Evidence of meeting #63 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offenders.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for those questions and answers.
The next questioner is Mr. Dechert from the Conservative Party.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, it sounds like we might see an amendment from the NDP to make these provisions mandatory, which would be interesting. I look forward to that discussion.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Mayes, I understand that when you spoke about this bill in the House of Commons you said, “The seriousness of offences set out in the bill would ensure that the parole ineligibility period would only be applied in cases” where murderers have a “lack of remorse and if the act of violence was a heinous and brutal act of violence or sexual assault ending in murder.” Also, you said, “Allowing for judicial discretion and not a mandatory minimum sentence...”, as we've just been discussing, and again today you've said that this would give the judge additional discretion.
Tell us why that's important and why you chose to go that route in this bill.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I think the existing law actually handcuffs the judges to that 25 years. Just imagine presiding over a case where you hear about some heinous things that have happened and you look at the offender, at the character of the offender, and you see no remorse. You see a violent person. Then you look at the nature and circumstances of the murder and you say, “My God, this person shouldn't be out of incarceration, because there's something wrong here”, but you can't do anything but give the minimum, the 25 years. This gives the presiding judge an opportunity to assess that.
As I stated earlier, the jury might even have a recommendation that they observe in the circumstances of the case and that they feel would be reasonable in protection of the family. The families are there. The fact is that if you've lost a young child, you might only be 25 years old. You might be dealing with this at 50 and then every two years after that. That's terrible.
This is the intent of the bill: to ensure that we have considered the victims in these violent crimes.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Ashley, I want to extend my condolences through you to your family for the terrible experience that you and your family went through with respect to your sister's murder.
You've told us about this particular murderer and all the other assaults and murders that he committed, I guess subsequently to murdering your sister. What I was very struck with was that you used the phrase that what happened to your sister, then the sentence that murderer received, and I guess the offences he committed subsequently, destroyed the “faith” that you originally had in the court system in Canada. I think that's very important. Canadians need to have faith in their judicial system, that it actually delivers a sentence that's appropriate to the severity of the crime.
Can you tell us a little more about how your faith in the criminal justice system was affected by the case and about your experience and your views on the views of Canadians generally in terms of faith in our criminal justice system when it comes to sentencing?
As an Individual
I actually thank you for mentioning that, because a lot of people don't understand that for a family, when such a horrific crime occurs, it's their first exposure to the courts. This is not something we do every day. This is new to us. You're only as good as the person sitting next to you, who might be able to help guide you through this.
When we went to that court appearance, I would have been in my teens. I'm 51, so I was 19 when I sat in court and watched the judge say, “Guilty, no parole, convicted. Guilty, life in prison.” So first of all, as Canadians, my family sat there thinking that they were putting him away forever and that nobody else would ever, ever, ever have to be a victim of this. That was the first time we believed that he was going away forever. The judge said that he was going away forever. The police and everybody told us he would be going away forever.
Fifteen years, which may seem a lot to some, goes by really fast. When that first phone call came, it was such a shock. We kept saying, “No, no, no, you're wrong”, because we were told he was going away for life. What boggles my mind is that in all the years I've been doing this, when I tell this story, the people of this country, Canadian citizens, do not know what the reality is, which is that when the section 745 hearings existed, nobody knew. We didn't know.
I remember reading an article about Clifford Olson's section 745 hearing. Not a word of a lie, but a month later I remember thinking to myself, “Thank God that doesn't apply to us.” A month later, we got the phone call. I said, “No, that's not what the court said.” The betrayal was unbelievable, because you can't go back and say, “That's not what you said.”
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
In your particular case, the murderer did get out at least on some kind of temporary pass, you said, and then committed another offence—
As an Individual
No. Because of the fact that they took two years to investigate to find out who it—
As an Individual
Yes. They were all overlapping each other. Then yes, for every two years, when you know he's not going to get out, people of this country do not.... It doesn't apply to many, but Canadians would never, ever be able to understand, for the few who it does apply to, how horrific it is.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
It impacts the general population's view of our criminal justice system when they read about these cases.
As an Individual
It does, because people do not know. In all the years I've been doing this, I've never met one person who realized that what I was saying was true.
To have faith in your government and your courts is everything. When you lose that.... Then, to deal with Corrections Canada for many years, believing that Corrections Canada will get it right.... They don't get it right. There has been lie after lie. There's been battle after battle, where what you believed is so not true.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Would the passage of this bill partially restore your faith in the criminal justice system? Do you think it would do so for others?
As an Individual
Oh, it would mean everything. It would restore mine, because then I would think that the government is listening, that they realize what the error was. Back in the 1970s when all of this happened, nobody thought to pass—
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I'm sorry, but I want to ask Mrs. Rosenfeldt a quick question.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you very much for that.
Mrs. Rosenfeldt, I was struck by two things you said. You mentioned post-traumatic stress for families of the victims, and you mentioned that you think the dangerous offender designation is rarely used. Could you address both of those? Could you tell us why you think the dangerous offender designation is rarely used and tell us a little more about your view of the post-traumatic stress felt by families of the victims of these kinds of crimes?
President, Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children
To my understanding, Paul Bernardo, I think, has been given the dangerous offender designation, but it is very rarely used. I don't know of any violent criminal other than Paul Bernardo who has been designated as a dangerous offender. I believe the courts, the crown prosecutor, the judges feel that once they are sentenced to life imprisonment, what's the point of a dangerous offender clause?
With regard to post-traumatic stress, it is very, very difficult. Every victim responds differently. Some victims have such a hard time attending any of the parole board hearings that they would prefer to be possibly in a different room. I don't understand how, in a country as great as Canada is, we even have to consider the well-being of victims a maximum of 25 years after the crime. As Susan mentioned, we've all gone through the 15 years; now it's the 25 years, and 25 years is not very long at all. It's just hard to believe. After 33 years of doing this, I still find it hard to believe.
But it is getting better. I don't understand individuals who are more concerned with the charter issues in relation to legislation than they are in relation to victims. We have decades yet of victim awareness to be brought forward. We're on the right path.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner is Mr. Casey from the Liberal Party.
February 23rd, 2015 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
First, Ms. Ashley and Ms. Rosenfeldt, thank you very much for your powerful testimony. I align myself completely with the remarks offered by Madam Boivin at the outset of her comments. I won't repeat them, because they were much more eloquent than I could ever state.
I too will be directing my questions primarily to Mr. Mayes. Please don't take that as an indicator that your testimony hasn't been impactful and powerful, because it has. There is no doubt that this bill is directed at minimizing the trauma in the cases you have identified. That's crystal clear, in part because of what you've said. It will have other impacts, and those are the ones I want to explore. I mean no disrespect to anything that you have said by focusing on those other things. The fact is that the issues you've raised are absolutely clear. We get it, so thank you.
Mr. Mayes, you indicated that you have an opinion from the Library of Parliament. Will you provide it to the committee?
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, there's no question that one purpose of your bill is to minimize the trauma on families. That certainly is a laudable goal that we all share. Offenders who are in the class targeted by your bill will now be faced with another 15 years without eligibility for parole. Would you agree that this removes one incentive for them to be good citizens on the inside?
