Justice Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Who are you asking?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

That's for Mr. Paterson.

[Josh Paterson]

I can think of a range of different possibilities.

We have to remember, to begin with, that where a 25-year minimum sentence has been imposed, there's a quarter of a century since the trial, never mind when the offence was committed. I can't say for any individual family what's going to feel right to them. Some families won't have a problem with parole hearings starting a quarter century later and for others it will be re-traumatizing; there's no question about it.

It's really hard to prescribe an alternative solution. We know that these parole hearings perform an important function. Even though the chances of people, for example, who are designated as dangerous offenders will be very unlikely to be granted parole, that's actually a functioning of the system.

That's the system working in those cases, when they come to that kind of a decision. It is a necessary thing for government to have to go through and for the community to have to go through, in our justice system where we've given up the approach of a century ago of simply throwing away the key.

That would be my answer to that. I recognize that that won't be satisfying, necessarily, to some families who have gone through trauma and who would like to avoid having these parole hearings.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Krongold, in spite of Mr. Mayes' protestations to the contrary, as you read this bill, is there a potential for retroactive application?

[Howard Krongold]

I didn't read the bill looking for that specifically. If there were any potential for retroactivity, it would be unconstitutional under section 11—I'm going to say (h)—of the charter. I might have the letter wrong, but it's somewhere in section 11.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Do you care to add any comment to that of Mr. Paterson with respect to other options to minimize trauma on families for repeat appearances at parole hearings?

[Howard Krongold]

I'm hesitant to comment on too much because I'm certainly not an expert on the parole system. It may be there may be ways for a parole board, again as Mr. Paterson alluded to, to take an individualized look at the person in question after 25 years and be able to make a judgement call, not only about release, but about when it might be suitable to have another parole hearing.

It's probably going to be pretty clear after 25 years, if you're talking about somebody who's moving in the right direction and may well be eligible in two years, three years, or four years, than somebody who's just never going to get there and maybe imposing a slightly longer time before they come back before the parole board. But again, that's probably something that should be left to those who know more about the parole system than I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Our next and final question for today will be from Mr. Goguen from the Conservative Party.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you to the witnesses for testifying.

Mr. Krongold, you are a regular. There's a prospect of possibly getting you on the medical plan; hopefully, it won't be as a result of the questions, but we'll see where it takes us.

Arguably, one of the most salient features of this bill is certainly to prevent re-victimization. Yes, we know that the appearance before a parole board is very, very traumatic. We've heard testimony from Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Susan Ashley. They've explained how this is truly horrific and a life experience that one would not want to go through.

Did you happen to hear their testimony today?

[Howard Krongold]

I didn't, no.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's a bit regrettable, because I will refer to it.

Mr. Casey seemed to say that the only salient point of this bill was basically to nullify re-victimization towards reappearing at parole hearings. Ms. Ashley went on to testify to the effect that, and I'm paraphrasing, the prospect of release into a community and of meeting the perpetrator was absolutely horrific; the chance of that meeting maybe even after 25 years was absolutely crippling for the victim. She argued, to paraphrase, that the government has not only a duty to protect one's physical being, but also a duty to protect one's psyche. If the offender is in jail for a longer period of time and there's not the reappearance before the parole hearing periodically, there's not the necessity to prepare, and there's a knowledge that the person is there for a very lengthy period of time, then it seemed to be her conclusion that this reinforced the confidence in the justice system and, in fact, gave confidence to the public, reinforced their psyche with the thought that they're not going to meet such and such a person for a very long period of time. The parole system does away with that, and the common person does not know.

I would argue that certainly this is something that does give some additional strength to this bill. But you're saying in your brief, which was very interesting, that this didn't nullify at all the prospects of re-victimization. Yet for the reinforcing of confidence in the system, and the reinforcing of a healthy psyche, it seemed to be Ms. Ashley's firm conviction that this is something that would work. And as for everything else about being released, it's a Stephen King movie.

Your brief was interesting. You had seven recommendations and you seemed to have drawn very closely from C-32, an act to enact the Canadian victims bill of rights. There's a lot in there that mirrors what is in the victims bill of rights, which we're very proud of as a government, of course. The definition of victim, providing education about the criminal justice system, providing timely information to victims, affording victims the opportunity to get involved, restitution, compensation; it's pretty much the four pillars of Bill C-32. That's victims focused and your brief seems to be victims focused, yet you're opposed to this bill.

It's all a question of balance. I talked about the Allan Legere case. He was basically released from a super-maximum security prison to a maximum security prison. The people of the Miramichi in my province absolutely protested, although he's 63 years of age and moved further away, to Edmonton. That's the psyche aspect. I'm talking about protecting the victim by keeping them longer.

Knowing that there's a balance in the system, you've got to balance the rights of the accused versus the rights of the victims. Knowing that there's a very small number of accused who would even be subject to this, and bearing in mind that this imposition is discretionary, shouldn't the rights of the victims in this case be the ones that we're going to bat for versus the rights of the accused who would be small in number, and for whom the prospect of rehabilitation when they don't have to follow any courses.... Shouldn't we be on the side of the victims in this case?

[Howard Krongold]

Is that a question you'd like me to answer first or Mr. Paterson?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I think the question was for you.

[Howard Krongold]

What I would say is this: we're hypothesizing a situation where you have someone who has served 25 years in the penitentiary and is remorseful, has admitted culpability for their offence, has engaged undoubtedly in extensive treatment and rehabilitative efforts, and has been determined by the parole board not to pose a substantial risk to the community, and who's then not going to be set free, see you later; the person's going to be under extremely intensive supervision for many years after they would initially get some form of parole, and supervision for the rest of their lives. I don't know if I entirely agree with the characterization that it's a situation where a person is just going to be let out the door because the parole board decides after 25 years that they're good to go.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's not what's in the mind of the common citizen. They don't know the functions. They're in absolute fear. Their psyche is the one that suffers. They're the victim.

[Howard Krongold]

Right.

As Mr. Paterson alluded to, it's always a difficult balance, but ultimately we need to make an individualized assessment about the person in question, and that needs to be based on the dangerousness level that they present at the present time. I can't comment on how a given family member of a victim would interpret that. I imagine that some would view an offender who had shown true remorse and truly rehabilitated himself as a positive development. There are some who there would be no way that they could ever come to that view. It's difficult to make a rational determination based on sound penal principles and assessment of risk by looking at individual cases about how a victim in a specific case is going to react to the release of an offender.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

It would seem to me that the bar would be fairly elevated where the imposition of this would be discretionary. The factors that the judge would be considering, of course, are the nature of the offence, the character of the accused, all circumstances surrounding it, and of course any jury recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you to our witnesses from the Criminal Lawyers' Association and from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

I don't know if you heard this or not, but we are not dealing with this on Wednesday; it will be the first Monday back after our break week next week. We have a couple more witnesses, and then we'll be doing clause-by-clause study at that particular time.

Keep your eyes open to see if we're having a meeting on Wednesday or not.

With that, we'll adjourn.