother and father were made to endure every parent's worst nightmare. In 1978 Donald Armstrong abducted, raped and murdered 16-year-old Linda Bright, my sister.

Linda was at the Frontenac Mall when she disappeared. Her body was found on a rural road the next day. There were binding marks around her wrists and a deep red ring around her neck where a ligature had been squeezed. She had been dumped on the side of the road like garbage.

Armstrong was convicted of the vicious rape and murder of Linda. At trial a leading psychiatrist described him as a dangerous psychopath. Armstrong's own mother testified that his anti-social behaviour began at the age of five and never stopped. As a youth he set fire to his family home and on another occasion stabbed his sister. Armstrong's mother described him as impulsive, with no feelings of remorse or guilt, and with an extreme anti-social personality.

In 1973 he kidnapped a woman in Halifax where he held a knife to her two-month-old baby and threatened to kill the child. Armstrong was also charged with the 1977 murder of Glenna Fox. Ms. Fox was stabbed repeatedly in the chest with a chisel in the parking lot of a shopping mall. At the time he was out of prison on a temporary pass.

Armstrong was charged with the abduction, kidnapping, and forceable confinement of a 31-year-old woman in Winnipeg in 1977. He held a screwdriver to her face and tied her wrists. Fortunately she escaped with her life.

Also in 1977, Armstrong stabbed a woman named Rita Bayer with a screwdriver as she sat in her car in a parking lot. He was convicted of attempted murder.

So, like other notorious killers, you now know Donald Armstrong.

Our family began attending parole hearings in 1997 when we attended Armstrong's section 745 faint hope clause hearing. The initial shock was unimaginable. We were told at the time of conviction we would never see him again. Fifteen years later preparing for our first hearing, we felt very much betrayed. We have been called upon since 2007 to prepare ourselves for other parole hearings. Every two years I receive a notification of hearing. Fortunately for us, Armstrong has continuously postponed hearing after hearing. We did not have to continually attend hearings; however, the emotional preparation in itself year after year is very painful.

Having a loved one taken in such a horrific manner causes a lifetime of reoccurring grief and emotional devastation. Having to relive such pain over and over and deal with the fear of the possibility of his release and physically facing him in person is simply cruel and terrifying This pain and fear runs so deep it is unimaginable to those who have not experienced it. Allow us to keep this pain tucked away deep for it never heals; it is just managed. It is extremely emotionally and physically exhausting.

My parents are aging. They can no longer bear the turmoil that these hearings create. Sharing a victim impact statement revealing your raw pain and memories is unimaginable.

To spare my parents' suffering, I take the responsibility to speak on behalf of my family. This in turn creates guilt for my parents as the burden is now mine. I am 51 years old. Armstrong is 59 years old. Can you imagine how many years, how many hearings, how many court appearances there will be and will amount to be? When I can no longer do this, then I will suffer the guilt of having to say “no more”.

Bill C-587 will not affect my family. We will continue to be called upon for hearing after hearing with many delays in between. We have nothing to gain.

I speak to you today to hopefully save other families from having to endure the cruelty of reliving their horror and continued re-victimization. And I urge you to pass Bill C-587. This bill is intended for the notorious criminals who commit the most horrific crimes, the monsters. This bill is for those who should never be allowed to have access to the people of this country. Most important, this bill is for the poor family members of the victims who will fall prey to these predators.

These hearings cause nothing less than a lifetime of victimization. There is hearing after hearing.

Had this bill existed in 1982, my family would have been spared so much unnecessary pain. We would have been able to maintain the faith we originally had in the courts and lived for many more years without having such a burden to bear. You cannot make any changes that will help my family, but you can protect many future families from so much unnecessary suffering.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. Ashley, for sharing your thoughts on this bill with us.

Our next presenter for this panel is Ms. Rosenfeldt. The floor is yours.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, President, Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children]

Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as well as Mr. Mayes and Susan Ashley.

I wish to thank the committee for inviting our organization, Victims of Violence, to present our views on Bill C-587, an act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

As president of Victims of Violence, I will be speaking in support of this bill.

The enactment of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a victim in respect of the same event or series of events will be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury. We support this bill for a number of reasons.

Today we are talking about the threat posed by violent, dangerous criminals. We are talking about the worst of the worst offenders. We are talking about a classification of criminal who could essentially never be released, who goes out hunting for human beings, many of them children, as their prey to commit the most egregious acts upon them. We are talking about a classification of criminal who creates havoc within our respectful justice system. By that I mean that the Canadian public has consistently expressed concerns on this classification of criminal who impacts directly on their confidence in our criminal justice system.

We also support this bill from the lens of a victim's family who also received a life sentence. The judicial branch of government should always be neutral, but neutrality does not mean that one side is forgotten. The prevailing notion that a crime is against the state fails to recognize the victim.

On a personal note, it was not the state who was abducted, raped, and murdered; it was my child. It was my son. As his mom, I will always be there to represent him.

There is no mythical closure for us, at 25 years or even at 40 years; however, this bill will help in our not having to attend parole hearings every two years, which once again opens old wounds and scars that never heal, even though we try to move forward and build a new life after the violent murder of our loved one.

