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 for those questions and answers.
Our next questioner is Monsieur Goguen from the Conservative Party.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you to all our witnesses. Your testimony is certainly very helpful, and certainly, you have our deepest sympathies on your plight, Ms. Ashley.
I think you've captured the essence of this bill. One of the salient features of what this bill is trying to do is basically to reduce the number of parole hearings that one would have to attend. That in itself can be a complete trauma. It's thought that maybe making people ineligible for parole for 40 years could save families as many as eight parole hearings, and I think one alone would probably be sufficient to satisfy the test of what this bill is trying to do.
Thank you for presenting it, Mr. Mayes.
Some time ago, back in 2012, in the London Free Press, there was a quote from you, Ms. Ashley. I have it here, and if you don't mind, I'll read it out loud:
If they let him out he will be somebody's neighbour, he will [have to] live by somebody's child's school. He will walk the streets of somebody's town. I can't bring my sister back, but I can certainly warn the public. We don't want this to happen again.
It's clear that one of your motivations, and I think it's a very solid one, is to keep the offenders behind bars, because in walking the streets they're an absolute danger. I mean, they're the stuff that the Stephen King movies are made of. Right? We know that in some instances these people will be released. This is not retroactive. Some offenders who are guilty of similar crimes, as horrific as that is, will eventually be out.
Do you see any value in perhaps warning the public, in publishing the names of these high-risk offenders on some sort of registry, so that communities can in fact, despite the fact that they're walking our streets, have some warning of what danger they present and where they would be? Would that bring any kind of comfort despite the fact that these monsters are walking about in our communities?
As an Individual
It would. It would be a great opportunity for people of this country to know exactly who their neighbour is, especially for these types of offenders, because they're predators. They do horrific things.
I think the people of this country deserve this and should have the right to know what these people have done and that they're walking the streets, definitely.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
This government has put in place legislation that gives the capacity to the corrections officials to release people and restrict the areas where they could be if there are very good facts. Obviously, you know that restricting somebody from being released in a community near where a victim lived...surely that would have some merit in your mind. I mean, it can't help but be so.
As an Individual
To be honest, it's almost hard to even fathom what you're saying, because I see these people as.... There is no course that they can take in prison to fix themselves. They're psychopaths. They're predators. They cannot change. They cannot be fixed. In arguing that they are now in the community, other than putting flashing red lights on them, people are not protected from them because—
As an Individual
It's not an option, because they cannot be cured. They cannot go into prison for 25, 40, or 100 years and be fixed. There are no courses to fix these people, because you're talking about such a small minority of criminals: the Olsons, the Bernardos, the Armstrongs, the psychopathic ones who are predators looking for their victims. They can't be fixed, so I don't think there's anything we can do to protect people of this country.
Even putting a sign on them is not going to protect the public. They shouldn't be there in the first place and have access to people. That's the whole point of our government keeping them in custody for life. That's what the courts are saying: it's life. Then they talk about 15 years and about 25 years. At what point...when is “life” life? What do they have to do to justify a life sentence?
You cannot give your empathy and your sympathies to the offenders. That's not fair. We're paying the price every day of our lives. I am so tired after all these years of being spoken to by people from Corrections Canada and other government agencies like I'm the bad person, because I'm making it so difficult for him and I'm causing him so much grief. I have to get the story to the public so that the people in the government, I feel, have to really watch what they're doing. I make sure that the public is watching the government and what you're doing, because if we don't do what we're doing.... The faith in Corrections Canada is minimal as well.
When you say that you're going to protect us from these animals, then do it. Keep them locked up, for Pete's sake. Twenty-five years is nothing. They can't be fixed.
Please stop giving your sympathies to them. I've been told how much grief I've caused Donald Armstrong. I'm sorry, but I've watched my parents, since 1978. You have no idea what it's like for these families and what they're dealing with. Then to be told that we're causing them grief? I don't care.
On your comment about the jail guards, my husband is a jail guard, and I can honestly tell you that he would not question this bill, because if they're going to be bad in prison at 25 years, they're going to be bad at 20, 30, or 35 years. You can't just put a number on it. If you're not going to make life true life, at least give the courts the opportunity to give them 40, so we can walk out and say that for 40 years we don't have to look back.
This is not what we want to live and breathe. This is not our world. We want to do what you do and have families and raise children.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
You've talked about the obvious obligation of the government to protect the public. Physically, of course, that's one thing, but it seems to me that there's also an obligation to protect the psyche of those who are affected by it, because this is something that's in your life forever. If you'll permit me, I'll share an anecdote that really bolsters your fears and your continued fear.
In the 1980s, Allan Legere, who is now a dangerous offender, ran rampant in the Miramichi and killed a number of people in very horrific crimes. Corrections Canada recently released him from a maximum security prison in Quebec and transferred him to a security prison in Edmonton. This is all publicly known. The outrage from the public of the Miramichi was absolutely horrendous. He is now 63 years old. He had escaped before, but just the fact that he was transferred to a prison of somewhat lesser than maximum security was enough to strike much fear and cause controversy in this community in Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As an Individual
I'll be very quick.
