Justice Committee on March 9th, 2015

[Suzanne Brisebois]

I am not able to tell you actually, to be quite honest, because there are victims who are perhaps mentioned in police reports or various court documents who aren't coming forward, so it would be a difficult number to pull out.

But we have over 22,000 contacts with victims a year. We have specialized staff who are trained and who work with victims. They're called regional communications officers and they work individually with victims to provide information specific to the offender reviews that are coming up. Victims can present statements at our hearings and they can also observe our hearings. They are also eligible to receive copies of our decisions under the decision registry.

We work quite closely with victims in our work as part of our mandate.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I guess that Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, will also have an impact on the way you're dealing with victims at your level.

[Suzanne Brisebois]

Yes, we share information with victims right now under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, so there are a number of different types of information, both discretionary and mandatory, that the board is required to share, similar to Correctional Service Canada. We work quite closely together to work with victims as the offenders go through their sentences. Again, it's something the board has been doing for some time.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

To Commissioner Head, I know it's hard for your organization to be able to foresee the consequences of Bill C-587, but you did do the analysis. I noticed in your remarks to the committee that you talked about some of those programs that are offered, and the timing.

Let's take the scenario that it would be 40 years before somebody would.... Would you take some special measures with that person inside, because I've heard from security guards that they are a bit afraid? They're often the ones we forget about with all the legislation. For somebody who has absolutely or close to no hope of making it out at some point in time, are you thinking of certain measures on that impact?

[Don Head]

Thanks. It's a really good question.

As a result of some of the other recent sentencing under other changes in the Criminal Code—we have an individual right now serving life, 40 years, and another one serving life, 75 years, for some very heinous crimes—we've had to rethink how we deal with those longer-term life sentences.

For the first part of their sentence we really need to look at how we stabilize those individuals. I know the time is short and I can probably answer more as we go forward, but we have to rethink the way we deal with the long terms.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.

Madam Boivin mentioned Mr. Mayes' speech in the House of Commons, which was really quite good, and some of the points he made were quite poignant with respect to the pain that victims and the families of the victims, who can be many in number, actually suffer at parole hearings and in preparing for parole hearings. It is important to remember that there may be one convicted person, but there are usually multiple family members. It's not just one person on the other side who is experiencing pain and reliving the horror of how the family member was murdered and tortured. It could be dozens of family members. It could be friends. It could be members of the community.

A couple of meetings ago we heard from Susan Ashley, whose sister was brutally raped and murdered in 1978, and she made some very strong points. She said:

Our family began attending parole hearings in 1997—

This was after the sister's murder happened in 1978.

—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.

She went on to say:

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.

It really struck me that there are many people who are affected by these kinds of crimes, and every time a parole hearing happens, all those people are affected again.

Ms. Brisebois, I wonder if you could take us through how parole hearings are conducted, and in particular, how families of victims prepare for meetings and what role they have in these hearings.

[Suzanne Brisebois]

As I mentioned before, the legislation says that victims can receive specific types of information. The process would be that a victim would register with the board or the Correctional Service of Canada to receive information about the offender's sentence—length of sentence, eligibility dates, the review dates—and also they can attend our hearings. They can ask to observe our hearings. They can observe our hearings without presenting a statement. They can just be at the hearing and listen to the board members.

Again, it's an important process for them to understand the different types of questions that the board members ask the offender and understand the process. In advance of that, we have regional communications officers who contact the victims and work with the victims so they understand what that would entail. Again, in most instances, they'd have to attend the institution where the offender is located, so our RCOs would work them through that process and would be on hand and sitting with them throughout the hearing. Following the hearing, the officer would debrief with them to answer any questions about what the decision entailed and explain specific aspects of that.

Victims can also present statements at our hearings. Not all victims choose to do that, but some of them choose to write a statement. At any time the board will consider victim statements, and in addition to that, victims can present in person at our hearings. In those instances, victims will verbally provide their statements, or they can do it by audio recording or video recording if they don't feel comfortable with that.

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

How much notice of a parole hearing are victims given?

[Suzanne Brisebois]

Typically we look to provide as much notice as possible in advance of the hearing, because there is also the justice fund, which enables victims to be compensated for the travel that's required. In some instances, victims might be in other regions or other provinces, so we try to provide as much notice as possible.

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

Have you consulted with victims' families about parole hearings? Have you personally done that?

[Suzanne Brisebois]

We conducted a questionnaire back in 2007 about our services in general. When we looked at the results, we saw it came out fairly positive. Again our RCOs work with the victims one on one, so if there are any questions or issues that they have, they work specifically with our staff.

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

Do you remember any comments they made about the process in that survey?

[Suzanne Brisebois]

In general, they had some questions about the legislation. There were instances where they weren't sure with regard to providing a statement and some of the limitations of the information sharing. For instance—again, this is part of the principles of natural justice—the legislation requires us to share the statement with the offender in advance of the hearing, so there were questions relating to that. In general, with the board, and CSC actually, the results were fairly positive in terms of our services, but that was back in 2007, if I remember correctly.

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

In his speech in the House of Commons, Mr. Mayes said that the families of the victim of a first-degree murderer might have to attend as many as eight parole hearings. That would be if, for example, the person were held beyond the 25-year period for up to 40 years, so every two years. Do you agree with that, and do you think that's a reasonable number?

[Suzanne Brisebois]

Every case is very different, because there are different types of reviews the board would conduct, and whether or not a hearing is required is another factor that would be taken into consideration. Also, with respect to hearings and/or reviews, in certain circumstances the offender may waive their hearing and they may even waive their review. Each case is very different.

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

Thank you.

To Mr. Head, from the perspective of Correctional Service Canada some people have mentioned that correctional service officers would be concerned about first-degree murderers having less eligibility for parole than they currently have. Ms. Ashley, interestingly, pointed out that her husband is a correctional service officer and he's told her that he, personally, would not be concerned about the passage of this kind of legislation. What have correctional service officers said to you about this?

[Don Head]

It varies. I started my career as a front-line correctional officer, as well. It varies with the individuals.

There is some potential concern with certain types of individuals who have a persistent violent nature that this kind of sentence will basically allow them a free pass to do whatever they want in the institution, knowing that their sentence is really not going to be any worse than what it is. However, I rely on my staff, who are trained and equipped to intervene with people, to use the system and the various levels of security that we have to manage behaviour.

It's like anything. There are always two points of view, and I really rely on well-trained staff to manage any individual in the system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Thank you for all those questions and answers.

Our next questioner from the Liberal Party is Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brisebois, to whom is the Parole Board of Canada accountable?

[Suzanne Brisebois]

Our board is an independent administrative tribunal. There's a very rigorous competitive process that prospective board members have to go through, and upon qualifying through that process they're appointed as Governor-in-Council appointees.

We're responsible to the Canadian public. Again, the protection of the public is our paramount consideration. It's part of our mandate.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Why do we need the Parole Board? Why couldn't the cabinet just do your job?

[Suzanne Brisebois]

I'm probably not in a position to debate the position of the board with respect to cabinet. It's probably beyond my ability in my role here at the committee.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Is the board less well-equipped to deal with the most serious cases than the rest? Could you comment on whether they're particularly poorly equipped for the most serious cases?