Evidence of meeting #158 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Okay.
Can you talk a little bit, any of you, about the frequency with which parole hearings happen now? If somebody is convicted and has no eligibility for parole for 25 years, I assume that they would have the ability to have a parole hearing at that stage. How often do they happen after that?
Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation
Every two years is my understanding. It used to be every year. I know from experience that certain individuals, especially those who enjoy continued victimization of their victims, will push for parole hearings as often as they possibly can. I believe the legislation or the rules were changed some years ago to reduce the number of parole hearings or change the time between parole hearings.
In cases we've been involved in, the individual has demanded his hearing and the families have flown in from Red Deer, Alberta, to attend the hearing. Then 20 minutes before the hearing, he says he's changed his mind.
Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation
They've had to go back to Red Deer, Alberta, and 24 hours later, he says no, he wants the hearing. They go on with the hearing without the families in many cases because the families just cannot afford to fly back to Ottawa or Kingston or wherever the hearing is being held.
Yes, it happens.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Mr. Goldstein, you're saying that if it happens every two years, let's say, the frequency with which that happens could be changed. Then the impact on the family would be lessened. If you had a recording of their feelings at the very first instance after the 25 years, then that could be captured going forward and not require the same level of traumatization on the families.
Partner, Abergel Goldstein & Partners, LLP, As an Individual
These are possibilities that affect the same outcome without complicating or destroying the trial process and the inevitable court proceedings.
I should also note that while there are exceptions like the ones Mr. Wamback spoke about, the vast majority of individuals are not captured by this. They go to their parole hearings when they are ready. They waive their parole hearings more often than not until the programming is completed.
Again, it's important that you legislate for policy purposes and principled purposes, but not for the rare exception, particularly when there is an alternate route available, as I proposed.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you so much.
I want to echo my colleagues' comments and certainly some comments made by you all as well. For the NDP, alleviating the stress and suffering for victims and families is of paramount importance. Progressive crime and justice legislation is something that we would like to see pursued here, but we do have concerns similar to the ones that have been laid out by Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Bebbington.
I want to ask if any of you believe that this bill could be applied retroactively to offences that were committed before the legislation comes into force?
Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation
I think there would be a serious charter problem with the retrospective or retroactive application of anything that would change, in effect, a sentence.
Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association
If it proceeds by way of the Criminal Code, that's true. If it's pulled and then the CCRA modifications come in, it's a whole new ball game. That is an excellent question that could be asked of that bill.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
My other question is this. Do you believe that allowing judges to increase the parole ineligibility in the cases that are set out here encroaches on the function on the Parole Board of Canada? How would that work, when that currently falls with the Parole Board of Canada?
Partner, Abergel Goldstein & Partners, LLP, As an Individual
The Parole Board of Canada has a very specific and distinct function. They would never say this, of course, but having their hands tied for x number of years would have an impact both on them and on correctional services, because they're the ones who have to figure out the programming, such as the housing and keeping this person alive and fed and occupied for up to 15 years.
Would it necessarily impact on them? Yes. Would it encroach? I don't think anyone would say that, but necessarily it would.
Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association
I don't think I can add to that usefully, except to say that when Parliament expresses the sentence for imprisonment in legislation, the parole board simply has to accept that as a starting point. However, if we're talking about the mandate of the parole board to reintegrate individuals—we heard earlier about harm reduction—or if we're talking about the mandate of the system to see if the risk of offenders can be managed and they can be reintegrated in a way that is useful to society and themselves, then increasing the parole ineligibility period beyond 25 years would certainly encumber that.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Can you speak a little bit about how this would apply to a youth, to someone who is 18 years of age or under?
Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association
That's unless an amendment is made to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is purely a Criminal Code amendment.
Founder and Chair, Canadian Crime Victim Foundation
I'd also like to clarify that the primary objective of the parole board is protection of society. It is not the reintegration of the individual.
I have seen many parole board hearings where parole board members have recommended against the release of an individual, and yet that was overruled and the individual was released back into the community.
Chair, Policy Review Committee, Canadian Criminal Justice Association
Not to contradict my friend, it is true that the paramount consideration is the protection of society, but both the principles guiding parole board decisions and the criteria for granting parole refer to reintegration where the risk can be managed and where it is safe to do so.