Donald Armstrong is in minimum security. I fought to keep him in medium security. He's not. He's in minimum. When I found that out.... I have two teenage daughters at home. He knows who I am and where I live and that I have two teenage daughters. The fear is unbelievable. I'm racing home every day to make sure he's not at my home, because he gets everything.... He knows everything I've said and done over the years.
It causes a tremendous fear. All I want to do is raise my children and protect them and my nieces and my parents. That's what I do. I want the government to do that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
Thank you to our witnesses.
We're going to suspend for a few minutes because the next panel is also by video conference. I want to thank—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Not in this panel, but maybe in the next one.
Mr. Mayes, thank you very much.
Ms. Ashley and Ms. Rosenfeldt, thank you very much for your presentations.
We'll be dealing with this, as you heard, in the second hour. Two weeks from today, we'll be doing clause-by-clause study.
We'll suspend for two minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Ladies and gentlemen, we're having some technical difficulties connecting with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association by video conference. While we're waiting for that, if you don't mind, we could deal with some other committee items. Then we won't have to deal with them at the end.
First of all, I don't know if committee members have noticed how depressed I've been this last week. There are no supplementary estimates (C), which means there is no supplementary meeting happening here. It's very depressing for me.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
It means proper budgeting by the justice committee, I guess.
At any rate, a notice of motion has been put forward by Mr. Dechert. Let me read it:
That, in regard to the motion adopted by the House of Commons on November 26th mandating that the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights undertake a study on the topic of fetal alcohol syndrome, up to ten members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be authorized to travel to the Yukon, during the week of March 1–7 or the week of March 15–21, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
Before I turn to you, Mr. Dechert, March 1 to 7 is way too tight, so we'll have to drop that one to start with. It is a break week.
The floor is yours, sir.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I apologize for that. I think this was drafted some time ago. Clearly we don't have time to arrange it for next week.
I think it would be very helpful if we could go to the place, or one of the places, where this issue is most important, most relevant, and where people have the most experience with it. Certainly Mr. Leef has made the case to me that it is a very significant issue to the people of the Yukon. It would seem to me that it would be very helpful for this committee, in understanding this issue and how we should potentially suggest the government deal with it in regard to the Criminal Code, to have at least one or two meetings in Yukon and to hear from the people of the Yukon, who deal with this issue on a daily basis.
That's the reason for my motion, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank God I had the weekend; if I'd talked to you right away, it might not have been as nice as what I will say right now in a very gentle voice.
Thank God you corrected yourself. It's not the only place. The Yukon is not the only place. I look at past experiences with our committee and all the studies we've done. I look at the langues officielles section that we had to analyze. I look at the situation of this bill, an important bill that we had voiced our support for and our willingness to adopt really fast, like in one day. Instead, now we have a full study.
I look at the big study that was already done on l'alcoolisation foetale in 2006. Mind you, it was maybe more on the angle of health, but still, we know this touches
inmates in federal penitentiaries and some communities across Canada.
There's also the cost. We're good at what we do here in Ottawa. People who know me know that I object personally, not for political reasons but simply on the basis of funding. It's the public purse. To do a trip with 10 MPs, plus
everyone involved, the staff, the interpreters, the clerks, the Library of Parliament employees who prepare everything for a single item.
If we want to undertake a major study and go to several places, we could think about it. However, it has the air of electioneering orchestrated by the Conservatives to compensate for the fact that you forced one of your members to put his bill on hold. Anyone following the matter knows that this is creating a few waves in his area. I think that we should not start playing political games because this is too serious an issue. We could do the study here and have witnesses come here or speak to them by video conference
I take pride in saying that our committee's expenses are reasonable, but that this would be an excessive expenditure. It would cost almost $50,000, when we could have passed a bill. The study would have been very advanced in less than one month.
Seriously, I see no reason to go there. In my opinion, the motion is an affront, and I am saying that as gently as I can.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Are we going to be debating this for much longer or should I go back to the witnesses?
Mr. Dechert.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I just wanted to make one secondary point.
I'm a little confused at Madam Boivin's comment, because she said in one breath that going to more than one place would maybe be a good idea, but that going to just the one place in the Yukon would be a bad idea because it would cost too much.
The point I think it's important to make here is that the justice committee doesn't very often do these kinds of general studies. Typically we just deal with legislation and we deal with the bar associations and organizations of that sort that are used to coming to Ottawa and appearing before committee.
I think this is a very sensitive issue, and many of the people who would appear and want their voices to be heard are the kinds of people who are not familiar with coming to Ottawa and appearing before committees. I think it would show a lot of compassion on behalf of the members of this committee to go to a place like Yukon. If Madam Boivin thinks there are another one or two stops that we could make along the way in the same week, we would certainly be willing to entertain that idea. It's not just about Yukon, but that certainly is one place where it is a significant issue as Mr. Leef has presented it to me. He very much supports this idea and he thinks it would be very much appreciated by the people who care about this issue.