The degree of trauma the victim's family suffers depends on the nature of the crime and the extent to which he or she can tolerate post-traumatic stress.

We support this bill because it includes three crimes. Currently this classification of criminal is sentenced for one crime, that of first degree murder, and many victims feel the abduction and sexual assault are thrown in as freebies. This bill will rectify that issue.

We support this bill because, although we have a dangerous offender designation for a certain classification of offenders, in the case of murder, with a life sentence, the dangerous offender designation is rarely used even when the offender is found guilty of particular grievous offences.

In closing, the public rightfully expects and trusts that governments will do everything in their power to protect our children, our families, our communities, and that is what this bill is about. That is why our organization, Victims of Violence, supports it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Ms. Rosenfeldt.

We will now go to the rounds of questions.

Our first questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Madam Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

You are right, Ms. Ashley and Ms. Rosenfeldt; we probably cannot even come close to understanding what you've lived, so I won't even try to imply that I do. We don't. We can do it in an intellectual way, but definitely not with the same amount of emotion and hurt that you must feel. It gives me shivers just hearing what happened to your sister and to all the cases you were talking about. There is nothing worse than that.

We have a job to do, which is to look into legislation and see what we can do with it.

My questions will be mostly for Mr. Mayes, not because I don't understand your feelings. Ms. Ashley, if this legislation were in force right now you would probably be preparing to go in front of the parole board for the first time. I'm sure it would probably be as fresh in your mind as if it were yesterday. It's something that you never forget, I'm pretty sure.

Mr. Mayes, you said you obtained some legal advice, but you talked about the Library of Parliament. The Library of Parliament, and correct me if I'm wrong, does a legislative analysis but they do not give legal opinions. I think we asked you during debate at second reading in the House if you went further than that. Either through the Department of Justice or the Minister of Justice, did you get some analysis on what, let's say, a judge would impose? The jury would have said that this is such a disgusting case the person first of all will get life and will probably [Technical Difficulty—Editor] for ever, and thank God for that, but here's the 40 years before.

Do you have some legal analysis on the constitutional grounds? Aren't you afraid that type of decision might be thrown out of court based on section 12 of the Charter of Rights?

Do you have anything to add to what you obtained from the Library of Parliament in the way of legal advice?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I can't answer as to whether or not the library sought legal advice from a lawyer. I don't know if they have those skill sets on staff. They explained it's at the discretion of the presiding judge so it doesn't take away from anybody's rights.

Quite frankly, 25 years is a random number. Who thought of that to start with? Why did they decide on 25 years? Quite frankly I think that at that time, 25 years was a long term but today, as people live longer, it's not as long.

I've talked to the Minister of Justice about this and he never brought up anything that would be contrary to the charter.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

I agree with you. The fact that they said “discretion” in a sense defeats the purpose of what the witnesses are saying, because they're hoping that it will be the case. Aren't you afraid that they might never apply it because of that discretion? It's a catch-22. If you had put it as an obligation of the court to impose, we definitely would be seeing that case in the Supreme Court of Canada, but the fact that it's a discretion doesn't mean that if a judge imposes it, the decision will not be sent to the courts.

That's why I think it's so important to get that legal advice that would say, based on the jurisprudence, the specific cases that are in the purview of this bill. The fact that they're horrible crimes, not just any petty crime. It's people like, to use the words of Ms. Ashley, a dangerous psychopath. We think of Bernardo. We think of these people. I still say there's that aspect that is still very questionable in the file on that basis.

I'm afraid the jury might say that this is such a disgusting individual there's no possibility of parole for 40 years, and the judge will say he's afraid it will be contested and just go on with the 25 years. So we're doing it for nothing.

Do you have statistics on the number of cases your bill could apply to?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I don't have them for the committee right now, no.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Okay.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Could I answer that? The fact is that you know some of the history of minimum mandatory sentencing laws, for instance, and that the judges haven't necessarily honoured them. Quite frankly, they would check with it being contrary to the charter. So it's hard to say what a judge.... If we asked a number of judges to give us an opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean that when it goes before a judge it will be upheld.

I think we've done our due diligence in looking at our perspective of the fact that it is at the discretion of the judge. That's why I felt comfortable with the fact that we weren't giving a mandatory time limit on the eligibility, because then we were forcing the judges' hand. We were dictating to them what their judgment shall be.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I'm just afraid it won't be applied in the sense of what the victims would like to see. Have you checked Bill C-32 to see if there would be an impact on the changes?

Ms. Ashley and Ms. Rosenfeldt, maybe you followed our study of Bill C-32, the Canadian victims bill of rights. Do you see anything there that could remove some of the feelings you have to live with in your specific situations?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I think this bill complements the victims bill of rights, because this bill is focused not on how the judge handles the cases as much it is on protecting the victims' families so that they don't have to go through those parole hearings. That's where the focus is.

The intent of it is not so much to be more stringent on parole eligibility as it is to ensure that the families don't have to go. You've heard the testimony about that. That's what has driven this bill.